FINAL Amazon Scorecard

Company Scorecard Report
Consumers and Companies
Together Fighting to Stop Climate Change
June 2007
Company Scorecard Report
The Impact of Companies—and Consumers—on Global Climate Change
The scientific case on global warming is no longer in dispute. Earlier this year, the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of hundreds of the world’s foremost
climate scientists, concluded for the first time that global warming is “unequivocal” and that
human activity is the main driver. Most scientists estimate that we have a 10-year window to
significantly reduce our global warming pollution if we are to avoid the most dangerous
global warming impacts.
Major companies can have a profound influence in reducing the climate crisis; the creation,
manufacturing, distribution, marketing and sale of products all contribute significantly to
global warming pollution. While a number of companies are playing a leadership role in
addressing climate change, others are behind the curve.
Meanwhile, an increasing number of consumers are making environmentally conscious
purchasing and investing decisions. Yet these decisions have been limited to products that
are transparently climate-friendly or energy-efficient, such as hybrid cars, compact
fluorescent light bulbs, and energy-efficient appliances. Consumers have not yet had a way
to make climate-friendly decisions on a host of other everyday items—from which cell phone
to use to which fast-food franchise to get their burgers. The new Climate Counts Company
Scorecard now makes this possible.
The Climate Counts Company Scorecard
The Climate Counts Company Scorecard provides consumers with an objective, balanced
way to gauge which companies are seriously committed to reversing climate change—and
which ones are not. The Scorecard rates companies annually on their practices to reduce
global warming; the higher the score, the greater the company’s commitment to reversing
climate change.
Our full scorecard ranks 56 companies in eight major consumer sectors, among them
Electronics, Household Products, Apparel, and Food Products. Companies were chosen
based on their popular household use among mainstream consumers in North America and
the United Kingdom and for being market leaders in their respective sectors.
Summary of Results
The results of the first round of Climate Counts’ company scoring vary from sector to sector,
reflecting both the different degrees to which corporations focus on climate issues and
climate reporting and the extent to which different sectors have an impact on climate change.
The scores offer a snapshot of a moment in time on a dynamic issue among a representative
set of large, well-known companies. It should be noted that companies were not chosen for
the first round of scoring because they represent sectors believed to have the greatest
adverse impact on climate change. That said, certain manufacturing sectors have responded
more quickly and extensively to their environmental impact and to engaging consumers and
investors on the climate change issue, compared to more information-driven sectors. For
example, a higher percentage of companies in the Electronics/Computer sector appear to
have made significant progress in addressing climate change than those in the Media or
Internet/Software sectors.
Analyzed as a whole, the track records on climate change of all the companies Climate
Counts scored in this first release make it clear that there is significant work to be done
across all sectors.
The company with the highest overall score on a scale of 0 to 100 (100 being the highest) is
electronics giant Canon with a score of 77. The only other three companies to score 70 or
above were Nike (Apparel/Accessories) with 73, Unilever (Food Products) with 71, and IBM
(Electronics/Computer) with 70. Twelve companies scored a total of 2 points or lower, with four
of those companies falling within the six-company Food Services sector and three of them falling
within the seven-company Apparel/Accessories sector. Six out of 12 companies in the
Electronics/Computer sector scored 50 points or higher.
Notably, a reputation for product and marketing innovation does not necessarily correlate with a
company’s leadership on climate action or climate reporting. For example, high-tech movers and
shakers like Apple and Amazon.com are behind the curve when it comes to taking meaningful
action to address climate change relative to other companies in their respective sectors.
Similarly, a long-time track record of social responsibility does not always translate into climate
leadership. Levi Strauss, a recognized leader in progressive labor practices and in asserting
these practices along its supply chain, has yet to publicly articulate a clear position on climate
protection or implement a measurable and public corporate climate change initiative.
A number of the companies we examined had environmentally friendly policies and programs in
force, but those policies did not guarantee that the companies would rate high on the Climate
Counts scorecard. This was because many of the programs we reviewed appeared limited in
scope, and not of the scale necessary to truly make a measurable difference in reducing climate
change. That said, Climate Counts certainly applauds general corporate environmental initiatives
but challenges companies that have them to harness those programs to form the foundation of
robust and meaningful climate action strategies. Clearly, those companies have a tremendous
opportunity to make progress on climate change quickly and credibly.
APPAREL/ACCESSORIES
Fashion changes at a notoriously break-neck pace; what was
“in” one season is “out” another. It follows that the companies
that define and produce the styles that keep many consumers
buying comprise a huge manufacturing sector with the
potential to play a significant role in reducing climate change.
That said, the Apparel/Accessories sector’s track record on the
issue can be characterized as bipolar, with notable leadership
on climate issues from some companies, and unimpressive
showings from others. The sector has faced and dealt with
scrutiny on developing-world labor issues for years, but has
yet to collectively give the same attention to climate change—
which may explain the scoring divide in the sector.
APPAREL/ACCESSORIES
Nike
Gap Inc.
Liz Claiborne
Limited Brands
VF Corporation
Levi Strauss
Jones Apparel Group
Score
73
39
15
5
2
1
0
Climate Counts ranked seven companies that fall within the
Apparel/Accessories sector: Nike, Gap, Inc., Liz Claiborne,
Limited Brands, VF Corporation, Levi Strauss, and Jones Apparel Group.
Of these companies, Nike leads the Apparel/Accessories sector and is among the top three of
all 56 scored companies with a score of 73. The second highest scorer in the sector is Gap,
Inc. with 39 points, as a result of its general efforts to measure emissions, set goals and report.
At 15 points, Liz Claiborne falls short of what could be considered leadership but has begun to
implement energy efficiency programs and renewable energy initiatives that distinguish it from
companies that scored at the bottom of the sector: Limited Brands, VF Corporation, Levi
Strauss, and Jones Apparel Group.
BEVERAGES-BEER
Most would agree a bottle of beer is nothing without CO2, but
it certainly doesn’t mean that beverage and beer companies
shouldn’t do more to reduce carbon emissions in their
production processes to affect climate change. Climate
Counts scored three of the world’s largest beer producers—
Anheuser-Busch, Molson Coors, and SABMiller—to see if
climate-conscious consumers had a clear choice.
BEVERAGES - BEER
Score
SABMiller
Anheuser-Busch
Molson Coors Brewing
48
29
20
Research found that the London-based SABMiller and maker
of the well-known Miller brands currently outpaces rivals Anheuser-Bush and Molson Coors
Brewing when it comes to leadership on the issue. The climate difference? SABMiller has set
the sector standard for measuring its production of greenhouse gas emissions. It has also set
clear and substantial reduction goals and demonstrated a commitment to engaging
stakeholders in its efforts to curb global warming pollution.
Anheuser-Busch and Molson Coors are making strides in building their own foundations for
increasing their climate focus. These developments promise to make future rounds of scoring in
this sector worth watching.
ELECTRONICS/COMPUTER
The companies in the Electronics/Computer sector require a
significant amount of energy to make the products that keep
us connected. And the products that keep us connected
require a lot of energy to operate. For the most part, the
sector has set a high standard for itself in reviewing,
reducing, and reporting to consumers on its climate
performance. That said, there is still room for improvement.
Climate Counts ranked 12 companies that fall within the
Electronics/Computer sector: Canon, IBM, Toshiba, Motorola,
HP, Sony, Dell, Hitachi, Siemens, Samsung, Nokia and
Apple.
ELECTRONICS
Score
Canon
IBM
Toshiba
Motorola
Hewlett-Packard
Sony
Dell
Hitachi
Siemens*
Samsung
Nokia
Apple
77
70
66
60
59
51
41
36
34
33
29
2
Of the companies scored, six of the 12 are hitting their stride
in addressing the issue, with Canon taking the top spot—
both in the Electronics sector and in the overall scorecard—
and IBM a notable second. Toshiba, Motorola, HewlettPackard and Sony follow to make this the sector with the
highest percentage of companies to earn at least 50 points
(out of 100 possible). Five more electronics companies—
Dell, Hitachi, Siemens, Samsung and Nokia—are well on their way to moving beyond the
starting gate in taking responsibility for climate protection. Apple stands out among the scored
companies in this sector by lagging so significantly, 27 points, behind the next highest scorer.
Apple has recently announced plans to map a greener future, which has the potential to
change this sector’s profile.
MEDIA
The flow of words, ideas, and entertainment would not
appear on first glance to generate pollution that would
contribute to global warming. But major media companies
today are rarely solely in the information business. As some
of the largest corporations in the world, they have tentacles
that reach across the globe, spanning millions of employees
and countless suppliers and distributors—not to mention the
profound influence they have in shaping public opinion.
Climate Counts ranked six companies that fall within the
Media sector: General Electric, News Corporation, Disney,
Time Warner, Viacom and CBS.
MEDIA
General Electric*
News Corporation
Disney
Time Warner
Viacom
CBS
Some media companies, while perhaps best known for their role in worldwide
communications, are large conglomerates that have holdings in scores of other businesses.
General Electric is one such diversified company and the parent company of such well-known
media properties as NBC and Universal. It also leads the way among companies categorized
in the scorecard’s Media sector, for its inclusion of climate protection in its overall business
strategy, its detailed measurement of its emissions, and its strong goals to reduce its impact
on global warming
News Corporation—the parent company of such media brands as Fox and DirecTV—has
moved aggressively in recent months to make climate protection central to its future corporate
plans. At 57 points, the company is nearing GE’s current total of 61. The sector’s third-ranked
company, Disney, is far below the top two but has demonstrated an intention to make up for
lost time.
The bottom three scored companies—Time Warner, Viacom, and CBS—have not yet made
significant efforts in the area of climate control. While not a high greenhouse gas-emitting
manufacturing sector, the Media sector yields great potential to provide useful, substantive
information on issues like climate change to the public at large. Companies that are leading
this sector are working to incorporate strong climate change programming into their schedules
and portfolios.
Score
61
57
24
10
3
0
FOOD PRODUCTS
The Food Products sector is made up of major companies
with tremendous distribution networks, packaging needs, and
consumer demand, resulting in a large baseline climate
footprint. That expansive footprint translates to significant
bandwidth for improvements that could have a real impact on
reducing climate change.
Climate Counts scored 11 Food Products companies: The
Coca-Cola Company, ConAgra Foods, General Mills, Groupe
Danone, Kellogg, Kraft Foods, Nestle, PepsiCo, Sara Lee,
Stonyfield Farm, and Unilever.
FOOD PRODUCTS
Unilever
Stonyfield Farm
The Coca-Cola Company
Groupe Danone
Kraft Foods
Nestle
General Mills
PepsiCo
Kellogg
ConAgra Foods
Sara Lee
Unilever, the maker of everything from Lipton to Slimfast,
ranks among the top three scored companies not only within
the food sector but for all sectors reviewed. Unilever was
awarded 71 points for its detailed reporting, solid corporate
structure for high-level oversight of climate issues, goalsetting, and reduction efforts thus far. The Coca-Cola
Company is also among the sector’s top tier, with 57 points. The publicly held Groupe Danone
scored 50 points. Stonyfield Farm, which is a subsidiary of Groupe Danone and the principal
funder of Climate Counts, earned 63 points.
Score
71
63
57
50
43
42
37
26
24
6
2
The sector’s notable middle tier is comprised of Kraft Foods, Nestle, General Mills, PepsiCo, and
Kellogg, respectively, with the principal distinction among them being the degree to which each
company has set public reduction goals and targets and is working to clearly communicate their
efforts to the public in a timely and open manner. ConAgra Foods with 6 points and Sara Lee
with 2 points occupy the sector’s bottom tier and have made limited or no public efforts to
engage in a widening discourse on climate change and corporate climate initiative.
FOOD SERVICES
American food service companies are responsible for some
of the most internationally recognized brands in the world,
thanks to aggressive marketing campaigns that place chains
in nearly every region in the world. These food-services
companies - including fast-food chains - use vast amounts of
energy and generate an enormous amount of waste. They
employ millions of commuting workers and are connected to
an extensive network of suppliers. Taken together as a
whole, all of these practices can have a significant impact on
climate change.
FOOD SERVICES
Starbucks
McDonald’s
Yum! Brands
Burger King
Darden Restaurants
Wendy’s International
Climate Counts ranked six companies that fall within the
Food Services sector: Starbucks, McDonald’s, Yum! Brands, Burger King, Darden Restaurants
and Wendy’s International.
Starbucks, the only coffee company included in the scorecard’s Food Services sector, earned
46 points on the 100-point scale for its efforts to incorporate climate change into its
increasingly comprehensive corporate social responsibility profile. While the company’s
reduction goals are still loosely defined, Starbucks has asserted itself in the policy and
emissions accounting arenas and by establishing clear links between its own efforts to reduce
its climate footprint and its communication with its employees, customers and suppliers. Its
efforts put it ahead of more traditional fast-food companies ranked in the sector.
Among the scored fast-food companies, McDonald’s ranks significantly ahead of Burger King,
Wendy’s, and Yum! Brands (the parent company of Taco Bell, Pizza Hut, and Kentucky Fried
Chicken). Unlike its rivals, McDonald’s is at the beginning stages of measuring its global
warming pollution. It has formulated loose goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and taken
preliminary actions to achieve reductions, notably with respect to restaurant energy efficiency
and biofuel and refrigerant innovations. The company has also openly acknowledged that it has
an impact on climate change and has begun reporting to consumers and investors on its actions
to reduce global warming pollution. Like Burger King and Wendy’s, Darden Restaurants, the
parent company of such familiar restaurants as Red Lobster and Olive Garden, has not yet
articulated that climate change is among the societal issues it has prioritized.
Score
46
22
1
0
0
0
HOUSEHOLD PRODUCTS
Most of the necessities of day-to-day life fall within the
Household Products sector—among them, toothpaste, toilet
paper, cosmetics, and cleaning supplies. The production of
basic household goods is resource-intensive; it also has a
multi-faceted impact on the environment through packaging,
disposal, and more.
Climate Counts evaluated six companies in the Household
Products sector: Avon, Clorox, Colgate-Palmolive, Kimberly
Clark, L’Oreal, and Procter & Gamble.
HOUSEHOLD PRODUCTS
Procter & Gamble
L'Oreal
Kimberly-Clark
Colgate-Palmolive
Avon
Clorox
Score
53
45
41
40
11
1
The highest score in the sector is not among the top ten
scores overall, yet Procter & Gamble with 53 points has set
the pace among the six household product companies currently scored by Climate Counts.
The producer of Crest toothpaste and Tide detergent, among numerous other familiar
products, P&G has solid public reporting, demonstrated climate protection actions, and
emissions accounting that put it just ahead of a cluster of three other leading household
products companies—L’Oreal (45 points), Kimberly Clark (41 points), and Colgate-Palmolive
(40 points). All three of those companies are within the top half of scored companies overall
and should improve with a deeper commitment to detailed reporting and public engagement
on climate issues. The absence of public accounting for greenhouse gas emissions and
reported goal-setting to reduce emissions keeps Avon, with 10 points, and Clorox, with 1 point,
at the bottom of this sector.
INTERNET/SOFTWARE
The Internet/Software sector represents one of the most
explosive growth sectors in the nation’s increasingly
information-based economy. The new media sector employs
an ever-growing number of people and reaches more and
more consumers every day. Ten years ago, no one could
have anticipated the impact companies in this sector would
have on the way we work and communicate. As those
companies have grown, they have also come to have an
impact on climate change.
INTERNET/SOFTWARE
Yahoo!
Microsoft
Google
eBay
Amazon.com
Climate Counts ranked five companies that fall within the
Internet/Software sector: Yahoo!, Microsoft, Google, eBay and Amazon.com.
At the top of the scored sector is Yahoo!, thanks to its top brass’s commitment to a major
companywide climate protection strategy, complete with solid greenhouse gas emissions
accounting. But its 36 points are far below leaders in other scorecard sectors. Yahoo! has
been committed to offsetting emissions, but in the Climate Counts scoring system, offsetting
emissions does not earn as many points on the Climate Counts rating system as do other
activities that directly reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Microsoft—at 31 points—follows Yahoo! in the sector, with clear greenhouse gas emissions
accounting. But Microsoft falls short of providing clear plans for reducing its impact. Google
has also begun to move forward, but because it does not provide a public accounting of its
emissions, it falls behind other sector leaders. eBay and Amazon.com, despite being clear
powerhouses in the arena of online commerce, have not yet translated their spirit of innovation
to taking public corporate action on climate protection.
Score
36
31
17
2
0
How We Rank the Companies
Our company ratings are based on a rigorous scoring process that screens publicly available information on each company
against 22 criteria drawn from scientifically accepted climate and corporate performance tools. We use these 22 criteria to
measure the following four key benchmarks:
How well does the company M E A S U R E its climate “footprint”?
How much has the company done to R E D U C E its global warming pollution?
Does the company explicitly S U P P O R T (or express intent to block) progressive climate legislation?
How clearly and comprehensively does the company publicly D I S C L O S E its climate protection efforts?
The Four Benchmarks
How well does the company m e a s u r e its
climate footprint?
This benchmark measures the degree to
which companies have identified and
quantified their greenhouse gas emissions.
Climate Counts considers the extensiveness
of the company’s self-reported inventory,
including the company’s use of a standard
inventory protocol, its efforts to account for all
relevant greenhouse gases and emissions
sources, and any third-party verification of the
accuracy of its impact review.
How much has the company done to r e d u c e
its climate impact?
This benchmark measures whether
companies have set meaningful goals and
timelines for reducing their global warming
pollution based on their inventory data. This
benchmark gauges not only the magnitude of
a company’s goals but also its efforts to
incorporate emissions reduction into its overall
business management structure – with
oversight at the highest organizational levels.
The Climate Counts Company Scorecard
acknowledges publicly reported efforts that a
company has made toward achieving any
reductions in its global warming pollution,
whether or not those reductions are
associated with any goal or target. Climate
Counts also recognizes extraordinary efforts
at climate leadership, whether it be the
company’s initiative in addressing the issue
prior to current and heightened levels of public
awareness or a company’s willingness to
assert its influence on its employees,
suppliers, distributors, or the public at large.
Does the company explicitly s u p p o r t (or
suggest a desire to block) progressive climate
change legislation?
Public policy leadership at every level —
international, federal, regional, state, and local
– is essential in fighting climate change, and
companies have the power to shape
legislation and regulation both positively and
negatively. Climate Counts recognizes those
companies that have been willing to articulate
public support for progressive legislation
geared toward measurable climate protection.
How clearly and comprehensively does the
company publicly d i s c l o s e its climate
protection efforts?
This benchmark measures the extent to which
companies promote broad public awareness of
company climate action. The meaningful efforts
that companies make to engage consumers as
partners in the fight against climate change is
the true mark of a “Climate Counts” company.
Keeping Current
The Climate Counts Company Scorecard will
be updated on an annual basis. While the
scores represent a snapshot of a company’s
practices at a given moment, we recognize
the need to reflect the dynamic and everevolving nature of the business landscape.
This is why we will reach out to companies on
a regular basis to solicit the latest, up-to-date
information on their policies and practices,
with ongoing monitoring support from our
partners ClimateBiz.com and GreenBiz.com.
Who is Behind the Climate Counts
Company Scorecard?
The Climate Counts Company Scorecard
was developed with input from a panel of
business and climate experts from leading
non-governmental organizations and
academic institutions. Criteria were chosen
for their effectiveness at accomplishing a
single goal—stopping global warming.
A team of researchers then used these criteria
to rate companies and allocate points for
climate-related actions. Project staff made
multiple efforts to contact each company at
the start of the scoring process to confirm that
they were basing their research on the most
accurate and up-to-date data. Researchers
worked independently and with peers to
assess company performance on a scale of
0 to 100, and worked with project staff to
ensure consistency in scoring.
GreenOrder, a leading sustainability strategy
firm, provided strategic guidance on the
Climate Counts program, assisted in the
development of the scoring system, and
verified the scoring results for accuracy.
GreenOrder’s clients include companies
scored by Climate Counts (see
www.greenorder.com).
Board of Directors
About Climate Counts
Climate Counts is a new non-profit organization bringing
consumers and companies together in the fight against global
climate change. It is funded by Stonyfield Farm and launched in
collaboration with Clean Air-Cool Planet, a leading organization
dedicated to finding and promoting solutions to global warming.
Please visit www.climatecounts.org for more information.
Gary Hirshberg, Board Chair
Stonyfield Farm, President and CEO
Lisa Witter, Board Vice Chair
Fenton Communications, COO and
Executive Vice President
Adam Markham
Clean Air-Cool Planet, Executive Director
Joel Makower
Greener World Media, Chairman and
Executive Editor
Michael Martin
MusicMatters, President
Lisa Drake
Stonyfield Farm, Natural Resources
Manager
Staff
Wood Turner
Climate Counts, Project Director
PO Box 4844
Manchester NH 03108-4844
(603)216-3788
[email protected]
www.climatecounts.org
A Project of:
This report was designed for on-screen
viewing. Should you need a hard copy,
please consider printing double-sided on
paper with post-consumer recycled
content.
The Climate Counts Company Scorecard
Appendices
Amazon.com
Climate Counts Scorecard
www.climatecounts.org
Summary:
Copyright 2007
Score
Highest Possible Score
0
0
0
0
0
22
56
10
12
100
Review
Reduce
Policy Stance
Report
TOTAL
Full Scorecard:
Questions/Criteria
Scoring Guideposts (possible points)
Review
1
GHG emissions inventory completed?
No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
Score
Highest
Possible
Score
0
0
22
5
0
3
0
2
2
Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator?
3
Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included?
4
0
5
Are indirect emissions accounted for?
Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1);
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4)
portfolio)
Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on
reporting (where applicable)?
company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3)
Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting)
0
Identify and
4 quantify
emissions (22)
4
6
Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years?
One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
0
4
Has a clear goal been set?
No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)
0
0
56
4
8
Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in
company's size/composition)
No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2);
Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested
during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the
appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible
0
3
9
Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year)
No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than
small reduction goal set far in the future)
0
10
Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible
parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate
action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available
detailed plan
0
Set goals and
5 establish internal
management
(19)
5
11
Is there top-level support for climate change action?
0
2
12
Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of
on reduction)
emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future
reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on
level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points
0
8
13
Has the company achieved emissions reductions?
0
10
14
Absolute or intensity-based reductions?
Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be
achieved even if a relative target was set
Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.)
0
4
0
5
16
Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of
products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2);
Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of
products/services (3-4)
0
4
17
Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or
customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct
education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)?
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education,
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
0
4
18
Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2)
to those that do?
Reduce
7
15
Policy Stance
19
Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2)
No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a
timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for
absolute or intensity-based achievements
Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple
action by business?
strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points
awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website,
publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying
20
Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change
action?
No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly
opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and
active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to
undermine climate change action
21
Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)?
No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through
company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
(emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
10Ks)
Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other
meaningful subsegments?
Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1);
Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2)
Report
22
Total
Sources
0
2
0
0
10
10
0
(up to -10)
0
0
12
10
0
0
Amazon's Shipping Policy
Carbon Disclosure Project (no responses or declined to participate)
Published June 2007
Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007
Achieve
reductions (take
steps, achieve,
verify) (27)
Encourage
reductions by
others (10)
Support public
policy to require
reductions
(-10, +10)
Publicly disclose
emissions
(inventory),
reductions, and
2 related actions
(12)
100
Anheuser-Busch
Climate Counts Scorecard
www.climatecounts.org
Summary:
Copyright 2007
Score
Highest Possible Score
13
13
0
3
29
22
56
10
12
100
Review
Reduce
Policy Stance
Report
TOTAL
Full Scorecard:
Questions/Criteria
Scoring Guideposts (possible points)
Review
1
GHG emissions inventory completed?
No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
Score
Highest
Possible
Score
13
5
22
5
3
3
0
2
2
Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator?
3
Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included?
4
4
5
Are indirect emissions accounted for?
Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1);
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4)
portfolio)
Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on
reporting (where applicable)?
company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3)
Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting)
0
Identify and
4 quantify
emissions (22)
4
6
Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years?
One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
1
4
Has a clear goal been set?
No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)
13
1
56
4
8
Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in
company's size/composition)
No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2);
Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested
during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the
appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible
1
3
9
Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year)
No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than
small reduction goal set far in the future)
0
10
Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible
parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate
action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available
detailed plan
1
Set goals and
5 establish internal
management
(19)
5
11
Is there top-level support for climate change action?
0
2
12
Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of
on reduction)
emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future
reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on
level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points
8
8
13
Has the company achieved emissions reductions?
2
10
14
Absolute or intensity-based reductions?
Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be
achieved even if a relative target was set
Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.)
0
4
0
5
16
Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of
products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2);
Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of
products/services (3-4)
0
4
17
Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or
customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct
education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)?
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education,
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
0
4
18
Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2)
to those that do?
Reduce
7
15
Policy Stance
19
Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2)
No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a
timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for
absolute or intensity-based achievements
Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple
action by business?
strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points
awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website,
publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying
20
Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change
action?
No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly
opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and
active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to
undermine climate change action
21
Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)?
No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through
company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
(emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
10Ks)
Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other
meaningful subsegments?
Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1);
Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2)
Report
22
Total
Sources
0
2
0
0
10
10
0
(up to -10)
3
3
12
10
0
29
2005 Environmental, Health, and Safety Report
2004 Environmental, Health, and Safety Report
Carbon Disclosure Project responses (CDP4/CDP3 -- permission declined for public access to CDP2/CDP1 response)
Published June 2007
Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007
Achieve
reductions (take
steps, achieve,
verify) (27)
Encourage
reductions by
others (10)
Support public
policy to require
reductions
(-10, +10)
Publicly disclose
emissions
(inventory),
reductions, and
2 related actions
(12)
100
Apple
Climate Counts Scorecard
www.climatecounts.org
Summary:
Copyright 2007
Score
Highest Possible Score
0
2
0
0
2
22
56
10
12
100
Review
Reduce
Policy Stance
Report
TOTAL
Full Scorecard:
Questions/Criteria
Scoring Guideposts (possible points)
Review
1
GHG emissions inventory completed?
No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
Score
Highest
Possible
Score
0
0
22
5
0
3
0
2
2
Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator?
3
Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included?
4
0
5
Are indirect emissions accounted for?
Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1);
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4)
portfolio)
Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on
reporting (where applicable)?
company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3)
Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting)
0
Identify and
4 quantify
emissions (22)
4
6
Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years?
One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
0
4
Has a clear goal been set?
No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)
2
0
56
4
8
Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in
company's size/composition)
No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2);
Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested
during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the
appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible
0
3
9
Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year)
No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than
small reduction goal set far in the future)
0
10
Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible
parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate
action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available
detailed plan
0
Set goals and
5 establish internal
management
(19)
5
11
Is there top-level support for climate change action?
1
2
12
Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of
on reduction)
emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future
reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on
level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points
0
8
13
Has the company achieved emissions reductions?
0
10
14
Absolute or intensity-based reductions?
Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be
achieved even if a relative target was set
Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.)
0
4
0
5
16
Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of
products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2);
Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of
products/services (3-4)
1
4
17
Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or
customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct
education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)?
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education,
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
0
4
18
Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2)
to those that do?
Reduce
7
15
Policy Stance
19
Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2)
No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a
timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for
absolute or intensity-based achievements
Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple
action by business?
strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points
awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website,
publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying
20
Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change
action?
No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly
opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and
active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to
undermine climate change action
21
Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)?
No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through
company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
(emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
10Ks)
Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other
meaningful subsegments?
Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1);
Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2)
Report
22
Total
Sources
0
2
0
0
10
10
0
(up to -10)
0
0
12
10
0
2
Carbon Disclosure Project response (CDP4)
Apple and the Environment website
"A Greener Apple" - Statement from Steve Jobs, CEO
Apple Supplier Code of Conduct
Published June 2007
Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007
Achieve
reductions (take
steps, achieve,
verify) (27)
Encourage
reductions by
others (10)
Support public
policy to require
reductions
(-10, +10)
Publicly disclose
emissions
(inventory),
reductions, and
2 related actions
(12)
100
Avon
Climate Counts Scorecard
www.climatecounts.org
Summary:
Copyright 2007
Score
Highest Possible Score
2
6
0
3
11
22
56
10
12
100
Review
Reduce
Policy Stance
Report
TOTAL
Full Scorecard:
Questions/Criteria
Scoring Guideposts (possible points)
Review
Highest
Possible
Score
2
1
22
5
0
3
0
2
1
GHG emissions inventory completed?
2
Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator?
3
Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included?
4
0
5
Are indirect emissions accounted for?
Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1);
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4)
portfolio)
Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on
reporting (where applicable)?
company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3)
Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting)
0
Identify and
4 quantify
emissions (22)
4
6
Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years?
One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
1
4
Has a clear goal been set?
No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)
6
0
56
4
8
Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in
company's size/composition)
No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2);
Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested
during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the
appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible
0
3
9
Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year)
No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than
small reduction goal set far in the future)
0
10
Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible
parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate
action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available
detailed plan
1
Set goals and
5 establish internal
management
(19)
5
11
Is there top-level support for climate change action?
1
2
12
Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of
on reduction)
emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future
reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on
level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points
2
8
13
Has the company achieved emissions reductions?
2
10
14
Absolute or intensity-based reductions?
Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be
achieved even if a relative target was set
Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.)
0
4
0
5
16
Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of
products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2);
Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of
products/services (3-4)
0
4
17
Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or
customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct
education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)?
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education,
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
0
4
18
Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2)
to those that do?
Reduce
7
15
Policy Stance
19
No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
Score
Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2)
No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a
timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for
absolute or intensity-based achievements
Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple
action by business?
strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points
awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website,
publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying
20
Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change
action?
No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly
opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and
active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to
undermine climate change action
21
Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)?
No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through
company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
(emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
10Ks)
Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other
meaningful subsegments?
Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1);
Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2)
Report
22
Total
Sources
0
2
0
0
10
10
0
(up to -10)
3
3
12
10
0
11
Carbon Disclosure Project response (CDP3; permission declined for public access to CDP4/CDP1 responses; no response CDP2)
Published June 2007
Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007
Achieve
reductions (take
steps, achieve,
verify) (27)
Encourage
reductions by
others (10)
Support public
policy to require
reductions
(-10, +10)
Publicly disclose
emissions
(inventory),
reductions, and
2 related actions
(12)
100
Burger King
Climate Counts Scorecard
Summary:
www.climatecounts.org
Score
Highest Possible Score
0
0
0
0
0
22
56
10
12
100
Review
Reduce
Policy Stance
Report
TOTAL
Copyright 2007
Full Scorecard:
Questions/Criteria
Scoring Guideposts (possible points)
Review
1
GHG emissions inventory completed?
No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
Score
Highest
Possible
Score
0
0
22
5
0
3
0
2
2
Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator?
3
Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included?
4
0
5
Are indirect emissions accounted for?
Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1);
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4)
portfolio)
Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on
reporting (where applicable)?
company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3)
Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting)
0
Identify and
4 quantify
emissions (22)
4
6
Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years?
One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
0
4
Has a clear goal been set?
No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)
0
0
56
4
8
Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in
company's size/composition)
No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2);
Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested
during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the
appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible
0
3
9
Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year)
No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than
small reduction goal set far in the future)
0
10
Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible
parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate
action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available
detailed plan
0
Set goals and
5 establish internal
management
(19)
5
11
Is there top-level support for climate change action?
0
2
12
Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of
on reduction)
emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future
reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on
level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points
0
8
13
Has the company achieved emissions reductions?
0
10
14
Absolute or intensity-based reductions?
Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be
achieved even if a relative target was set
Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.)
0
4
0
5
16
Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of
products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2);
Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of
products/services (3-4)
0
4
17
Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or
customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct
education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)?
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education,
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
0
4
18
Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2)
to those that do?
Reduce
7
15
Policy Stance
19
Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2)
No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a
timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for
absolute or intensity-based achievements
Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple
action by business?
strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points
awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website,
publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying
20
Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change
action?
No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly
opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and
active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to
undermine climate change action
21
Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)?
No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through
company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
(emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
10Ks)
Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other
meaningful subsegments?
Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1);
Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2)
Report
22
Total
Sources
0
2
0
0
10
10
0
(up to -10)
0
0
12
10
0
0
No relevant public information available
Published June 2007
Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007
Achieve
reductions (take
steps, achieve,
verify) (27)
Encourage
reductions by
others (10)
Support public
policy to require
reductions
(-10, +10)
Publicly disclose
emissions
(inventory),
reductions, and
2 related actions
(12)
100
Canon
Climate Counts Scorecard
www.climatecounts.org
Summary:
Copyright 2007
Score
Highest Possible Score
18
45
3
11
77
22
56
10
12
100
Review
Reduce
Policy Stance
Report
TOTAL
Full Scorecard:
Questions/Criteria
Scoring Guideposts (possible points)
Review
Highest
Possible
Score
18
5
22
5
3
3
2
2
1
GHG emissions inventory completed?
2
Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator?
3
Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included?
4
3
5
Are indirect emissions accounted for?
Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1);
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4)
portfolio)
Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on
reporting (where applicable)?
company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3)
Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting)
1
Identify and
4 quantify
emissions (22)
4
6
Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years?
One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
4
4
Has a clear goal been set?
No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)
45
4
56
4
8
Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in
company's size/composition)
No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2);
Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested
during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the
appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible
3
3
9
Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year)
No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than
small reduction goal set far in the future)
4
10
Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible
parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate
action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available
detailed plan
5
Set goals and
5 establish internal
management
(19)
5
11
Is there top-level support for climate change action?
2
2
12
Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of
on reduction)
emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future
reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on
level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points
8
8
13
Has the company achieved emissions reductions?
6
10
14
Absolute or intensity-based reductions?
Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be
achieved even if a relative target was set
Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.)
0
4
4
5
16
Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of
products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2);
Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of
products/services (3-4)
4
4
17
Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or
customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct
education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)?
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education,
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
4
4
18
Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2)
to those that do?
Reduce
7
15
Policy Stance
19
No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
Score
Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2)
No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a
timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for
absolute or intensity-based achievements
Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple
action by business?
strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points
awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website,
publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying
20
Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change
action?
No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly
opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and
active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to
undermine climate change action
21
Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)?
No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through
company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
(emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
10Ks)
Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other
meaningful subsegments?
Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1);
Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2)
Report
22
Total
Sources
1
2
3
3
10
10
0
(up to -10)
11
9
12
10
2
77
Canon Sustainability Report 2006
Carbon Disclosure Project responses (CDP4/CDP3/CDP2 -- permission declined for public access to CDP1 response)
Canon Environmental Activities website
Published June 2007
Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007
Achieve
reductions (take
steps, achieve,
verify) (27)
Encourage
reductions by
others (10)
Support public
policy to require
reductions
(-10, +10)
Publicly disclose
emissions
(inventory),
reductions, and
2 related actions
(12)
100
CBS
Climate Counts Scorecard
www.climatecounts.org
Summary:
Copyright 2007
Score
Highest Possible Score
0
0
0
0
0
22
56
10
12
100
Review
Reduce
Policy Stance
Report
TOTAL
Full Scorecard:
Questions/Criteria
Scoring Guideposts (possible points)
Review
1
GHG emissions inventory completed?
No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
Score
Highest
Possible
Score
0
0
22
5
0
3
0
2
2
Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator?
3
Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included?
4
0
5
Are indirect emissions accounted for?
Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1);
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4)
portfolio)
Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on
reporting (where applicable)?
company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3)
Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting)
0
Identify and
4 quantify
emissions (22)
4
6
Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years?
One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
0
4
Has a clear goal been set?
No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)
0
0
56
4
8
Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in
company's size/composition)
No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2);
Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested
during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the
appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible
0
3
9
Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year)
No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than
small reduction goal set far in the future)
0
10
Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible
parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate
action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available
detailed plan
0
Set goals and
5 establish internal
management
(19)
5
11
Is there top-level support for climate change action?
0
2
12
Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of
on reduction)
emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future
reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on
level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points
0
8
13
Has the company achieved emissions reductions?
0
10
14
Absolute or intensity-based reductions?
Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be
achieved even if a relative target was set
Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.)
0
4
0
5
16
Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of
products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2);
Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of
products/services (3-4)
0
4
17
Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or
customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct
education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)?
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education,
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
0
4
18
Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2)
to those that do?
Reduce
7
15
Policy Stance
19
Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2)
No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a
timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for
absolute or intensity-based achievements
Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple
action by business?
strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points
awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website,
publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying
20
Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change
action?
No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly
opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and
active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to
undermine climate change action
21
Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)?
No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through
company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
(emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
10Ks)
Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other
meaningful subsegments?
Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1);
Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2)
Report
22
Total
Sources
0
2
0
0
10
10
0
(up to -10)
0
0
12
10
0
0
CBS Television 2004 Corporate Social Responsibility Report
Published June 2007
Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007
Achieve
reductions (take
steps, achieve,
verify) (27)
Encourage
reductions by
others (10)
Support public
policy to require
reductions
(-10, +10)
Publicly disclose
emissions
(inventory),
reductions, and
2 related actions
(12)
100
Clorox
Climate Counts Scorecard
www.climatecounts.org
Summary:
Copyright 2007
Score
Highest Possible Score
0
0
0
1
1
22
56
10
12
100
Review
Reduce
Policy Stance
Report
TOTAL
Full Scorecard:
Questions/Criteria
Scoring Guideposts (possible points)
Review
Highest
Possible
Score
0
0
22
5
0
3
0
2
1
GHG emissions inventory completed?
2
Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator?
3
Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included?
4
0
5
Are indirect emissions accounted for?
Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1);
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4)
portfolio)
Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on
reporting (where applicable)?
company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3)
Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting)
0
Identify and
4 quantify
emissions (22)
4
6
Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years?
One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
0
4
Has a clear goal been set?
No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)
0
0
56
4
8
Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in
company's size/composition)
No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2);
Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested
during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the
appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible
0
3
9
Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year)
No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than
small reduction goal set far in the future)
0
10
Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible
parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate
action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available
detailed plan
0
Set goals and
5 establish internal
management
(19)
5
11
Is there top-level support for climate change action?
0
2
12
Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of
on reduction)
emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future
reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on
level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points
0
8
13
Has the company achieved emissions reductions?
0
10
14
Absolute or intensity-based reductions?
Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be
achieved even if a relative target was set
Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.)
0
4
0
5
16
Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of
products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2);
Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of
products/services (3-4)
0
4
17
Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or
customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct
education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)?
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education,
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
0
4
18
Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2)
to those that do?
Reduce
7
15
Policy Stance
19
No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
Score
Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2)
No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a
timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for
absolute or intensity-based achievements
Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple
action by business?
strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points
awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website,
publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying
20
Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change
action?
No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly
opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and
active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to
undermine climate change action
21
Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)?
No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through
company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
(emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
10Ks)
Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other
meaningful subsegments?
Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1);
Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2)
Report
22
Total
Sources
0
2
0
0
10
10
0
(up to -10)
1
1
12
10
0
1
Carbon Disclosure Project response (CDP3; no response or declined to participate CDP4/CDP2/CDP1)
Published June 2007
Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007
Achieve
reductions (take
steps, achieve,
verify) (27)
Encourage
reductions by
others (10)
Support public
policy to require
reductions
(-10, +10)
Publicly disclose
emissions
(inventory),
reductions, and
2 related actions
(12)
100
The Coca-Cola
Company
Climate Counts Scorecard
www.climatecounts.org
Summary:
Copyright 2007
Score
Highest Possible Score
20
26
2
9
57
22
56
10
12
100
Review
Reduce
Policy Stance
Report
TOTAL
Full Scorecard:
Questions/Criteria
Scoring Guideposts (possible points)
Review
Highest
Possible
Score
20
5
22
5
3
3
2
2
1
GHG emissions inventory completed?
2
Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator?
3
Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included?
4
2
5
Are indirect emissions accounted for?
Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1);
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4)
portfolio)
Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on
reporting (where applicable)?
company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3)
Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting)
4
Identify and
4 quantify
emissions (22)
4
6
Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years?
One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
4
4
Has a clear goal been set?
No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)
26
4
56
4
8
Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in
company's size/composition)
No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2);
Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested
during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the
appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible
1
3
9
Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year)
No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than
small reduction goal set far in the future)
2
10
Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible
parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate
action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available
detailed plan
3
Set goals and
5 establish internal
management
(19)
5
11
Is there top-level support for climate change action?
1
2
12
Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of
on reduction)
emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future
reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on
level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points
5
8
13
Has the company achieved emissions reductions?
4
10
14
Absolute or intensity-based reductions?
Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be
achieved even if a relative target was set
Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.)
2
4
0
5
16
Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of
products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2);
Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of
products/services (3-4)
1
4
17
Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or
customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct
education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)?
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education,
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
2
4
18
Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2)
to those that do?
Reduce
7
15
Policy Stance
19
No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
Score
Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2)
No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a
timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for
absolute or intensity-based achievements
Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple
action by business?
strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points
awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website,
publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying
20
Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change
action?
No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly
opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and
active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to
undermine climate change action
21
Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)?
No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through
company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
(emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
10Ks)
Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other
meaningful subsegments?
Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1);
Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2)
Report
22
Total
Sources
1
2
2
2
10
10
0
(up to -10)
9
8
12
10
1
57
2005 Environmental Report
2006 Environmental Report from Coca-Cola West Japan Group
2005 URS Verification Statement
2004 Environmental Report
2003 Environmental Report (plus supplement)
2002 Environmental Report
Carbon Disclosure Project responses (CDP4/CDP3/CDP2)
Coca-Cola Environmental Responsibility website
Published June 2007
Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007
Achieve
reductions (take
steps, achieve,
verify) (27)
Encourage
reductions by
others (10)
Support public
policy to require
reductions
(-10, +10)
Publicly disclose
emissions
(inventory),
reductions, and
2 related actions
(12)
100
Colgate-Palmolive
Climate Counts Scorecard
www.climatecounts.org
Summary:
Copyright 2007
Score
Highest Possible Score
12
24
0
4
40
22
56
10
12
100
Review
Reduce
Policy Stance
Report
TOTAL
Full Scorecard:
Questions/Criteria
Scoring Guideposts (possible points)
Review
Highest
Possible
Score
12
3
22
5
3
3
1
2
1
GHG emissions inventory completed?
2
Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator?
3
Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included?
4
0
5
Are indirect emissions accounted for?
Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1);
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4)
portfolio)
Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on
reporting (where applicable)?
company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3)
Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting)
1
Identify and
4 quantify
emissions (22)
4
6
Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years?
One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
4
4
Has a clear goal been set?
No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)
24
3
56
4
8
Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in
company's size/composition)
No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2);
Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested
during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the
appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible
2
3
9
Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year)
No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than
small reduction goal set far in the future)
4
10
Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible
parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate
action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available
detailed plan
1
Set goals and
5 establish internal
management
(19)
5
11
Is there top-level support for climate change action?
0
2
12
Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of
on reduction)
emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future
reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on
level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points
2
8
13
Has the company achieved emissions reductions?
8
10
14
Absolute or intensity-based reductions?
Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be
achieved even if a relative target was set
Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.)
3
4
0
5
16
Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of
products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2);
Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of
products/services (3-4)
1
4
17
Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or
customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct
education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)?
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education,
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
0
4
18
Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2)
to those that do?
Reduce
7
15
Policy Stance
19
No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
Score
Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2)
No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a
timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for
absolute or intensity-based achievements
Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple
action by business?
strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points
awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website,
publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying
20
Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change
action?
No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly
opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and
active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to
undermine climate change action
21
Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)?
No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through
company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
(emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
10Ks)
Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other
meaningful subsegments?
Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1);
Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2)
Report
22
Total
Sources
0
2
0
0
10
10
0
(up to -10)
4
4
12
10
0
40
Colgate: Respecting The World Around Us (2004 Sustainability Report)
Carbon Disclosure Project responses (CDP4/CDP3/CDP2 – no public access to CDP1 response)
Published June 2007
Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007
Achieve
reductions (take
steps, achieve,
verify) (27)
Encourage
reductions by
others (10)
Support public
policy to require
reductions
(-10, +10)
Publicly disclose
emissions
(inventory),
reductions, and
2 related actions
(12)
100
ConAgra Foods
Climate Counts Scorecard
www.climatecounts.org
Summary:
Copyright 2007
Score
Highest Possible Score
0
5
0
1
6
22
56
10
12
100
Review
Reduce
Policy Stance
Report
TOTAL
Full Scorecard:
Questions/Criteria
Scoring Guideposts (possible points)
Review
1
GHG emissions inventory completed?
No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
Score
Highest
Possible
Score
0
0
22
5
0
3
0
2
2
Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator?
3
Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included?
4
0
5
Are indirect emissions accounted for?
Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1);
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4)
portfolio)
Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on
reporting (where applicable)?
company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3)
Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting)
0
Identify and
4 quantify
emissions (22)
4
6
Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years?
One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
0
4
Has a clear goal been set?
No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)
5
0
56
4
8
Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in
company's size/composition)
No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2);
Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested
during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the
appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible
0
3
9
Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year)
No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than
small reduction goal set far in the future)
0
10
Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible
parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate
action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available
detailed plan
1
Set goals and
5 establish internal
management
(19)
5
11
Is there top-level support for climate change action?
0
2
12
Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of
on reduction)
emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future
reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on
level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points
3
8
13
Has the company achieved emissions reductions?
0
10
14
Absolute or intensity-based reductions?
Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be
achieved even if a relative target was set
Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.)
0
4
0
5
16
Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of
products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2);
Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of
products/services (3-4)
1
4
17
Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or
customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct
education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)?
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education,
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
0
4
18
Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2)
to those that do?
Reduce
7
15
Policy Stance
19
Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2)
No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a
timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for
absolute or intensity-based achievements
Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple
action by business?
strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points
awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website,
publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying
20
Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change
action?
No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly
opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and
active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to
undermine climate change action
21
Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)?
No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through
company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
(emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
10Ks)
Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other
meaningful subsegments?
Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1);
Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2)
Report
22
Total
Sources
0
2
0
0
10
10
0
(up to -10)
1
1
12
10
0
6
ConAgra 2006 Corporate Responsibility Report
ConAgra Sustainable Development Program website
ConAgra 2002 Environmental Commitment document
Published June 2007
Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007
Achieve
reductions (take
steps, achieve,
verify) (27)
Encourage
reductions by
others (10)
Support public
policy to require
reductions
(-10, +10)
Publicly disclose
emissions
(inventory),
reductions, and
2 related actions
(12)
100
Darden Restaurants
Climate Counts Scorecard
www.climatecounts.org
Summary:
Copyright 2007
Score
Highest Possible Score
0
0
0
0
0
22
56
10
12
100
Review
Reduce
Policy Stance
Report
TOTAL
Full Scorecard:
Questions/Criteria
Scoring Guideposts (possible points)
Review
1
GHG emissions inventory completed?
No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
Score
Highest
Possible
Score
0
0
22
5
0
3
0
2
2
Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator?
3
Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included?
4
0
5
Are indirect emissions accounted for?
Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1);
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4)
portfolio)
Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on
reporting (where applicable)?
company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3)
Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting)
0
Identify and
4 quantify
emissions (22)
4
6
Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years?
One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
0
4
Has a clear goal been set?
No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)
0
0
56
4
8
Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in
company's size/composition)
No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2);
Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested
during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the
appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible
0
3
9
Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year)
No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than
small reduction goal set far in the future)
0
10
Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible
parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate
action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available
detailed plan
0
Set goals and
5 establish internal
management
(19)
5
11
Is there top-level support for climate change action?
0
2
12
Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of
on reduction)
emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future
reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on
level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points
0
8
13
Has the company achieved emissions reductions?
0
10
14
Absolute or intensity-based reductions?
Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be
achieved even if a relative target was set
Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.)
0
4
0
5
16
Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of
products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2);
Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of
products/services (3-4)
0
4
17
Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or
customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct
education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)?
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education,
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
0
4
18
Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2)
to those that do?
Reduce
7
15
Policy Stance
19
Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2)
No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a
timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for
absolute or intensity-based achievements
Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple
action by business?
strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points
awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website,
publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying
20
Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change
action?
No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly
opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and
active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to
undermine climate change action
21
Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)?
No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through
company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
(emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
10Ks)
Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other
meaningful subsegments?
Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1);
Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2)
Report
22
Total
Sources
0
2
0
0
10
10
0
(up to -10)
0
0
12
10
0
0
Carbon Disclosure Project response (CDP4)
Darden Restaurants' Public Responsibility Charter
Darden Restaurants' Environmental Stewardship statement
Darden Environmental Trust website
Published June 2007
Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007
Achieve
reductions (take
steps, achieve,
verify) (27)
Encourage
reductions by
others (10)
Support public
policy to require
reductions
(-10, +10)
Publicly disclose
emissions
(inventory),
reductions, and
2 related actions
(12)
100
Dell
Climate Counts Scorecard
www.climatecounts.org
Summary:
Copyright 2007
Score
Highest Possible Score
14
18
1
8
41
22
56
10
12
100
Review
Reduce
Policy Stance
Report
TOTAL
Full Scorecard:
Questions/Criteria
Scoring Guideposts (possible points)
Review
Highest
Possible
Score
14
5
22
5
3
3
2
2
1
GHG emissions inventory completed?
2
Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator?
3
Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included?
4
1
5
Are indirect emissions accounted for?
Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1);
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4)
portfolio)
Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on
reporting (where applicable)?
company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3)
Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting)
0
Identify and
4 quantify
emissions (22)
4
6
Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years?
One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
3
4
Has a clear goal been set?
No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)
18
1
56
4
8
Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in
company's size/composition)
No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2);
Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested
during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the
appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible
0
3
9
Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year)
No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than
small reduction goal set far in the future)
0
10
Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible
parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate
action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available
detailed plan
2
Set goals and
5 establish internal
management
(19)
5
11
Is there top-level support for climate change action?
1
2
12
Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of
on reduction)
emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future
reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on
level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points
4
8
13
Has the company achieved emissions reductions?
3
10
14
Absolute or intensity-based reductions?
Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be
achieved even if a relative target was set
Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.)
0
4
0
5
16
Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of
products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2);
Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of
products/services (3-4)
4
4
17
Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or
customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct
education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)?
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education,
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
3
4
18
Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2)
to those that do?
Reduce
7
15
Policy Stance
19
No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
Score
Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2)
No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a
timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for
absolute or intensity-based achievements
Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple
action by business?
strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points
awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website,
publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying
20
Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change
action?
No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly
opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and
active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to
undermine climate change action
21
Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)?
No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through
company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
(emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
10Ks)
Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other
meaningful subsegments?
Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1);
Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2)
Report
22
Total
Sources
0
2
1
1
10
10
0
(up to -10)
8
7
12
10
1
41
Dell Sustainability Report 2006: Reaching Far and Wide
Carbon Disclosure Project responses (CDP4/CDP3/CDP2/CDP1)
Product Energy Efficiency website
Dell Environmental Commitment website
Computer TakeBack Campaign website
Published June 2007
Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007
Achieve
reductions (take
steps, achieve,
verify) (27)
Encourage
reductions by
others (10)
Support public
policy to require
reductions
(-10, +10)
Publicly disclose
emissions
(inventory),
reductions, and
2 related actions
(12)
100
Disney
Climate Counts Scorecard
www.climatecounts.org
Summary:
Copyright 2007
Score
Highest Possible Score
3
18
0
3
24
22
56
10
12
100
Review
Reduce
Policy Stance
Report
TOTAL
Full Scorecard:
Questions/Criteria
Scoring Guideposts (possible points)
Review
1
GHG emissions inventory completed?
No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
Score
Highest
Possible
Score
3
1
22
5
1
3
0
2
2
Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator?
3
Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included?
4
0
5
Are indirect emissions accounted for?
Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1);
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4)
portfolio)
Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on
reporting (where applicable)?
company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3)
Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting)
0
Identify and
4 quantify
emissions (22)
4
6
Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years?
One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
1
4
Has a clear goal been set?
No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)
18
1
56
4
8
Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in
company's size/composition)
No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2);
Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested
during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the
appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible
0
3
9
Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year)
No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than
small reduction goal set far in the future)
0
10
Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible
parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate
action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available
detailed plan
2
Set goals and
5 establish internal
management
(19)
5
11
Is there top-level support for climate change action?
1
2
12
Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of
on reduction)
emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future
reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on
level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points
5
8
13
Has the company achieved emissions reductions?
3
10
14
Absolute or intensity-based reductions?
Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be
achieved even if a relative target was set
Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.)
3
4
0
5
16
Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of
products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2);
Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of
products/services (3-4)
1
4
17
Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or
customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct
education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)?
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education,
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
2
4
18
Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2)
to those that do?
Reduce
7
15
Policy Stance
19
Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2)
No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a
timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for
absolute or intensity-based achievements
Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple
action by business?
strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points
awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website,
publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying
20
Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change
action?
No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly
opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and
active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to
undermine climate change action
21
Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)?
No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through
company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
(emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
10Ks)
Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other
meaningful subsegments?
Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1);
Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2)
Report
22
Total
Sources
0
2
0
0
10
10
0
(up to -10)
3
3
12
10
0
24
Disney Enviroports (2001-2006)
Carbon Disclosure Project responses (CDP4/CDP3/CDP2)
Published June 2007
Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007
Achieve
reductions (take
steps, achieve,
verify) (27)
Encourage
reductions by
others (10)
Support public
policy to require
reductions
(-10, +10)
Publicly disclose
emissions
(inventory),
reductions, and
2 related actions
(12)
100
eBay
Climate Counts Scorecard
www.climatecounts.org
Summary:
Copyright 2007
Score
Highest Possible Score
0
1
0
1
2
22
56
10
12
100
Review
Reduce
Policy Stance
Report
TOTAL
Full Scorecard:
Questions/Criteria
Scoring Guideposts (possible points)
Review
1
GHG emissions inventory completed?
No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
Score
Highest
Possible
Score
0
0
22
5
0
3
0
2
2
Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator?
3
Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included?
4
0
5
Are indirect emissions accounted for?
Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1);
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4)
portfolio)
Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on
reporting (where applicable)?
company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3)
Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting)
0
Identify and
4 quantify
emissions (22)
4
6
Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years?
One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
0
4
Has a clear goal been set?
No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)
1
0
56
4
8
Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in
company's size/composition)
No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2);
Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested
during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the
appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible
0
3
9
Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year)
No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than
small reduction goal set far in the future)
0
10
Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible
parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate
action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available
detailed plan
0
Set goals and
5 establish internal
management
(19)
5
11
Is there top-level support for climate change action?
0
2
12
Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of
on reduction)
emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future
reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on
level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points
1
8
13
Has the company achieved emissions reductions?
0
10
14
Absolute or intensity-based reductions?
Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be
achieved even if a relative target was set
Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.)
0
4
0
5
16
Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of
products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2);
Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of
products/services (3-4)
0
4
17
Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or
customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct
education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)?
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education,
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
0
4
18
Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2)
to those that do?
Reduce
7
15
Policy Stance
19
Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2)
No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a
timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for
absolute or intensity-based achievements
Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple
action by business?
strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points
awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website,
publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying
20
Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change
action?
No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly
opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and
active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to
undermine climate change action
21
Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)?
No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through
company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
(emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
10Ks)
Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other
meaningful subsegments?
Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1);
Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2)
Report
22
Total
Sources
0
2
0
0
10
10
0
(up to -10)
1
1
12
10
0
2
Carbon Disclosure Project responses (CDP4/CDP3/CDP2 -- permission declined for public access to CDP3 response)
Published June 2007
Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007
Achieve
reductions (take
steps, achieve,
verify) (27)
Encourage
reductions by
others (10)
Support public
policy to require
reductions
(-10, +10)
Publicly disclose
emissions
(inventory),
reductions, and
2 related actions
(12)
100
Gap Inc.
Climate Counts Scorecard
www.climatecounts.org
Summary:
Copyright 2007
Score
Highest Possible Score
9
25
1
4
39
22
56
10
12
100
Review
Reduce
Policy Stance
Report
TOTAL
Full Scorecard:
Questions/Criteria
Scoring Guideposts (possible points)
Review
Highest
Possible
Score
9
4
22
5
3
3
1
2
1
GHG emissions inventory completed?
2
Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator?
3
Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included?
4
0
5
Are indirect emissions accounted for?
Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1);
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4)
portfolio)
Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on
reporting (where applicable)?
company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3)
Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting)
0
Identify and
4 quantify
emissions (22)
4
6
Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years?
One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
1
4
Has a clear goal been set?
No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)
25
4
56
4
8
Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in
company's size/composition)
No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2);
Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested
during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the
appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible
1
3
9
Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year)
No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than
small reduction goal set far in the future)
5
10
Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible
parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate
action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available
detailed plan
2
Set goals and
5 establish internal
management
(19)
5
11
Is there top-level support for climate change action?
1
2
12
Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of
on reduction)
emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future
reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on
level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points
7
8
13
Has the company achieved emissions reductions?
4
10
14
Absolute or intensity-based reductions?
Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be
achieved even if a relative target was set
Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.)
0
4
0
5
16
Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of
products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2);
Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of
products/services (3-4)
0
4
17
Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or
customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct
education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)?
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education,
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
1
4
18
Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2)
to those that do?
Reduce
7
15
Policy Stance
19
No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
Score
Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2)
No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a
timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for
absolute or intensity-based achievements
Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple
action by business?
strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points
awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website,
publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying
20
Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change
action?
No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly
opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and
active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to
undermine climate change action
21
Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)?
No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through
company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
(emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
10Ks)
Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other
meaningful subsegments?
Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1);
Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2)
Report
22
Total
Sources
0
2
1
1
10
10
0
(up to -10)
4
4
12
10
0
39
2004 Social Responsibility Report
US EPA Climate Leaders corporate summary
Carbon Disclosure Project responses (CDP4/CDP3/CDP2/CDP1 -- permission declined for public access to CDP1 response)
Gap Inc. Social Responsibility website
Cornell University Department of Design and Environmental Analysis
Published June 2007
Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007
Achieve
reductions (take
steps, achieve,
verify) (27)
Encourage
reductions by
others (10)
Support public
policy to require
reductions
(-10, +10)
Publicly disclose
emissions
(inventory),
reductions, and
2 related actions
(12)
100
General Electric
Climate Counts Scorecard
www.climatecounts.org
Summary:
Copyright 2007
Score
Highest Possible Score
16
31
7
7
61
22
56
10
12
100
Review
Reduce
Policy Stance
Report
TOTAL
Full Scorecard:
Questions/Criteria
Scoring Guideposts (possible points)
Review
Highest
Possible
Score
16
5
22
5
3
3
2
2
1
GHG emissions inventory completed?
2
Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator?
3
Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included?
4
2
5
Are indirect emissions accounted for?
Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1);
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4)
portfolio)
Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on
reporting (where applicable)?
company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3)
Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting)
1
Identify and
4 quantify
emissions (22)
4
6
Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years?
One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
3
4
Has a clear goal been set?
No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)
31
4
56
4
8
Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in
company's size/composition)
No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2);
Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested
during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the
appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible
1
3
9
Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year)
No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than
small reduction goal set far in the future)
4
10
Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible
parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate
action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available
detailed plan
4
Set goals and
5 establish internal
management
(19)
5
11
Is there top-level support for climate change action?
2
2
12
Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of
on reduction)
emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future
reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on
level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points
4
8
13
Has the company achieved emissions reductions?
5
10
14
Absolute or intensity-based reductions?
Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be
achieved even if a relative target was set
Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.)
0
4
0
5
16
Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of
products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2);
Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of
products/services (3-4)
4
4
17
Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or
customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct
education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)?
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education,
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
3
4
18
Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2)
to those that do?
Reduce
7
15
Policy Stance
19
No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
Score
Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2)
No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a
timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for
absolute or intensity-based achievements
Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple
action by business?
strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points
awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website,
publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying
20
Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change
action?
No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly
opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and
active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to
undermine climate change action
21
Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)?
No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through
company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
(emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
10Ks)
Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other
meaningful subsegments?
Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1);
Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2)
Report
22
Total
Sources
0
2
7
7
10
10
0
(up to -10)
7
7
12
10
0
61
2005 Ecomagination Report
2006 Citizenship Report: Solving Big Needs
US EPA Climate Leaders corporate summary
Pew Center's Business Environmental Leadership Council corporate summary
Carbon Disclosure Project responses (CDP4/CDP3/CDP2/CDP1)
GE Citizenship website
AES-GE Press Release: "GE, AES Plan Partnership To Lead US Market In Offsetting Greenhouse Gas Emissions"
USCAP website
Published June 2007
Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007
Achieve
reductions (take
steps, achieve,
verify) (27)
Encourage
reductions by
others (10)
Support public
policy to require
reductions
(-10, +10)
Publicly disclose
emissions
(inventory),
reductions, and
2 related actions
(12)
100
General Mills
Climate Counts Scorecard
www.climatecounts.org
Summary:
Copyright 2007
Score
Highest Possible Score
13
19
0
5
37
22
56
10
12
100
Review
Reduce
Policy Stance
Report
TOTAL
Full Scorecard:
Questions/Criteria
Scoring Guideposts (possible points)
Review
Highest
Possible
Score
13
5
22
5
3
3
2
2
1
GHG emissions inventory completed?
2
Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator?
3
Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included?
4
0
5
Are indirect emissions accounted for?
Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1);
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4)
portfolio)
Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on
reporting (where applicable)?
company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3)
Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting)
0
Identify and
4 quantify
emissions (22)
4
6
Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years?
One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
3
4
Has a clear goal been set?
No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)
19
4
56
4
8
Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in
company's size/composition)
No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2);
Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested
during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the
appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible
1
3
9
Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year)
No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than
small reduction goal set far in the future)
5
10
Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible
parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate
action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available
detailed plan
2
Set goals and
5 establish internal
management
(19)
5
11
Is there top-level support for climate change action?
0
2
12
Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of
on reduction)
emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future
reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on
level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points
2
8
13
Has the company achieved emissions reductions?
0
10
14
Absolute or intensity-based reductions?
Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be
achieved even if a relative target was set
Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.)
0
4
3
5
16
Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of
products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2);
Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of
products/services (3-4)
0
4
17
Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or
customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct
education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)?
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education,
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
2
4
18
Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2)
to those that do?
Reduce
7
15
Policy Stance
19
No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
Score
Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2)
No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a
timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for
absolute or intensity-based achievements
Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple
action by business?
strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points
awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website,
publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying
20
Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change
action?
No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly
opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and
active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to
undermine climate change action
21
Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)?
No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through
company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
(emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
10Ks)
Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other
meaningful subsegments?
Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1);
Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2)
Report
22
Total
Sources
0
2
0
0
10
10
0
(up to -10)
5
5
12
10
0
37
Environmental Report 2006
Carbon Disclosure Project responses (CDP4/CDP3/CDP2/CDP1)
General Mills Corporate Commitment website
Published June 2007
Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007
Achieve
reductions (take
steps, achieve,
verify) (27)
Encourage
reductions by
others (10)
Support public
policy to require
reductions
(-10, +10)
Publicly disclose
emissions
(inventory),
reductions, and
2 related actions
(12)
100
Google
Climate Counts Scorecard
www.climatecounts.org
Summary:
Copyright 2007
Score
Highest Possible Score
0
14
1
2
17
22
56
10
12
100
Review
Reduce
Policy Stance
Report
TOTAL
Full Scorecard:
Questions/Criteria
Scoring Guideposts (possible points)
Review
1
GHG emissions inventory completed?
No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
Score
Highest
Possible
Score
0
0
22
5
0
3
0
2
2
Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator?
3
Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included?
4
0
5
Are indirect emissions accounted for?
Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1);
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4)
portfolio)
Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on
reporting (where applicable)?
company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3)
Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting)
0
Identify and
4 quantify
emissions (22)
4
6
Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years?
One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
0
4
Has a clear goal been set?
No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)
14
1
56
4
8
Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in
company's size/composition)
No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2);
Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested
during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the
appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible
0
3
9
Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year)
No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than
small reduction goal set far in the future)
0
10
Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible
parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate
action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available
detailed plan
2
Set goals and
5 establish internal
management
(19)
5
11
Is there top-level support for climate change action?
2
2
12
Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of
on reduction)
emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future
reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on
level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points
2
8
13
Has the company achieved emissions reductions?
1
10
14
Absolute or intensity-based reductions?
Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be
achieved even if a relative target was set
Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.)
0
4
0
5
16
Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of
products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2);
Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of
products/services (3-4)
2
4
17
Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or
customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct
education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)?
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education,
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
4
4
18
Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2)
to those that do?
Reduce
7
15
Policy Stance
19
Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2)
No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a
timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for
absolute or intensity-based achievements
Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple
action by business?
strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points
awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website,
publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying
20
Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change
action?
No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly
opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and
active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to
undermine climate change action
21
Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)?
No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through
company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
(emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
10Ks)
Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other
meaningful subsegments?
Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1);
Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2)
Report
22
Total
Sources
0
2
1
1
10
10
0
(up to -10)
2
2
12
10
0
17
Annual Reports 2005-2006
Carbon Disclosure Project (did not participate)
The Official Google Blog
SFGate.com: "Google, PG&E, Bay Area firms pledge to combat climate change"
Google Benefits website
Google Earth
Nemertes Research: "Google's Power Proposal"
Treehugger.com: "Google Ends Search for Corporate Alternative Energy Source"
Published June 2007
Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007
Achieve
reductions (take
steps, achieve,
verify) (27)
Encourage
reductions by
others (10)
Support public
policy to require
reductions
(-10, +10)
Publicly disclose
emissions
(inventory),
reductions, and
2 related actions
(12)
100
Groupe Danone
Climate Counts Scorecard
www.climatecounts.org
Summary:
Copyright 2007
Score
Highest Possible Score
18
25
2
5
50
22
56
10
12
100
Review
Reduce
Policy Stance
Report
TOTAL
Full Scorecard:
Questions/Criteria
Scoring Guideposts (possible points)
Review
1
GHG emissions inventory completed?
No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
Score
Highest
Possible
Score
18
5
22
5
3
3
2
2
2
Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator?
3
Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included?
4
4
5
Are indirect emissions accounted for?
Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1);
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4)
portfolio)
Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on
reporting (where applicable)?
company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3)
Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting)
0
Identify and
4 quantify
emissions (22)
4
6
Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years?
One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
4
4
Has a clear goal been set?
No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)
25
3
56
4
8
Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in
company's size/composition)
No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2);
Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested
during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the
appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible
2
3
9
Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year)
No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than
small reduction goal set far in the future)
4
10
Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible
parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate
action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available
detailed plan
3
Set goals and
5 establish internal
management
(19)
5
11
Is there top-level support for climate change action?
0
2
12
Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of
on reduction)
emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future
reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on
level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points
5
8
13
Has the company achieved emissions reductions?
5
10
14
Absolute or intensity-based reductions?
Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be
achieved even if a relative target was set
Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.)
0
4
0
5
16
Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of
products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2);
Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of
products/services (3-4)
1
4
17
Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or
customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct
education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)?
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education,
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
2
4
18
Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2)
to those that do?
Reduce
7
15
Policy Stance
19
Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2)
No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a
timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for
absolute or intensity-based achievements
Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple
action by business?
strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points
awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website,
publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying
20
Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change
action?
No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly
opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and
active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to
undermine climate change action
21
Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)?
No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through
company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
(emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
10Ks)
Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other
meaningful subsegments?
Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1);
Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2)
Report
22
Total
Sources
0
2
2
2
10
10
0
(up to -10)
5
5
12
10
0
50
Danone Sustainable Development website
Social and Environmental Responsibility Reports (2004-2005)
Annual Reports 2000-2005
Green Plants report
Integrated Environment System report
The Kyoto Protocol report
Carbon Disclosure Project responses (CDP3/CDP2/CDP1 -- permission declined for public access to CDP3/CDP2 responses)
Published June 2007
Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007
Achieve
reductions (take
steps, achieve,
verify) (27)
Encourage
reductions by
others (10)
Support public
policy to require
reductions
(-10, +10)
Publicly disclose
emissions
(inventory),
reductions, and
2 related actions
(12)
100
Hitachi
Climate Counts Scorecard
www.climatecounts.org
Summary:
Copyright 2007
Score
Highest Possible Score
14
17
0
5
36
22
56
10
12
100
Review
Reduce
Policy Stance
Report
TOTAL
Full Scorecard:
Questions/Criteria
Scoring Guideposts (possible points)
Review
1
GHG emissions inventory completed?
No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
Score
Highest
Possible
Score
14
5
22
5
2
3
2
2
2
Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator?
3
Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included?
4
1
5
Are indirect emissions accounted for?
Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1);
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4)
portfolio)
Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on
reporting (where applicable)?
company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3)
Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting)
1
Identify and
4 quantify
emissions (22)
4
6
Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years?
One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
3
4
Has a clear goal been set?
No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)
17
4
56
4
8
Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in
company's size/composition)
No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2);
Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested
during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the
appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible
2
3
9
Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year)
No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than
small reduction goal set far in the future)
2
10
Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible
parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate
action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available
detailed plan
2
Set goals and
5 establish internal
management
(19)
5
11
Is there top-level support for climate change action?
0
2
12
Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of
on reduction)
emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future
reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on
level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points
2
8
13
Has the company achieved emissions reductions?
2
10
14
Absolute or intensity-based reductions?
Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be
achieved even if a relative target was set
Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.)
0
4
0
5
16
Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of
products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2);
Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of
products/services (3-4)
3
4
17
Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or
customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct
education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)?
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education,
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
0
4
18
Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2)
to those that do?
Reduce
7
15
Policy Stance
19
Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2)
No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a
timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for
absolute or intensity-based achievements
Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple
action by business?
strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points
awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website,
publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying
20
Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change
action?
No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly
opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and
active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to
undermine climate change action
21
Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)?
No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through
company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
(emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
10Ks)
Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other
meaningful subsegments?
Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1);
Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2)
Report
22
Total
Sources
0
2
0
0
10
10
0
(up to -10)
5
4
12
10
1
36
“hitachi green web” website
Carbon Disclosure Project responses (CDP4/CDP3/CDP2/CDP1 -- permission declined for public access to CDP1 response)
Corporate Social Responsibility website
CSR Report 2006
Hitachi News Release: "Hitachi Unveils Environmental Vision 2015 Medium-Term Plan for Environmental Management"
Hitachi News Release: "Hitachi and GE to Create a Global Alliance for Nuclear Power Business"
Published June 2007
Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007
Achieve
reductions (take
steps, achieve,
verify) (27)
Encourage
reductions by
others (10)
Support public
policy to require
reductions
(-10, +10)
Publicly disclose
emissions
(inventory),
reductions, and
2 related actions
(12)
100
HP
Climate Counts Scorecard
www.climatecounts.org
Summary:
Copyright 2007
Score
Highest Possible Score
16
33
0
10
59
22
56
10
12
100
Review
Reduce
Policy Stance
Report
TOTAL
Full Scorecard:
Questions/Criteria
Scoring Guideposts (possible points)
Review
Highest
Possible
Score
16
3
22
5
3
3
2
2
1
GHG emissions inventory completed?
2
Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator?
3
Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included?
4
0
5
Are indirect emissions accounted for?
Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1);
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4)
portfolio)
Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on
reporting (where applicable)?
company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3)
Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting)
4
Identify and
4 quantify
emissions (22)
4
6
Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years?
One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
4
4
Has a clear goal been set?
No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)
33
4
56
4
8
Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in
company's size/composition)
No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2);
Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested
during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the
appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible
3
3
9
Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year)
No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than
small reduction goal set far in the future)
4
10
Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible
parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate
action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available
detailed plan
2
Set goals and
5 establish internal
management
(19)
5
11
Is there top-level support for climate change action?
1
2
12
Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of
on reduction)
emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future
reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on
level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points
8
8
13
Has the company achieved emissions reductions?
3
10
14
Absolute or intensity-based reductions?
Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be
achieved even if a relative target was set
Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.)
2
4
1
5
16
Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of
products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2);
Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of
products/services (3-4)
1
4
17
Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or
customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct
education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)?
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education,
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
4
4
18
Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2)
to those that do?
Reduce
7
15
Policy Stance
19
No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
Score
Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2)
No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a
timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for
absolute or intensity-based achievements
Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple
action by business?
strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points
awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website,
publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying
20
Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change
action?
No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly
opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and
active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to
undermine climate change action
21
Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)?
No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through
company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
(emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
10Ks)
Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other
meaningful subsegments?
Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1);
Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2)
Report
22
Total
Sources
0
2
0
0
10
10
0
(up to -10)
10
8
12
10
2
59
FY05 Global Citizenship Report
Pew Center's Business Environmental Leadership Council corporate summary
Carbon Disclosure Project responses (CDP4/CDP3/CDP2/CDP1)
2005 Global Greenhouse Gas Register report
HP Environmental Sustainability website
Published June 2007
Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007
Achieve
reductions (take
steps, achieve,
verify) (27)
Encourage
reductions by
others (10)
Support public
policy to require
reductions
(-10, +10)
Publicly disclose
emissions
(inventory),
reductions, and
2 related actions
(12)
100
IBM
Climate Counts Scorecard
www.climatecounts.org
Summary:
Copyright 2007
Score
Highest Possible Score
17
43
1
9
70
22
56
10
12
100
Review
Reduce
Policy Stance
Report
TOTAL
Full Scorecard:
Questions/Criteria
Scoring Guideposts (possible points)
Review
Highest
Possible
Score
17
5
22
5
3
3
2
2
1
GHG emissions inventory completed?
2
Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator?
3
Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included?
4
0
5
Are indirect emissions accounted for?
Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1);
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4)
portfolio)
Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on
reporting (where applicable)?
company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3)
Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting)
3
Identify and
4 quantify
emissions (22)
4
6
Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years?
One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
4
4
Has a clear goal been set?
No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)
43
4
56
4
8
Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in
company's size/composition)
No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2);
Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested
during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the
appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible
1
3
9
Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year)
No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than
small reduction goal set far in the future)
4
10
Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible
parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate
action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available
detailed plan
2
Set goals and
5 establish internal
management
(19)
5
11
Is there top-level support for climate change action?
1
2
12
Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of
on reduction)
emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future
reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on
level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points
7
8
13
Has the company achieved emissions reductions?
7
10
14
Absolute or intensity-based reductions?
Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be
achieved even if a relative target was set
Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.)
4
4
5
5
16
Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of
products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2);
Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of
products/services (3-4)
4
4
17
Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or
customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct
education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)?
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education,
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
4
4
18
Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2)
to those that do?
Reduce
7
15
Policy Stance
19
No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
Score
Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2)
No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a
timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for
absolute or intensity-based achievements
Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple
action by business?
strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points
awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website,
publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying
20
Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change
action?
No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly
opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and
active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to
undermine climate change action
21
Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)?
No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through
company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
(emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
10Ks)
Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other
meaningful subsegments?
Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1);
Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2)
Report
22
Total
Sources
0
2
1
1
10
10
0
(up to -10)
9
8
12
10
1
70
2006 Corporate Responsibility Report (also 2001, 2002, 2004)
US EPA Climate Leaders corporate summary
Pew Center's Business Environmental Leadership Council corporate summary
Carbon Disclosure Project response (CDP3)
IBM Energy and Climate Protection 2006 fact sheet
Lenovo Environmental Report 2007
2001 Energy Star Award Recipient summary
Published June 2007
Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007
Achieve
reductions (take
steps, achieve,
verify) (27)
Encourage
reductions by
others (10)
Support public
policy to require
reductions
(-10, +10)
Publicly disclose
emissions
(inventory),
reductions, and
2 related actions
(12)
100
Climate Counts Scorecard
Jones Apparel Group
www.climatecounts.org
Summary:
Copyright 2007
Score
Highest Possible Score
0
0
0
0
0
22
56
10
12
100
Review
Reduce
Policy Stance
Report
TOTAL
Full Scorecard:
Questions/Criteria
Scoring Guideposts (possible points)
Review
1
GHG emissions inventory completed?
No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
Score
Highest
Possible
Score
0
0
22
5
0
3
0
2
2
Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator?
3
Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included?
4
0
5
Are indirect emissions accounted for?
Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1);
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4)
portfolio)
Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on
reporting (where applicable)?
company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3)
Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting)
0
Identify and
4 quantify
emissions (22)
4
6
Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years?
One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
0
4
Has a clear goal been set?
No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)
0
0
56
4
8
Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in
company's size/composition)
No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2);
Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested
during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the
appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible
0
3
9
Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year)
No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than
small reduction goal set far in the future)
0
10
Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible
parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate
action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available
detailed plan
0
Set goals and
5 establish internal
management
(19)
5
11
Is there top-level support for climate change action?
0
2
12
Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of
on reduction)
emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future
reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on
level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points
0
8
13
Has the company achieved emissions reductions?
0
10
14
Absolute or intensity-based reductions?
Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be
achieved even if a relative target was set
Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.)
0
4
0
5
16
Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of
products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2);
Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of
products/services (3-4)
0
4
17
Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or
customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct
education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)?
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education,
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
0
4
18
Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2)
to those that do?
Reduce
7
15
Policy Stance
19
Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2)
No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a
timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for
absolute or intensity-based achievements
Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple
action by business?
strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points
awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website,
publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying
20
Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change
action?
No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly
opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and
active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to
undermine climate change action
21
Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)?
No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through
company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
(emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
10Ks)
Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other
meaningful subsegments?
Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1);
Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2)
Report
22
Total
Sources
0
2
0
0
10
10
0
(up to -10)
0
0
12
10
0
0
Jones Apparel 2005 Annual Report
Carbon Disclosure Project (no responses or declined to participate)
Published June 2007
Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007
Achieve
reductions (take
steps, achieve,
verify) (27)
Encourage
reductions by
others (10)
Support public
policy to require
reductions
(-10, +10)
Publicly disclose
emissions
(inventory),
reductions, and
2 related actions
(12)
100
Kellogg
Climate Counts Scorecard
www.climatecounts.org
Summary:
Copyright 2007
Score
Highest Possible Score
9
11
1
3
24
22
56
10
12
100
Review
Reduce
Policy Stance
Report
TOTAL
Full Scorecard:
Questions/Criteria
Scoring Guideposts (possible points)
Review
1
GHG emissions inventory completed?
No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
Score
Highest
Possible
Score
9
4
22
5
1
3
2
2
2
Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator?
3
Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included?
4
0
5
Are indirect emissions accounted for?
Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1);
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4)
portfolio)
Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on
reporting (where applicable)?
company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3)
Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting)
0
Identify and
4 quantify
emissions (22)
4
6
Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years?
One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
2
4
Has a clear goal been set?
No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)
11
1
56
4
8
Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in
company's size/composition)
No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2);
Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested
during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the
appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible
1
3
9
Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year)
No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than
small reduction goal set far in the future)
0
10
Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible
parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate
action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available
detailed plan
2
Set goals and
5 establish internal
management
(19)
5
11
Is there top-level support for climate change action?
2
2
12
Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of
on reduction)
emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future
reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on
level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points
4
8
13
Has the company achieved emissions reductions?
0
10
14
Absolute or intensity-based reductions?
Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be
achieved even if a relative target was set
Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.)
0
4
1
5
16
Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of
products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2);
Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of
products/services (3-4)
0
4
17
Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or
customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct
education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)?
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education,
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
0
4
18
Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2)
to those that do?
Reduce
7
15
Policy Stance
19
Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2)
No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a
timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for
absolute or intensity-based achievements
Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple
action by business?
strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points
awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website,
publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying
20
Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change
action?
No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly
opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and
active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to
undermine climate change action
21
Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)?
No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through
company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
(emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
10Ks)
Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other
meaningful subsegments?
Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1);
Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2)
Report
22
Total
Sources
0
2
1
1
10
10
0
(up to -10)
3
3
12
10
0
24
US EPA Climate Leaders corporate summary
Carbon Disclosure Project responses (CDP4/CDP2 -- permission declined for public access to CDP3 response)
Kellogg company website
International Chamber of Commerce website
Published June 2007
Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007
Achieve
reductions (take
steps, achieve,
verify) (27)
Encourage
reductions by
others (10)
Support public
policy to require
reductions
(-10, +10)
Publicly disclose
emissions
(inventory),
reductions, and
2 related actions
(12)
100
Kimberly-Clark
Climate Counts Scorecard
www.climatecounts.org
Summary:
Copyright 2007
Score
Highest Possible Score
13
21
0
7
41
22
56
10
12
100
Review
Reduce
Policy Stance
Report
TOTAL
Full Scorecard:
Questions/Criteria
Scoring Guideposts (possible points)
Review
1
GHG emissions inventory completed?
No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
Score
Highest
Possible
Score
13
4
22
5
3
3
0
2
2
Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator?
3
Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included?
4
0
5
Are indirect emissions accounted for?
Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1);
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4)
portfolio)
Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on
reporting (where applicable)?
company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3)
Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting)
2
Identify and
4 quantify
emissions (22)
4
6
Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years?
One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
4
4
Has a clear goal been set?
No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)
21
1
56
4
8
Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in
company's size/composition)
No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2);
Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested
during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the
appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible
0
3
9
Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year)
No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than
small reduction goal set far in the future)
1
10
Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible
parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate
action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available
detailed plan
3
Set goals and
5 establish internal
management
(19)
5
11
Is there top-level support for climate change action?
1
2
12
Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of
on reduction)
emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future
reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on
level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points
6
8
13
Has the company achieved emissions reductions?
4
10
14
Absolute or intensity-based reductions?
Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be
achieved even if a relative target was set
Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.)
2
4
3
5
16
Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of
products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2);
Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of
products/services (3-4)
0
4
17
Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or
customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct
education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)?
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education,
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
0
4
18
Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2)
to those that do?
Reduce
7
15
Policy Stance
19
Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2)
No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a
timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for
absolute or intensity-based achievements
Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple
action by business?
strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points
awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website,
publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying
20
Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change
action?
No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly
opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and
active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to
undermine climate change action
21
Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)?
No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through
company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
(emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
10Ks)
Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other
meaningful subsegments?
Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1);
Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2)
Report
22
Total
Sources
0
2
0
0
10
10
0
(up to -10)
7
6
12
10
1
41
Kimberly-Clark’s Sustainability Reports 2001-2005
US EPA Climate Leaders corporate summary
Carbon Disclosure Project responses (CDP4/CDP3/CDP2 – no public access to CDP1 response)
Published June 2007
Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007
Achieve
reductions (take
steps, achieve,
verify) (27)
Encourage
reductions by
others (10)
Support public
policy to require
reductions
(-10, +10)
Publicly disclose
emissions
(inventory),
reductions, and
2 related actions
(12)
100
Kraft
Climate Counts Scorecard
www.climatecounts.org
Summary:
Copyright 2007
Score
Highest Possible Score
14
19
3
7
43
22
56
10
12
100
Review
Reduce
Policy Stance
Report
TOTAL
Full Scorecard:
Questions/Criteria
Scoring Guideposts (possible points)
Review
1
GHG emissions inventory completed?
No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
Score
Highest
Possible
Score
14
4
22
5
2
3
0
2
2
Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator?
3
Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included?
4
0
5
Are indirect emissions accounted for?
Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1);
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4)
portfolio)
Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on
reporting (where applicable)?
company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3)
Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting)
4
Identify and
4 quantify
emissions (22)
4
6
Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years?
One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
4
4
Has a clear goal been set?
No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)
19
1
56
4
8
Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in
company's size/composition)
No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2);
Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested
during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the
appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible
1
3
9
Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year)
No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than
small reduction goal set far in the future)
0
10
Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible
parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate
action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available
detailed plan
2
Set goals and
5 establish internal
management
(19)
5
11
Is there top-level support for climate change action?
1
2
12
Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of
on reduction)
emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future
reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on
level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points
4
8
13
Has the company achieved emissions reductions?
4
10
14
Absolute or intensity-based reductions?
Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be
achieved even if a relative target was set
Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.)
0
4
3
5
16
Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of
products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2);
Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of
products/services (3-4)
0
4
17
Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or
customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct
education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)?
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education,
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
3
4
18
Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2)
to those that do?
Reduce
7
15
Policy Stance
19
Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2)
No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a
timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for
absolute or intensity-based achievements
Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple
action by business?
strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points
awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website,
publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying
20
Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change
action?
No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly
opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and
active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to
undermine climate change action
21
Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)?
No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through
company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
(emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
10Ks)
Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other
meaningful subsegments?
Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1);
Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2)
Report
22
Total
Sources
0
2
3
3
10
10
0
(up to -10)
7
7
12
10
0
43
Kraft environmental website
Carbon Disclosure Project responses (CDP4/CDP3/CDP2)
Wuppertal Institute 2005-06 Annual Report
Iowa Department of Natural Resources Case Study: Kraft Foods Global, Inc.
Published June 2007
Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007
Achieve
reductions (take
steps, achieve,
verify) (27)
Encourage
reductions by
others (10)
Support public
policy to require
reductions
(-10, +10)
Publicly disclose
emissions
(inventory),
reductions, and
2 related actions
(12)
100
Levi Strauss
Climate Counts Scorecard
www.climatecounts.org
Summary:
Copyright 2007
Score
Highest Possible Score
0
1
0
0
1
22
56
10
12
100
Review
Reduce
Policy Stance
Report
TOTAL
Full Scorecard:
Questions/Criteria
Scoring Guideposts (possible points)
Review
Highest
Possible
Score
0
0
22
5
0
3
0
2
1
GHG emissions inventory completed?
2
Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator?
3
Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included?
4
0
5
Are indirect emissions accounted for?
Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1);
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4)
portfolio)
Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on
reporting (where applicable)?
company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3)
Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting)
0
Identify and
4 quantify
emissions (22)
4
6
Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years?
One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
0
4
Has a clear goal been set?
No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)
1
0
56
4
8
Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in
company's size/composition)
No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2);
Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested
during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the
appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible
0
3
9
Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year)
No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than
small reduction goal set far in the future)
0
10
Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible
parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate
action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available
detailed plan
0
Set goals and
5 establish internal
management
(19)
5
11
Is there top-level support for climate change action?
0
2
12
Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of
on reduction)
emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future
reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on
level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points
0
8
13
Has the company achieved emissions reductions?
0
10
14
Absolute or intensity-based reductions?
Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be
achieved even if a relative target was set
Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.)
0
4
0
5
16
Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of
products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2);
Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of
products/services (3-4)
1
4
17
Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or
customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct
education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)?
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education,
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
0
4
18
Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2)
to those that do?
Reduce
7
15
Policy Stance
19
No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
Score
Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2)
No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a
timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for
absolute or intensity-based achievements
Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple
action by business?
strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points
awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website,
publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying
20
Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change
action?
No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly
opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and
active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to
undermine climate change action
21
Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)?
No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through
company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
(emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
10Ks)
Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other
meaningful subsegments?
Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1);
Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2)
Report
22
Total
Sources
0
2
0
0
10
10
0
(up to -10)
0
0
12
10
0
1
Carbon Disclosure Project response (CDP3; no response or declined to participate CDP4/CDP2/CDP1)
Levi Strauss & Co. Contribution to the Commission's Consultation on The Green Paper on Corporate Social Responsibility
Levi Strauss & Co. Global Sourcing and Operating Guidelines
CSR Wire: "Levi's Brand Launches 100% Organic Cotton Jeans; Denim Leader to Offer Organic Options in its Most Popular Styles for Fall 2006"
Published June 2007
Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007
Achieve
reductions (take
steps, achieve,
verify) (27)
Encourage
reductions by
others (10)
Support public
policy to require
reductions
(-10, +10)
Publicly disclose
emissions
(inventory),
reductions, and
2 related actions
(12)
100
Limited Brands
Climate Counts Scorecard
www.climatecounts.org
Summary:
Copyright 2007
Score
Highest Possible Score
0
4
0
1
5
22
56
10
12
100
Review
Reduce
Policy Stance
Report
TOTAL
Full Scorecard:
Questions/Criteria
Scoring Guideposts (possible points)
Review
1
GHG emissions inventory completed?
No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
Score
Highest
Possible
Score
0
0
22
5
0
3
0
2
2
Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator?
3
Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included?
4
0
5
Are indirect emissions accounted for?
Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1);
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4)
portfolio)
Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on
reporting (where applicable)?
company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3)
Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting)
0
Identify and
4 quantify
emissions (22)
4
6
Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years?
One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
0
4
Has a clear goal been set?
No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)
4
0
56
4
8
Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in
company's size/composition)
No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2);
Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested
during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the
appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible
0
3
9
Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year)
No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than
small reduction goal set far in the future)
0
10
Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible
parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate
action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available
detailed plan
0
Set goals and
5 establish internal
management
(19)
5
11
Is there top-level support for climate change action?
0
2
12
Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of
on reduction)
emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future
reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on
level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points
3
8
13
Has the company achieved emissions reductions?
0
10
14
Absolute or intensity-based reductions?
Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be
achieved even if a relative target was set
Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.)
0
4
0
5
16
Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of
products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2);
Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of
products/services (3-4)
0
4
17
Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or
customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct
education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)?
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education,
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
0
4
18
Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2)
to those that do?
Reduce
7
15
Policy Stance
19
Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2)
No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a
timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for
absolute or intensity-based achievements
Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple
action by business?
strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points
awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website,
publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying
20
Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change
action?
No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly
opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and
active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to
undermine climate change action
21
Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)?
No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through
company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
(emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
10Ks)
Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other
meaningful subsegments?
Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1);
Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2)
Report
22
Total
Sources
1
2
0
0
10
10
0
(up to -10)
1
1
12
10
0
5
Carbon Disclosure Project response (CDP4 -- permission declined for public access)
Limited Brands Environmental Responsibility website
Published June 2007
Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007
Achieve
reductions (take
steps, achieve,
verify) (27)
Encourage
reductions by
others (10)
Support public
policy to require
reductions
(-10, +10)
Publicly disclose
emissions
(inventory),
reductions, and
2 related actions
(12)
100
Liz Claiborne
Climate Counts Scorecard
www.climatecounts.org
Summary:
Copyright 2007
Score
Highest Possible Score
0
14
0
1
15
22
56
10
12
100
Review
Reduce
Policy Stance
Report
TOTAL
Full Scorecard:
Questions/Criteria
Scoring Guideposts (possible points)
Review
Highest
Possible
Score
0
0
22
5
0
3
0
2
1
GHG emissions inventory completed?
2
Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator?
3
Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included?
4
0
5
Are indirect emissions accounted for?
Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1);
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4)
portfolio)
Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on
reporting (where applicable)?
company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3)
Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting)
0
Identify and
4 quantify
emissions (22)
4
6
Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years?
One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
0
4
Has a clear goal been set?
No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)
14
0
56
4
8
Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in
company's size/composition)
No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2);
Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested
during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the
appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible
0
3
9
Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year)
No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than
small reduction goal set far in the future)
0
10
Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible
parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate
action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available
detailed plan
2
Set goals and
5 establish internal
management
(19)
5
11
Is there top-level support for climate change action?
2
2
12
Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of
on reduction)
emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future
reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on
level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points
6
8
13
Has the company achieved emissions reductions?
0
10
14
Absolute or intensity-based reductions?
Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be
achieved even if a relative target was set
Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.)
0
4
0
5
16
Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of
products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2);
Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of
products/services (3-4)
3
4
17
Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or
customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct
education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)?
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education,
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
1
4
18
Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2)
to those that do?
Reduce
7
15
Policy Stance
19
No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
Score
Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2)
No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a
timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for
absolute or intensity-based achievements
Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple
action by business?
strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points
awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website,
publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying
20
Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change
action?
No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly
opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and
active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to
undermine climate change action
21
Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)?
No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through
company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
(emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
10Ks)
Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other
meaningful subsegments?
Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1);
Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2)
Report
22
Total
Sources
0
2
0
0
10
10
0
(up to -10)
1
1
12
10
0
15
Carbon Disclosure Project response (CDP4 -- permission declined for public access)
EPA Green Power Partnership website
prAna Natural Power Initiative website
reFOCUS article: "Top U.S. retailers buy green power for 82,000 homes"
Grist interview: Beaver Theodosakis, founder of prAna
Published June 2007
Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007
Achieve
reductions (take
steps, achieve,
verify) (27)
Encourage
reductions by
others (10)
Support public
policy to require
reductions
(-10, +10)
Publicly disclose
emissions
(inventory),
reductions, and
2 related actions
(12)
100
L'Oréal
Climate Counts Scorecard
www.climatecounts.org
Summary:
Copyright 2007
Score
Highest Possible Score
12
29
0
4
45
22
56
10
12
100
Review
Reduce
Policy Stance
Report
TOTAL
Full Scorecard:
Questions/Criteria
Scoring Guideposts (possible points)
Review
1
GHG emissions inventory completed?
No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
Score
Highest
Possible
Score
12
3
22
5
3
3
1
2
2
Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator?
3
Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included?
4
1
5
Are indirect emissions accounted for?
Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1);
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4)
portfolio)
Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on
reporting (where applicable)?
company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3)
Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting)
0
Identify and
4 quantify
emissions (22)
4
6
Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years?
One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
4
4
Has a clear goal been set?
No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)
29
4
56
4
8
Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in
company's size/composition)
No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2);
Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested
during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the
appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible
1
3
9
Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year)
No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than
small reduction goal set far in the future)
2
10
Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible
parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate
action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available
detailed plan
3
Set goals and
5 establish internal
management
(19)
5
11
Is there top-level support for climate change action?
2
2
12
Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of
on reduction)
emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future
reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on
level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points
6
8
13
Has the company achieved emissions reductions?
5
10
14
Absolute or intensity-based reductions?
Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be
achieved even if a relative target was set
Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.)
0
4
3
5
16
Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of
products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2);
Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of
products/services (3-4)
0
4
17
Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or
customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct
education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)?
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education,
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
2
4
18
Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2)
to those that do?
Reduce
7
15
Policy Stance
19
Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2)
No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a
timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for
absolute or intensity-based achievements
Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple
action by business?
strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points
awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website,
publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying
20
Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change
action?
No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly
opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and
active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to
undermine climate change action
21
Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)?
No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through
company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
(emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
10Ks)
Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other
meaningful subsegments?
Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1);
Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2)
Report
22
Total
Sources
1
2
0
0
10
10
0
(up to -10)
4
4
12
10
0
45
2005 Sustainable Development Report
Carbon Disclosure Project responses (CDP3/CDP2/CDP1 – no public access to CDP4 response)
Published June 2007
Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007
Achieve
reductions (take
steps, achieve,
verify) (27)
Encourage
reductions by
others (10)
Support public
policy to require
reductions
(-10, +10)
Publicly disclose
emissions
(inventory),
reductions, and
2 related actions
(12)
100
McDonald's
Climate Counts Scorecard
Summary:
www.climatecounts.org
Score
Highest Possible Score
8
6
0
8
22
22
56
10
12
100
Review
Reduce
Policy Stance
Report
TOTAL
Copyright 2007
Full Scorecard:
Questions/Criteria
Scoring Guideposts (possible points)
Review
1
GHG emissions inventory completed?
No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
Score
Highest
Possible
Score
8
2
22
5
3
3
0
2
2
Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator?
3
Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included?
4
1
5
Are indirect emissions accounted for?
Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1);
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4)
portfolio)
Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on
reporting (where applicable)?
company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3)
Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting)
0
Identify and
4 quantify
emissions (22)
4
6
Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years?
One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
2
4
Has a clear goal been set?
No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)
6
1
56
4
8
Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in
company's size/composition)
No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2);
Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested
during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the
appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible
0
3
9
Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year)
No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than
small reduction goal set far in the future)
0
10
Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible
parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate
action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available
detailed plan
0
Set goals and
5 establish internal
management
(19)
5
11
Is there top-level support for climate change action?
0
2
12
Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of
on reduction)
emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future
reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on
level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points
4
8
13
Has the company achieved emissions reductions?
0
10
14
Absolute or intensity-based reductions?
Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be
achieved even if a relative target was set
Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.)
0
4
0
5
16
Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of
products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2);
Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of
products/services (3-4)
1
4
17
Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or
customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct
education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)?
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education,
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
0
4
18
Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2)
to those that do?
Reduce
7
15
Policy Stance
19
Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2)
No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a
timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for
absolute or intensity-based achievements
Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple
action by business?
strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points
awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website,
publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying
20
Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change
action?
No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly
opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and
active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to
undermine climate change action
21
Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)?
No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through
company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
(emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
10Ks)
Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other
meaningful subsegments?
Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1);
Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2)
Report
22
Total
Sources
0
2
0
0
10
10
0
(up to -10)
8
7
12
10
1
22
McDonald’s Worldwide Corporate Responsibility Report 2006
Open Doors Policy Report
No Carbon Disclosure Project response
Published June 2007
Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007
Achieve
reductions (take
steps, achieve,
verify) (27)
Encourage
reductions by
others (10)
Support public
policy to require
reductions
(-10, +10)
Publicly disclose
emissions
(inventory),
reductions, and
2 related actions
(12)
100
Microsoft
Climate Counts Scorecard
www.climatecounts.org
Summary:
Copyright 2007
Score
Highest Possible Score
13
15
0
3
31
22
56
10
12
100
Review
Reduce
Policy Stance
Report
TOTAL
Full Scorecard:
Questions/Criteria
Scoring Guideposts (possible points)
Review
1
GHG emissions inventory completed?
No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
Score
Highest
Possible
Score
13
5
22
5
2
3
2
2
2
Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator?
3
Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included?
4
2
5
Are indirect emissions accounted for?
Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1);
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4)
portfolio)
Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on
reporting (where applicable)?
company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3)
Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting)
0
Identify and
4 quantify
emissions (22)
4
6
Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years?
One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
2
4
Has a clear goal been set?
No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)
15
0
56
4
8
Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in
company's size/composition)
No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2);
Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested
during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the
appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible
0
3
9
Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year)
No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than
small reduction goal set far in the future)
0
10
Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible
parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate
action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available
detailed plan
2
Set goals and
5 establish internal
management
(19)
5
11
Is there top-level support for climate change action?
1
2
12
Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of
on reduction)
emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future
reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on
level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points
5
8
13
Has the company achieved emissions reductions?
1
10
14
Absolute or intensity-based reductions?
Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be
achieved even if a relative target was set
Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.)
0
4
0
5
16
Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of
products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2);
Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of
products/services (3-4)
2
4
17
Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or
customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct
education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)?
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education,
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
4
4
18
Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2)
to those that do?
Reduce
7
15
Policy Stance
19
Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2)
No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a
timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for
absolute or intensity-based achievements
Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple
action by business?
strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points
awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website,
publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying
20
Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change
action?
No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly
opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and
active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to
undermine climate change action
21
Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)?
No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through
company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
(emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
10Ks)
Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other
meaningful subsegments?
Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1);
Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2)
Report
22
Total
Sources
0
2
0
0
10
10
0
(up to -10)
3
3
12
10
0
31
2006 Citizenship Report
Carbon Disclosure Project responses (CDP4/CDP3/CDP2)
Policy Agenda
Published June 2007
Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007
Achieve
reductions (take
steps, achieve,
verify) (27)
Encourage
reductions by
others (10)
Support public
policy to require
reductions
(-10, +10)
Publicly disclose
emissions
(inventory),
reductions, and
2 related actions
(12)
100
Climate Counts Scorecard
Molson Coors Brewing
www.climatecounts.org
Summary:
Copyright 2007
Score
Highest Possible Score
7
14
-5
4
20
22
56
10
12
100
Review
Reduce
Policy Stance
Report
TOTAL
Full Scorecard:
Questions/Criteria
Scoring Guideposts (possible points)
Review
1
GHG emissions inventory completed?
No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
Score
Highest
Possible
Score
7
1
22
5
2
3
1
2
2
Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator?
3
Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included?
4
1
5
Are indirect emissions accounted for?
Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1);
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4)
portfolio)
Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on
reporting (where applicable)?
company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3)
Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting)
1
Identify and
4 quantify
emissions (22)
4
6
Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years?
One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
1
4
Has a clear goal been set?
No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)
14
2
56
4
8
Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in
company's size/composition)
No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2);
Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested
during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the
appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible
1
3
9
Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year)
No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than
small reduction goal set far in the future)
2
10
Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible
parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate
action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available
detailed plan
1
Set goals and
5 establish internal
management
(19)
5
11
Is there top-level support for climate change action?
1
2
12
Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of
on reduction)
emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future
reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on
level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points
5
8
13
Has the company achieved emissions reductions?
0
10
14
Absolute or intensity-based reductions?
Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be
achieved even if a relative target was set
Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.)
0
4
1
5
16
Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of
products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2);
Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of
products/services (3-4)
0
4
17
Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or
customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct
education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)?
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education,
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
1
4
18
Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2)
to those that do?
Reduce
7
15
Policy Stance
19
Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2)
No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a
timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for
absolute or intensity-based achievements
Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple
action by business?
strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points
awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website,
publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying
20
Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change
action?
No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly
opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and
active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to
undermine climate change action
21
Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)?
No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through
company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
(emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
10Ks)
Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other
meaningful subsegments?
Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1);
Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2)
Report
22
Total
Sources
0
2
-5
0
10
10
-5
(up to -10)
4
3
12
10
1
20
Social Responsibility and Environment Review 2003
US EPA Climate Leaders corporate summary
Carbon Disclosure Project response (CDP4)
Molson Coors 2005 EHS Progress Report
EPA Climate Leaders Parters
Molson Coors company website
Castle Rock Foundation website
National Center for Policy Analysis website
American Enterprise Institue for Public Policy Research website
Treehugger.com: "Coors To Turn Brewery Waste into Vehicle Fuel"
Published June 2007
Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007
Achieve
reductions (take
steps, achieve,
verify) (27)
Encourage
reductions by
others (10)
Support public
policy to require
reductions
(-10, +10)
Publicly disclose
emissions
(inventory),
reductions, and
2 related actions
(12)
100
Motorola
Climate Counts Scorecard
www.climatecounts.org
Summary:
Copyright 2007
Score
Highest Possible Score
15
36
2
7
60
22
56
10
12
100
Review
Reduce
Policy Stance
Report
TOTAL
Full Scorecard:
Questions/Criteria
Scoring Guideposts (possible points)
Review
Highest
Possible
Score
15
4
22
5
3
3
2
2
1
GHG emissions inventory completed?
2
Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator?
3
Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included?
4
2
5
Are indirect emissions accounted for?
Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1);
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4)
portfolio)
Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on
reporting (where applicable)?
company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3)
Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting)
0
Identify and
4 quantify
emissions (22)
4
6
Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years?
One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
4
4
Has a clear goal been set?
No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)
36
4
56
4
8
Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in
company's size/composition)
No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2);
Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested
during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the
appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible
2
3
9
Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year)
No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than
small reduction goal set far in the future)
3
10
Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible
parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate
action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available
detailed plan
2
Set goals and
5 establish internal
management
(19)
5
11
Is there top-level support for climate change action?
1
2
12
Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of
on reduction)
emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future
reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on
level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points
3
8
13
Has the company achieved emissions reductions?
10
10
14
Absolute or intensity-based reductions?
Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be
achieved even if a relative target was set
Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.)
4
4
2
5
16
Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of
products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2);
Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of
products/services (3-4)
4
4
17
Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or
customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct
education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)?
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education,
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
0
4
18
Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2)
to those that do?
Reduce
7
15
Policy Stance
19
No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
Score
Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2)
No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a
timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for
absolute or intensity-based achievements
Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple
action by business?
strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points
awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website,
publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying
20
Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change
action?
No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly
opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and
active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to
undermine climate change action
21
Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)?
No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through
company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
(emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
10Ks)
Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other
meaningful subsegments?
Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1);
Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2)
Report
22
Total
Sources
1
2
2
2
10
10
0
(up to -10)
7
7
12
10
0
60
Global Corporate Citizenship Reports (2000-2005)
Environmental, Health, and Safety Reports (1998-1999)
Carbon Disclosure Project responses (CDP4/CDP3/CDP2)
Motorola Corporate Citizenship website
IT Week: "Greenpeace praises Dell for green IT, slams Motorola"
Published June 2007
Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007
Achieve
reductions (take
steps, achieve,
verify) (27)
Encourage
reductions by
others (10)
Support public
policy to require
reductions
(-10, +10)
Publicly disclose
emissions
(inventory),
reductions, and
2 related actions
(12)
100
Nestlé
Climate Counts Scorecard
www.climatecounts.org
Summary:
Copyright 2007
Score
Highest Possible Score
14
22
-1
7
42
22
56
10
12
100
Review
Reduce
Policy Stance
Report
TOTAL
Full Scorecard:
Questions/Criteria
Scoring Guideposts (possible points)
Review
Highest
Possible
Score
14
4
22
5
2
3
0
2
1
GHG emissions inventory completed?
2
Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator?
3
Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included?
4
1
5
Are indirect emissions accounted for?
Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1);
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4)
portfolio)
Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on
reporting (where applicable)?
company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3)
Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting)
3
Identify and
4 quantify
emissions (22)
4
6
Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years?
One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
4
4
Has a clear goal been set?
No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)
22
1
56
4
8
Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in
company's size/composition)
No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2);
Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested
during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the
appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible
2
3
9
Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year)
No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than
small reduction goal set far in the future)
0
10
Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible
parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate
action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available
detailed plan
3
Set goals and
5 establish internal
management
(19)
5
11
Is there top-level support for climate change action?
1
2
12
Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of
on reduction)
emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future
reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on
level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points
5
8
13
Has the company achieved emissions reductions?
4
10
14
Absolute or intensity-based reductions?
Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be
achieved even if a relative target was set
Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.)
4
4
0
5
16
Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of
products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2);
Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of
products/services (3-4)
1
4
17
Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or
customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct
education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)?
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education,
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
1
4
18
Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2)
to those that do?
Reduce
7
15
Policy Stance
19
No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
Score
Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2)
No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a
timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for
absolute or intensity-based achievements
Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple
action by business?
strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points
awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website,
publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying
20
Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change
action?
No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly
opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and
active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to
undermine climate change action
21
Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)?
No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through
company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
(emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
10Ks)
Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other
meaningful subsegments?
Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1);
Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2)
Report
22
Total
Sources
0
2
-1
0
10
10
-1
(up to -10)
7
7
12
10
0
42
The Nestlé Policy on the Environment (1999)
The Nestlé Sustainability Review (2002)
2005 Consolidated Nestlé Environmental Performance Indicators
Environmental Progress Report (2000)
Carbon Disclosure Project responses (CDP4/CDP3/CDP2/CDP1)
Corporate Sustainability Assessment Questionnaire 2006
Published June 2007
Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007
Achieve
reductions (take
steps, achieve,
verify) (27)
Encourage
reductions by
others (10)
Support public
policy to require
reductions
(-10, +10)
Publicly disclose
emissions
(inventory),
reductions, and
2 related actions
(12)
100
News Corporation
Climate Counts Scorecard
www.climatecounts.org
Summary:
Copyright 2007
Score
Highest Possible Score
13
31
5
8
57
22
56
10
12
100
Review
Reduce
Policy Stance
Report
TOTAL
Full Scorecard:
Questions/Criteria
Scoring Guideposts (possible points)
Review
Highest
Possible
Score
13
5
22
5
3
3
0
2
1
GHG emissions inventory completed?
2
Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator?
3
Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included?
4
1
5
Are indirect emissions accounted for?
Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1);
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4)
portfolio)
Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on
reporting (where applicable)?
company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3)
Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting)
3
Identify and
4 quantify
emissions (22)
4
6
Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years?
One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
1
4
Has a clear goal been set?
No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)
31
4
56
4
8
Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in
company's size/composition)
No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2);
Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested
during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the
appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible
1
3
9
Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year)
No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than
small reduction goal set far in the future)
3
10
Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible
parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate
action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available
detailed plan
4
Set goals and
5 establish internal
management
(19)
5
11
Is there top-level support for climate change action?
2
2
12
Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of
on reduction)
emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future
reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on
level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points
6
8
13
Has the company achieved emissions reductions?
1
10
14
Absolute or intensity-based reductions?
Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be
achieved even if a relative target was set
Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.)
0
4
3
5
16
Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of
products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2);
Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of
products/services (3-4)
3
4
17
Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or
customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct
education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)?
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education,
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
4
4
18
Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2)
to those that do?
Reduce
7
15
Policy Stance
19
No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
Score
Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2)
No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a
timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for
absolute or intensity-based achievements
Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple
action by business?
strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points
awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website,
publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying
20
Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change
action?
No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly
opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and
active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to
undermine climate change action
21
Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)?
No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through
company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
(emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
10Ks)
Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other
meaningful subsegments?
Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1);
Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2)
Report
22
Total
Sources
0
2
5
5
10
10
0
(up to -10)
8
6
12
10
2
57
Annual Report 2006
Carbon Disclosure Project response (CDP4 -- permission declined for public access)
Company website: Energy Initiative and Press Releases
Sky Corporate Responsibility Review 2005-06
Fast Company weblog
Columbia Journalism Review: "Murdoch Goes Green, and His Empire Follows"
Published June 2007
Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007
Achieve
reductions (take
steps, achieve,
verify) (27)
Encourage
reductions by
others (10)
Support public
policy to require
reductions
(-10, +10)
Publicly disclose
emissions
(inventory),
reductions, and
2 related actions
(12)
100
Nike
Climate Counts Scorecard
www.climatecounts.org
Summary:
Copyright 2007
Score
Highest Possible Score
18
44
0
11
73
22
56
10
12
100
Review
Reduce
Policy Stance
Report
TOTAL
Full Scorecard:
Questions/Criteria
Scoring Guideposts (possible points)
Review
1
GHG emissions inventory completed?
No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
Score
Highest
Possible
Score
18
4
22
5
3
3
0
2
2
Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator?
3
Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included?
4
3
5
Are indirect emissions accounted for?
Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1);
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4)
portfolio)
Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on
reporting (where applicable)?
company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3)
Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting)
4
Identify and
4 quantify
emissions (22)
4
6
Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years?
One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
4
4
Has a clear goal been set?
No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)
44
4
56
4
8
Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in
company's size/composition)
No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2);
Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested
during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the
appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible
2
3
9
Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year)
No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than
small reduction goal set far in the future)
5
10
Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible
parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate
action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available
detailed plan
5
Set goals and
5 establish internal
management
(19)
5
11
Is there top-level support for climate change action?
1
2
12
Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of
on reduction)
emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future
reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on
level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points
8
8
13
Has the company achieved emissions reductions?
9
10
14
Absolute or intensity-based reductions?
Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be
achieved even if a relative target was set
Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.)
3
4
0
5
16
Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of
products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2);
Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of
products/services (3-4)
4
4
17
Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or
customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct
education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)?
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education,
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
3
4
18
Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2)
to those that do?
Reduce
7
15
Policy Stance
19
Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2)
No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a
timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for
absolute or intensity-based achievements
Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple
action by business?
strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points
awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website,
publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying
20
Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change
action?
No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly
opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and
active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to
undermine climate change action
21
Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)?
No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through
company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
(emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
10Ks)
Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other
meaningful subsegments?
Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1);
Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2)
Report
22
Total
Sources
0
2
0
0
10
10
0
(up to -10)
11
9
12
10
2
73
2004 Corporate Responsibility Report
World Wildlife Fund Climate Savers Final Report
Carbon Disclosure Project responses (CDP4/CDP3/CDP2/CDP1 -- permission declined for public access to CDP2/CDP1 responses)
Nike Responsibility website
Published June 2007
Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007
Achieve
reductions (take
steps, achieve,
verify) (27)
Encourage
reductions by
others (10)
Support public
policy to require
reductions
(-10, +10)
Publicly disclose
emissions
(inventory),
reductions, and
2 related actions
(12)
100
Nokia
Climate Counts Scorecard
www.climatecounts.org
Summary:
Copyright 2007
Score
Highest Possible Score
12
13
0
4
29
22
56
10
12
100
Review
Reduce
Policy Stance
Report
TOTAL
Full Scorecard:
Questions/Criteria
Scoring Guideposts (possible points)
Review
1
GHG emissions inventory completed?
No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
Score
Highest
Possible
Score
12
4
22
5
3
3
0
2
2
Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator?
3
Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included?
4
1
5
Are indirect emissions accounted for?
Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1);
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4)
portfolio)
Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on
reporting (where applicable)?
company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3)
Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting)
0
Identify and
4 quantify
emissions (22)
4
6
Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years?
One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
4
4
Has a clear goal been set?
No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)
13
2
56
4
8
Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in
company's size/composition)
No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2);
Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested
during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the
appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible
1
3
9
Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year)
No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than
small reduction goal set far in the future)
2
10
Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible
parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate
action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available
detailed plan
2
Set goals and
5 establish internal
management
(19)
5
11
Is there top-level support for climate change action?
1
2
12
Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of
on reduction)
emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future
reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on
level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points
2
8
13
Has the company achieved emissions reductions?
1
10
14
Absolute or intensity-based reductions?
Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be
achieved even if a relative target was set
Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.)
0
4
0
5
16
Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of
products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2);
Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of
products/services (3-4)
2
4
17
Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or
customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct
education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)?
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education,
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
0
4
18
Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2)
to those that do?
Reduce
7
15
Policy Stance
19
Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2)
No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a
timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for
absolute or intensity-based achievements
Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple
action by business?
strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points
awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website,
publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying
20
Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change
action?
No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly
opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and
active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to
undermine climate change action
21
Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)?
No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through
company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
(emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
10Ks)
Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other
meaningful subsegments?
Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1);
Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2)
Report
22
Total
Sources
0
2
0
0
10
10
0
(up to -10)
4
3
12
10
1
29
Carbon Disclosure Project responses (CDP4 -- permission declined for public access to CDP3/CDP2/CDP1 responses)
2006 CR Report
2004 Environmental Report
Published June 2007
Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007
Achieve
reductions (take
steps, achieve,
verify) (27)
Encourage
reductions by
others (10)
Support public
policy to require
reductions
(-10, +10)
Publicly disclose
emissions
(inventory),
reductions, and
2 related actions
(12)
100
PepsiCo
Climate Counts Scorecard
www.climatecounts.org
Summary:
Copyright 2007
Score
Highest Possible Score
1
16
7
2
26
22
56
10
12
100
Review
Reduce
Policy Stance
Report
TOTAL
Full Scorecard:
Questions/Criteria
Scoring Guideposts (possible points)
Review
1
GHG emissions inventory completed?
No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
Score
Highest
Possible
Score
1
1
22
5
0
3
0
2
2
Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator?
3
Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included?
4
0
5
Are indirect emissions accounted for?
Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1);
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4)
portfolio)
Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on
reporting (where applicable)?
company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3)
Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting)
0
Identify and
4 quantify
emissions (22)
4
6
Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years?
One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
0
4
Has a clear goal been set?
No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)
16
1
56
4
8
Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in
company's size/composition)
No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2);
Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested
during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the
appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible
1
3
9
Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year)
No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than
small reduction goal set far in the future)
2
10
Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible
parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate
action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available
detailed plan
2
Set goals and
5 establish internal
management
(19)
5
11
Is there top-level support for climate change action?
0
2
12
Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of
on reduction)
emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future
reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on
level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points
7
8
13
Has the company achieved emissions reductions?
2
10
14
Absolute or intensity-based reductions?
Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be
achieved even if a relative target was set
Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.)
0
4
0
5
16
Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of
products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2);
Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of
products/services (3-4)
0
4
17
Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or
customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct
education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)?
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education,
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
1
4
18
Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2)
to those that do?
Reduce
7
15
Policy Stance
19
Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2)
No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a
timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for
absolute or intensity-based achievements
Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple
action by business?
strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points
awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website,
publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying
20
Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change
action?
No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly
opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and
active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to
undermine climate change action
21
Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)?
No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through
company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
(emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
10Ks)
Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other
meaningful subsegments?
Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1);
Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2)
Report
22
Total
Sources
0
2
7
7
10
10
0
(up to -10)
2
2
12
10
0
26
2005 Sustainability Report: Our Values in Action
US EPA Climate Leaders corporate summary
Carbon Disclosure Project responses (CDP4/CDP3/CDP2/CDP1)
PepsiCo Environmental News website
Published June 2007
Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007
Achieve
reductions (take
steps, achieve,
verify) (27)
Encourage
reductions by
others (10)
Support public
policy to require
reductions
(-10, +10)
Publicly disclose
emissions
(inventory),
reductions, and
2 related actions
(12)
100
Procter & Gamble
Climate Counts Scorecard
www.climatecounts.org
Summary:
Copyright 2007
Score
Highest Possible Score
12
28
2
11
53
22
56
10
12
100
Review
Reduce
Policy Stance
Report
TOTAL
Full Scorecard:
Questions/Criteria
Scoring Guideposts (possible points)
Review
1
GHG emissions inventory completed?
No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
Score
Highest
Possible
Score
12
5
22
5
3
3
0
2
2
Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator?
3
Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included?
4
0
5
Are indirect emissions accounted for?
Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1);
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4)
portfolio)
Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on
reporting (where applicable)?
company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3)
Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting)
0
Identify and
4 quantify
emissions (22)
4
6
Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years?
One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
4
4
Has a clear goal been set?
No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)
28
1
56
4
8
Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in
company's size/composition)
No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2);
Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested
during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the
appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible
3
3
9
Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year)
No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than
small reduction goal set far in the future)
0
10
Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible
parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate
action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available
detailed plan
3
Set goals and
5 establish internal
management
(19)
5
11
Is there top-level support for climate change action?
0
2
12
Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of
on reduction)
emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future
reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on
level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points
4
8
13
Has the company achieved emissions reductions?
9
10
14
Absolute or intensity-based reductions?
Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be
achieved even if a relative target was set
Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.)
4
4
0
5
16
Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of
products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2);
Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of
products/services (3-4)
2
4
17
Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or
customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct
education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)?
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education,
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
1
4
18
Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2)
to those that do?
Reduce
7
15
Policy Stance
19
Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2)
No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a
timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for
absolute or intensity-based achievements
Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple
action by business?
strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points
awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website,
publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying
20
Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change
action?
No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly
opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and
active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to
undermine climate change action
21
Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)?
No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through
company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
(emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
10Ks)
Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other
meaningful subsegments?
Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1);
Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2)
Report
22
Total
Sources
1
2
2
2
10
10
0
(up to -10)
11
9
12
10
2
53
2006 Global Sustainability & Philanthropy Report
Sustainability Reports 1999-2006
Carbon Disclosure Project responses (CDP4/CDP2/CDP1)
Climate RESOLVE website
Published June 2007
Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007
Achieve
reductions (take
steps, achieve,
verify) (27)
Encourage
reductions by
others (10)
Support public
policy to require
reductions
(-10, +10)
Publicly disclose
emissions
(inventory),
reductions, and
2 related actions
(12)
100
SAB Miller
Climate Counts Scorecard
www.climatecounts.org
Summary:
Copyright 2007
Score
Highest Possible Score
14
26
0
8
48
22
56
10
12
100
Review
Reduce
Policy Stance
Report
TOTAL
Full Scorecard:
Questions/Criteria
Scoring Guideposts (possible points)
Review
1
GHG emissions inventory completed?
No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
Score
Highest
Possible
Score
14
5
22
5
3
3
2
2
2
Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator?
3
Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included?
4
0
5
Are indirect emissions accounted for?
Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1);
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4)
portfolio)
Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on
reporting (where applicable)?
company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3)
Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting)
0
Identify and
4 quantify
emissions (22)
4
6
Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years?
One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
4
4
Has a clear goal been set?
No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)
26
4
56
4
8
Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in
company's size/composition)
No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2);
Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested
during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the
appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible
2
3
9
Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year)
No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than
small reduction goal set far in the future)
5
10
Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible
parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate
action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available
detailed plan
2
Set goals and
5 establish internal
management
(19)
5
11
Is there top-level support for climate change action?
2
2
12
Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of
on reduction)
emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future
reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on
level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points
6
8
13
Has the company achieved emissions reductions?
4
10
14
Absolute or intensity-based reductions?
Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be
achieved even if a relative target was set
Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.)
0
4
0
5
16
Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of
products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2);
Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of
products/services (3-4)
0
4
17
Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or
customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct
education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)?
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education,
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
1
4
18
Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2)
to those that do?
Reduce
7
15
Policy Stance
19
Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2)
No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a
timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for
absolute or intensity-based achievements
Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple
action by business?
strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points
awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website,
publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying
20
Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change
action?
No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly
opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and
active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to
undermine climate change action
21
Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)?
No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through
company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
(emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
10Ks)
Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other
meaningful subsegments?
Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1);
Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2)
Report
22
Total
Sources
0
2
0
0
10
10
0
(up to -10)
8
7
12
10
1
48
Sustainable Development Report 2006
Sustainability Reports 1999-2001
Corporate Accountability Reports 2002-2005
Corporate Citizenship Reviews 1998-2001
SAB Miller company website
US EPA Climate Leaders corporate summary
Carbon Disclosure Project responses (CDP4/CDP3)
Published June 2007
Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007
Achieve
reductions (take
steps, achieve,
verify) (27)
Encourage
reductions by
others (10)
Support public
policy to require
reductions
(-10, +10)
Publicly disclose
emissions
(inventory),
reductions, and
2 related actions
(12)
100
Samsung
Climate Counts Scorecard
www.climatecounts.org
Summary:
Copyright 2007
Score
Highest Possible Score
2
28
1
2
33
22
56
10
12
100
Review
Reduce
Policy Stance
Report
TOTAL
Full Scorecard:
Questions/Criteria
Scoring Guideposts (possible points)
Review
1
GHG emissions inventory completed?
No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
Score
Highest
Possible
Score
2
2
22
5
0
3
0
2
2
Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator?
3
Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included?
4
0
5
Are indirect emissions accounted for?
Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1);
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4)
portfolio)
Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on
reporting (where applicable)?
company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3)
Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting)
0
Identify and
4 quantify
emissions (22)
4
6
Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years?
One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
0
4
Has a clear goal been set?
No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)
28
4
56
4
8
Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in
company's size/composition)
No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2);
Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested
during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the
appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible
2
3
9
Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year)
No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than
small reduction goal set far in the future)
5
10
Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible
parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate
action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available
detailed plan
2
Set goals and
5 establish internal
management
(19)
5
11
Is there top-level support for climate change action?
1
2
12
Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of
on reduction)
emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future
reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on
level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points
5
8
13
Has the company achieved emissions reductions?
5
10
14
Absolute or intensity-based reductions?
Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be
achieved even if a relative target was set
Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.)
0
4
0
5
16
Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of
products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2);
Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of
products/services (3-4)
4
4
17
Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or
customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct
education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)?
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education,
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
0
4
18
Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2)
to those that do?
Reduce
7
15
Policy Stance
19
Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2)
No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a
timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for
absolute or intensity-based achievements
Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple
action by business?
strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points
awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website,
publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying
20
Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change
action?
No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly
opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and
active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to
undermine climate change action
21
Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)?
No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through
company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
(emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
10Ks)
Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other
meaningful subsegments?
Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1);
Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2)
Report
22
Total
Sources
0
2
1
1
10
10
0
(up to -10)
2
2
12
10
0
33
Samsung Electronics 2005 Green Management Report
Carbon Disclosure Project responses (permission declined for public access to CDP4/CDP3/CDP2 responses)
Published June 2007
Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007
Achieve
reductions (take
steps, achieve,
verify) (27)
Encourage
reductions by
others (10)
Support public
policy to require
reductions
(-10, +10)
Publicly disclose
emissions
(inventory),
reductions, and
2 related actions
(12)
100
Sara Lee
Climate Counts Scorecard
www.climatecounts.org
Summary:
Copyright 2007
Score
Highest Possible Score
0
2
0
0
2
22
56
10
12
100
Review
Reduce
Policy Stance
Report
TOTAL
Full Scorecard:
Questions/Criteria
Scoring Guideposts (possible points)
Review
1
GHG emissions inventory completed?
No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
Score
Highest
Possible
Score
0
0
22
5
0
3
0
2
2
Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator?
3
Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included?
4
0
5
Are indirect emissions accounted for?
Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1);
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4)
portfolio)
Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on
reporting (where applicable)?
company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3)
Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting)
0
Identify and
4 quantify
emissions (22)
4
6
Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years?
One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
0
4
Has a clear goal been set?
No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)
2
0
56
4
8
Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in
company's size/composition)
No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2);
Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested
during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the
appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible
0
3
9
Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year)
No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than
small reduction goal set far in the future)
0
10
Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible
parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate
action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available
detailed plan
0
Set goals and
5 establish internal
management
(19)
5
11
Is there top-level support for climate change action?
1
2
12
Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of
on reduction)
emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future
reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on
level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points
0
8
13
Has the company achieved emissions reductions?
0
10
14
Absolute or intensity-based reductions?
Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be
achieved even if a relative target was set
Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.)
0
4
0
5
16
Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of
products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2);
Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of
products/services (3-4)
0
4
17
Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or
customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct
education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)?
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education,
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
0
4
18
Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2)
to those that do?
Reduce
7
15
Policy Stance
19
Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2)
No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a
timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for
absolute or intensity-based achievements
Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple
action by business?
strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points
awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website,
publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying
20
Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change
action?
No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly
opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and
active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to
undermine climate change action
21
Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)?
No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through
company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
(emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
10Ks)
Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other
meaningful subsegments?
Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1);
Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2)
Report
22
Total
Sources
1
2
0
0
10
10
0
(up to -10)
0
0
12
10
0
2
Carbon Disclosure Project response (CDP4 -- permission declined for public access to CDP3/CDP2/CDP1 responses)
Sara Lee Global Standards for Suppliers
Published June 2007
Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007
Achieve
reductions (take
steps, achieve,
verify) (27)
Encourage
reductions by
others (10)
Support public
policy to require
reductions
(-10, +10)
Publicly disclose
emissions
(inventory),
reductions, and
2 related actions
(12)
100
Siemens
Climate Counts Scorecard
www.climatecounts.org
Summary:
Copyright 2007
Score
Highest Possible Score
9
12
8
5
34
22
56
10
12
100
Review
Reduce
Policy Stance
Report
TOTAL
Full Scorecard:
Questions/Criteria
Scoring Guideposts (possible points)
Review
1
GHG emissions inventory completed?
No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
Score
Highest
Possible
Score
9
3
22
5
2
3
0
2
2
Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator?
3
Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included?
4
0
5
Are indirect emissions accounted for?
Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1);
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4)
portfolio)
Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on
reporting (where applicable)?
company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3)
Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting)
0
Identify and
4 quantify
emissions (22)
4
6
Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years?
One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
4
4
Has a clear goal been set?
No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)
12
1
56
4
8
Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in
company's size/composition)
No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2);
Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested
during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the
appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible
0
3
9
Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year)
No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than
small reduction goal set far in the future)
0
10
Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible
parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate
action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available
detailed plan
2
Set goals and
5 establish internal
management
(19)
5
11
Is there top-level support for climate change action?
1
2
12
Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of
on reduction)
emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future
reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on
level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points
2
8
13
Has the company achieved emissions reductions?
0
10
14
Absolute or intensity-based reductions?
Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be
achieved even if a relative target was set
Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.)
0
4
0
5
16
Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of
products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2);
Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of
products/services (3-4)
4
4
17
Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or
customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct
education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)?
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education,
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
2
4
18
Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2)
to those that do?
Reduce
7
15
Policy Stance
19
Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2)
No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a
timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for
absolute or intensity-based achievements
Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple
action by business?
strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points
awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website,
publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying
20
Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change
action?
No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly
opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and
active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to
undermine climate change action
21
Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)?
No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through
company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
(emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
10Ks)
Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other
meaningful subsegments?
Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1);
Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2)
Report
22
Total
Sources
0
2
8
8
10
10
0
(up to -10)
5
4
12
10
1
34
Siemens corporate responsibility website
Carbon Disclosure Project response (CDP4)
2006 Corporate Responsibility report
U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP) Web Site
Published June 2007
Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007
Achieve
reductions (take
steps, achieve,
verify) (27)
Encourage
reductions by
others (10)
Support public
policy to require
reductions
(-10, +10)
Publicly disclose
emissions
(inventory),
reductions, and
2 related actions
(12)
100
Sony
Climate Counts Scorecard
www.climatecounts.org
Summary:
Copyright 2007
Score
Highest Possible Score
16
25
1
9
51
22
56
10
12
100
Review
Reduce
Policy Stance
Report
TOTAL
Full Scorecard:
Questions/Criteria
Scoring Guideposts (possible points)
Review
1
GHG emissions inventory completed?
No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
Score
Highest
Possible
Score
16
4
22
5
3
3
2
2
2
Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator?
3
Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included?
4
1
5
Are indirect emissions accounted for?
Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1);
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4)
portfolio)
Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on
reporting (where applicable)?
company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3)
Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting)
2
Identify and
4 quantify
emissions (22)
4
6
Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years?
One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
4
4
Has a clear goal been set?
No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)
25
4
56
4
8
Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in
company's size/composition)
No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2);
Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested
during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the
appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible
2
3
9
Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year)
No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than
small reduction goal set far in the future)
3
10
Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible
parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate
action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available
detailed plan
4
Set goals and
5 establish internal
management
(19)
5
11
Is there top-level support for climate change action?
2
2
12
Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of
on reduction)
emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future
reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on
level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points
4
8
13
Has the company achieved emissions reductions?
1
10
14
Absolute or intensity-based reductions?
Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be
achieved even if a relative target was set
Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.)
0
4
1
5
16
Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of
products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2);
Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of
products/services (3-4)
3
4
17
Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or
customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct
education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)?
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education,
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
1
4
18
Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2)
to those that do?
Reduce
7
15
Policy Stance
19
Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2)
No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a
timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for
absolute or intensity-based achievements
Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple
action by business?
strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points
awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website,
publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying
20
Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change
action?
No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly
opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and
active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to
undermine climate change action
21
Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)?
No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through
company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
(emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
10Ks)
Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other
meaningful subsegments?
Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1);
Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2)
Report
22
Total
Sources
0
2
1
1
10
10
0
(up to -10)
9
8
12
10
1
51
CSR Reports 2003-2006
Social and Environmental Report 2002
Environmental Reports (1997, 1999, 2001)
Carbon Disclosure Project responses (CDP4/CDP3/CDP2/CDP1)
WWF article: "Companies commit to saving climate"
Published June 2007
Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007
Achieve
reductions (take
steps, achieve,
verify) (27)
Encourage
reductions by
others (10)
Support public
policy to require
reductions
(-10, +10)
Publicly disclose
emissions
(inventory),
reductions, and
2 related actions
(12)
100
Starbucks
Climate Counts Scorecard
www.climatecounts.org
Summary:
Copyright 2007
Score
Highest Possible Score
16
18
5
7
46
22
56
10
12
100
Review
Reduce
Policy Stance
Report
TOTAL
Full Scorecard:
Questions/Criteria
Scoring Guideposts (possible points)
Review
1
GHG emissions inventory completed?
No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
Score
Highest
Possible
Score
16
4
22
5
3
3
2
2
2
Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator?
3
Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included?
4
4
5
Are indirect emissions accounted for?
Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1);
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4)
portfolio)
Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on
reporting (where applicable)?
company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3)
Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting)
2
Identify and
4 quantify
emissions (22)
4
6
Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years?
One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
1
4
Has a clear goal been set?
No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)
18
1
56
4
8
Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in
company's size/composition)
No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2);
Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested
during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the
appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible
1
3
9
Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year)
No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than
small reduction goal set far in the future)
0
10
Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible
parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate
action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available
detailed plan
2
Set goals and
5 establish internal
management
(19)
5
11
Is there top-level support for climate change action?
2
2
12
Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of
on reduction)
emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future
reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on
level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points
6
8
13
Has the company achieved emissions reductions?
0
10
14
Absolute or intensity-based reductions?
Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be
achieved even if a relative target was set
Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.)
0
4
0
5
16
Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of
products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2);
Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of
products/services (3-4)
1
4
17
Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or
customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct
education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)?
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education,
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
4
4
18
Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2)
to those that do?
Reduce
7
15
Policy Stance
19
Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2)
No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a
timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for
absolute or intensity-based achievements
Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple
action by business?
strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points
awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website,
publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying
20
Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change
action?
No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly
opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and
active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to
undermine climate change action
21
Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)?
No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through
company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
(emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
10Ks)
Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other
meaningful subsegments?
Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1);
Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2)
Report
22
Total
Sources
1
2
5
5
10
10
0
(up to -10)
7
7
12
10
0
46
2006 CSR/Environment Report
2005 CSR/Environment Report
Carbon Disclosure Project responses (CDP4/CDP3/CDP2)
Starbucks C.A.F.E. Practices Generic Scorecard
Published June 2007
Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007
Achieve
reductions (take
steps, achieve,
verify) (27)
Encourage
reductions by
others (10)
Support public
policy to require
reductions
(-10, +10)
Publicly disclose
emissions
(inventory),
reductions, and
2 related actions
(12)
100
Stonyfield Farm
Climate Counts Scorecard
www.climatecounts.org
Summary:
Copyright 2007
Score
Highest Possible Score
20
26
6
11
63
22
56
10
12
100
Review
Reduce
Policy Stance
Report
TOTAL
Full Scorecard:
Questions/Criteria
Scoring Guideposts (possible points)
Review
Highest
Possible
Score
20
5
22
5
3
3
2
2
1
GHG emissions inventory completed?
2
Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator?
3
Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included?
4
4
5
Are indirect emissions accounted for?
Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1);
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4)
portfolio)
Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on
reporting (where applicable)?
company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3)
Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting)
2
Identify and
4 quantify
emissions (22)
4
6
Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years?
One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
4
4
Has a clear goal been set?
No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)
26
1
56
4
8
Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in
company's size/composition)
No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2);
Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested
during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the
appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible
0
3
9
Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year)
No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than
small reduction goal set far in the future)
0
10
Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible
parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate
action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available
detailed plan
4
Set goals and
5 establish internal
management
(19)
5
11
Is there top-level support for climate change action?
2
2
12
Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of
on reduction)
emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future
reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on
level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points
8
8
13
Has the company achieved emissions reductions?
3
10
14
Absolute or intensity-based reductions?
Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be
achieved even if a relative target was set
Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.)
0
4
0
5
16
Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of
products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2);
Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of
products/services (3-4)
2
4
17
Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or
customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct
education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)?
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education,
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
4
4
18
Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2)
to those that do?
Reduce
7
15
Policy Stance
19
No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
Score
Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2)
No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a
timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for
absolute or intensity-based achievements
Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple
action by business?
strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points
awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website,
publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying
20
Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change
action?
No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly
opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and
active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to
undermine climate change action
21
Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)?
No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through
company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
(emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
10Ks)
Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other
meaningful subsegments?
Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1);
Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2)
Report
22
Total
Sources
2
2
6
6
10
10
0
(up to -10)
11
10
12
10
1
63
New Hampshire Department of Environmental Resources emissions inventories
National Wildlife Federation publication: "Goal: Confronting Global Warming"
StopGlobalWarming.org Biography: Gary Hirshberg
Letter from Stonyfield Farm's VP of Natural Resources
Stonyfield Farm corporate website
Published June 2007
Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007
Achieve
reductions (take
steps, achieve,
verify) (27)
Encourage
reductions by
others (10)
Support public
policy to require
reductions
(-10, +10)
Publicly disclose
emissions
(inventory),
reductions, and
2 related actions
(12)
100
Time Warner
Climate Counts Scorecard
www.climatecounts.org
Summary:
Copyright 2007
Score
Highest Possible Score
0
8
0
2
10
22
56
10
12
100
Review
Reduce
Policy Stance
Report
TOTAL
Full Scorecard:
Questions/Criteria
Scoring Guideposts (possible points)
Review
Highest
Possible
Score
0
0
22
5
0
3
0
2
1
GHG emissions inventory completed?
2
Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator?
3
Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included?
4
0
5
Are indirect emissions accounted for?
Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1);
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4)
portfolio)
Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on
reporting (where applicable)?
company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3)
Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting)
0
Identify and
4 quantify
emissions (22)
4
6
Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years?
One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
0
4
Has a clear goal been set?
No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)
8
0
56
4
8
Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in
company's size/composition)
No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2);
Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested
during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the
appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible
0
3
9
Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year)
No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than
small reduction goal set far in the future)
0
10
Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible
parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate
action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available
detailed plan
1
Set goals and
5 establish internal
management
(19)
5
11
Is there top-level support for climate change action?
0
2
12
Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of
on reduction)
emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future
reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on
level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points
4
8
13
Has the company achieved emissions reductions?
0
10
14
Absolute or intensity-based reductions?
Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be
achieved even if a relative target was set
Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.)
0
4
0
5
16
Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of
products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2);
Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of
products/services (3-4)
1
4
17
Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or
customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct
education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)?
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education,
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
1
4
18
Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2)
to those that do?
Reduce
7
15
Policy Stance
19
No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
Score
Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2)
No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a
timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for
absolute or intensity-based achievements
Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple
action by business?
strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points
awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website,
publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying
20
Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change
action?
No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly
opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and
active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to
undermine climate change action
21
Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)?
No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through
company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
(emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
10Ks)
Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other
meaningful subsegments?
Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1);
Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2)
Report
22
Total
Sources
1
2
0
0
10
10
0
(up to -10)
2
2
12
10
0
10
Carbon Disclosure Project responses (permission declined for public access to CDP4/CDP2/CDP1 responses)
Time Warner 2006 Corporate Social Responsibility Report
Time Warner 2005 Sustainability Report
Published June 2007
Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007
Achieve
reductions (take
steps, achieve,
verify) (27)
Encourage
reductions by
others (10)
Support public
policy to require
reductions
(-10, +10)
Publicly disclose
emissions
(inventory),
reductions, and
2 related actions
(12)
100
Toshiba
Climate Counts Scorecard
www.climatecounts.org
Summary:
Copyright 2007
Score
Highest Possible Score
18
39
0
9
66
22
56
10
12
100
Review
Reduce
Policy Stance
Report
TOTAL
Full Scorecard:
Questions/Criteria
Scoring Guideposts (possible points)
Review
Highest
Possible
Score
18
5
22
5
3
3
2
2
1
GHG emissions inventory completed?
2
Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator?
3
Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included?
4
4
5
Are indirect emissions accounted for?
Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1);
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4)
portfolio)
Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on
reporting (where applicable)?
company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3)
Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting)
0
Identify and
4 quantify
emissions (22)
4
6
Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years?
One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
4
4
Has a clear goal been set?
No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)
39
4
56
4
8
Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in
company's size/composition)
No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2);
Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested
during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the
appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible
3
3
9
Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year)
No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than
small reduction goal set far in the future)
5
10
Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible
parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate
action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available
detailed plan
5
Set goals and
5 establish internal
management
(19)
5
11
Is there top-level support for climate change action?
2
2
12
Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of
on reduction)
emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future
reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on
level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points
7
8
13
Has the company achieved emissions reductions?
7
10
14
Absolute or intensity-based reductions?
Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be
achieved even if a relative target was set
Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.)
0
4
0
5
16
Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of
products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2);
Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of
products/services (3-4)
4
4
17
Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or
customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct
education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)?
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education,
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
2
4
18
Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2)
to those that do?
Reduce
7
15
Policy Stance
19
No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
Score
Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2)
No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a
timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for
absolute or intensity-based achievements
Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple
action by business?
strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points
awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website,
publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying
20
Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change
action?
No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly
opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and
active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to
undermine climate change action
21
Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)?
No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through
company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
(emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
10Ks)
Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other
meaningful subsegments?
Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1);
Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2)
Report
22
Total
Sources
0
2
0
0
10
10
0
(up to -10)
9
9
12
10
0
66
Corporate Social Responsibility Reports (2004-2006)
Environment Reports (1998-2003, not including 1999)
Carbon Disclosure Project responses (CDP4/CDP2/CDP1 -- permission declined for public access to CDP3 response)
Toshiba Social and Environmental Activities website
Published June 2007
Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007
Achieve
reductions (take
steps, achieve,
verify) (27)
Encourage
reductions by
others (10)
Support public
policy to require
reductions
(-10, +10)
Publicly disclose
emissions
(inventory),
reductions, and
2 related actions
(12)
100
Unilever
Climate Counts Scorecard
www.climatecounts.org
Summary:
Copyright 2007
Score
Highest Possible Score
21
38
2
10
71
22
56
10
12
100
Review
Reduce
Policy Stance
Report
TOTAL
Full Scorecard:
Questions/Criteria
Scoring Guideposts (possible points)
Review
Highest
Possible
Score
21
4
22
5
3
3
2
2
1
GHG emissions inventory completed?
2
Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator?
3
Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included?
4
4
5
Are indirect emissions accounted for?
Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1);
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4)
portfolio)
Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on
reporting (where applicable)?
company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3)
Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting)
4
Identify and
4 quantify
emissions (22)
4
6
Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years?
One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
4
4
Has a clear goal been set?
No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)
38
4
56
4
8
Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in
company's size/composition)
No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2);
Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested
during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the
appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible
2
3
9
Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year)
No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than
small reduction goal set far in the future)
4
10
Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible
parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate
action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available
detailed plan
5
Set goals and
5 establish internal
management
(19)
5
11
Is there top-level support for climate change action?
2
2
12
Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of
on reduction)
emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future
reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on
level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points
6
8
13
Has the company achieved emissions reductions?
4
10
14
Absolute or intensity-based reductions?
Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be
achieved even if a relative target was set
Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.)
0
4
5
5
16
Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of
products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2);
Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of
products/services (3-4)
3
4
17
Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or
customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct
education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)?
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education,
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
3
4
18
Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2)
to those that do?
Reduce
7
15
Policy Stance
19
No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
Score
Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2)
No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a
timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for
absolute or intensity-based achievements
Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple
action by business?
strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points
awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website,
publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying
20
Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change
action?
No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly
opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and
active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to
undermine climate change action
21
Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)?
No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through
company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
(emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
10Ks)
Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other
meaningful subsegments?
Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1);
Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2)
Report
22
Total
Sources
0
2
2
2
10
10
0
(up to -10)
10
9
12
10
1
71
2005 Unilever Environmental and Social Report
US EPA Climate Leaders corporate summary
Carbon Disclosure Project responses (CDP4/CDP3/CDP2/CDP1
Ceres 2006 Corporate Climate Change Ranking
Unilever Values website
Published June 2007
Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007
Achieve
reductions (take
steps, achieve,
verify) (27)
Encourage
reductions by
others (10)
Support public
policy to require
reductions
(-10, +10)
Publicly disclose
emissions
(inventory),
reductions, and
2 related actions
(12)
100
VF Corporation
Climate Counts Scorecard
www.climatecounts.org
Summary:
Copyright 2007
Score
Highest Possible Score
0
2
0
0
2
22
56
10
12
100
Review
Reduce
Policy Stance
Report
TOTAL
Full Scorecard:
Questions/Criteria
Scoring Guideposts (possible points)
Review
1
GHG emissions inventory completed?
No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
Score
Highest
Possible
Score
0
0
22
5
0
3
0
2
2
Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator?
3
Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included?
4
0
5
Are indirect emissions accounted for?
Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1);
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4)
portfolio)
Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on
reporting (where applicable)?
company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3)
Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting)
0
Identify and
4 quantify
emissions (22)
4
6
Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years?
One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
0
4
Has a clear goal been set?
No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)
2
0
56
4
8
Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in
company's size/composition)
No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2);
Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested
during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the
appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible
0
3
9
Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year)
No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than
small reduction goal set far in the future)
0
10
Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible
parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate
action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available
detailed plan
0
Set goals and
5 establish internal
management
(19)
5
11
Is there top-level support for climate change action?
0
2
12
Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of
on reduction)
emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future
reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on
level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points
0
8
13
Has the company achieved emissions reductions?
0
10
14
Absolute or intensity-based reductions?
Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be
achieved even if a relative target was set
Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.)
0
4
0
5
16
Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of
products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2);
Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of
products/services (3-4)
0
4
17
Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or
customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct
education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)?
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education,
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
2
4
18
Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2)
to those that do?
Reduce
7
15
Policy Stance
19
Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2)
No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a
timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for
absolute or intensity-based achievements
Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple
action by business?
strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points
awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website,
publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying
20
Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change
action?
No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly
opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and
active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to
undermine climate change action
21
Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)?
No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through
company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
(emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
10Ks)
Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other
meaningful subsegments?
Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1);
Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2)
Report
22
Total
Sources
0
2
0
0
10
10
0
(up to -10)
0
0
12
10
0
2
VF Corporation Code of Conduct
The North Face company website
Published June 2007
Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007
Achieve
reductions (take
steps, achieve,
verify) (27)
Encourage
reductions by
others (10)
Support public
policy to require
reductions
(-10, +10)
Publicly disclose
emissions
(inventory),
reductions, and
2 related actions
(12)
100
Viacom
Climate Counts Scorecard
www.climatecounts.org
Summary:
Copyright 2007
Score
Highest Possible Score
0
3
0
0
3
22
56
10
12
100
Review
Reduce
Policy Stance
Report
TOTAL
Full Scorecard:
Questions/Criteria
Scoring Guideposts (possible points)
Review
1
GHG emissions inventory completed?
No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
Score
Highest
Possible
Score
0
0
22
5
0
3
0
2
2
Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator?
3
Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included?
4
0
5
Are indirect emissions accounted for?
Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1);
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4)
portfolio)
Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on
reporting (where applicable)?
company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3)
Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting)
0
Identify and
4 quantify
emissions (22)
4
6
Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years?
One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
0
4
Has a clear goal been set?
No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)
3
0
56
4
8
Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in
company's size/composition)
No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2);
Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested
during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the
appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible
0
3
9
Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year)
No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than
small reduction goal set far in the future)
0
10
Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible
parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate
action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available
detailed plan
0
Set goals and
5 establish internal
management
(19)
5
11
Is there top-level support for climate change action?
0
2
12
Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of
on reduction)
emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future
reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on
level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points
0
8
13
Has the company achieved emissions reductions?
0
10
14
Absolute or intensity-based reductions?
Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be
achieved even if a relative target was set
Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.)
0
4
0
5
16
Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of
products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2);
Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of
products/services (3-4)
0
4
17
Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or
customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct
education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)?
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education,
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
3
4
18
Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2)
to those that do?
Reduce
7
15
Policy Stance
19
Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2)
No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a
timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for
absolute or intensity-based achievements
Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple
action by business?
strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points
awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website,
publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying
20
Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change
action?
No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly
opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and
active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to
undermine climate change action
21
Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)?
No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through
company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
(emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
10Ks)
Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other
meaningful subsegments?
Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1);
Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2)
Report
22
Total
Sources
0
2
0
0
10
10
0
(up to -10)
0
0
12
10
0
3
Carbon Disclosure Project responses (permission declined for public access to CDP4/CDP3 responses
Viacom company website
World Resources Institute press release: "MTV Launches Break the Addiction"
MTV environmental education website
Paramount Pictures website
Published June 2007
Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007
Achieve
reductions (take
steps, achieve,
verify) (27)
Encourage
reductions by
others (10)
Support public
policy to require
reductions
(-10, +10)
Publicly disclose
emissions
(inventory),
reductions, and
2 related actions
(12)
100
Climate Counts Scorecard
Wendy's International
Summary:
www.climatecounts.org
Score
Highest Possible Score
0
0
0
0
0
22
56
10
12
100
Review
Reduce
Policy Stance
Report
TOTAL
Copyright 2007
Full Scorecard:
Questions/Criteria
Scoring Guideposts (possible points)
Review
Highest
Possible
Score
0
0
22
5
0
3
0
2
1
GHG emissions inventory completed?
2
Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator?
3
Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included?
4
0
5
Are indirect emissions accounted for?
Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1);
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4)
portfolio)
Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on
reporting (where applicable)?
company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3)
Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting)
0
Identify and
4 quantify
emissions (22)
4
6
Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years?
One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
0
4
Has a clear goal been set?
No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)
0
0
56
4
8
Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in
company's size/composition)
No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2);
Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested
during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the
appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible
0
3
9
Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year)
No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than
small reduction goal set far in the future)
0
10
Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible
parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate
action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available
detailed plan
0
Set goals and
5 establish internal
management
(19)
5
11
Is there top-level support for climate change action?
0
2
12
Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of
on reduction)
emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future
reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on
level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points
0
8
13
Has the company achieved emissions reductions?
0
10
14
Absolute or intensity-based reductions?
Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be
achieved even if a relative target was set
Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.)
0
4
0
5
16
Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of
products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2);
Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of
products/services (3-4)
0
4
17
Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or
customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct
education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)?
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education,
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
0
4
18
Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2)
to those that do?
Reduce
7
15
Policy Stance
19
No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
Score
Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2)
No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a
timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for
absolute or intensity-based achievements
Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple
action by business?
strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points
awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website,
publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying
20
Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change
action?
No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly
opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and
active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to
undermine climate change action
21
Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)?
No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through
company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
(emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
10Ks)
Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other
meaningful subsegments?
Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1);
Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2)
Report
22
Total
Sources
0
2
0
0
10
10
0
(up to -10)
0
0
12
10
0
0
Wendy's International Environmental Responsibility Website
Published June 2007
Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007
Achieve
reductions (take
steps, achieve,
verify) (27)
Encourage
reductions by
others (10)
Support public
policy to require
reductions
(-10, +10)
Publicly disclose
emissions
(inventory),
reductions, and
2 related actions
(12)
100
Yahoo
Climate Counts Scorecard
www.climatecounts.org
Summary:
Copyright 2007
Score
Highest Possible Score
12
20
0
4
36
22
56
10
12
100
Review
Reduce
Policy Stance
Report
TOTAL
Full Scorecard:
Questions/Criteria
Scoring Guideposts (possible points)
Review
1
GHG emissions inventory completed?
No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
Score
Highest
Possible
Score
12
5
22
5
3
3
0
2
2
Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator?
3
Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included?
4
2
5
Are indirect emissions accounted for?
Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1);
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4)
portfolio)
Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on
reporting (where applicable)?
company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3)
Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting)
1
Identify and
4 quantify
emissions (22)
4
6
Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years?
One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
1
4
Has a clear goal been set?
No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)
20
2
56
4
8
Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in
company's size/composition)
No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2);
Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested
during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the
appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible
1
3
9
Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year)
No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than
small reduction goal set far in the future)
1
10
Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible
parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate
action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available
detailed plan
3
Set goals and
5 establish internal
management
(19)
5
11
Is there top-level support for climate change action?
2
2
12
Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of
on reduction)
emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future
reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on
level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points
6
8
13
Has the company achieved emissions reductions?
1
10
14
Absolute or intensity-based reductions?
Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be
achieved even if a relative target was set
Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.)
0
4
0
5
16
Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of
products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2);
Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of
products/services (3-4)
0
4
17
Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or
customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct
education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)?
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education,
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
4
4
18
Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2)
to those that do?
Reduce
7
15
Policy Stance
19
Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2)
No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a
timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for
absolute or intensity-based achievements
Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple
action by business?
strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points
awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website,
publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying
20
Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change
action?
No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly
opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and
active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to
undermine climate change action
21
Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)?
No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through
company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
(emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
10Ks)
Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other
meaningful subsegments?
Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1);
Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2)
Report
22
Total
Sources
0
2
0
0
10
10
0
(up to -10)
4
4
12
10
0
36
Carbon Disclosure Project response (CDP3)
Yahoo! Environment website
Yahoo! Campaigns for Good website
Yahoo! Auto Green Center website
Yahoo! Events website
Yahoo! Yodel Anecdotal website
Published June 2007
Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007
Achieve
reductions (take
steps, achieve,
verify) (27)
Encourage
reductions by
others (10)
Support public
policy to require
reductions
(-10, +10)
Publicly disclose
emissions
(inventory),
reductions, and
2 related actions
(12)
100
Yum! Brands
Climate Counts Scorecard
www.climatecounts.org
Summary:
Copyright 2007
Score
Highest Possible Score
0
1
0
0
1
22
56
10
12
100
Review
Reduce
Policy Stance
Report
TOTAL
Full Scorecard:
Questions/Criteria
Scoring Guideposts (possible points)
Review
1
GHG emissions inventory completed?
No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
Score
Highest
Possible
Score
0
0
22
5
0
3
0
2
2
Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator?
3
Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included?
4
0
5
Are indirect emissions accounted for?
Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1);
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4)
portfolio)
Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on
reporting (where applicable)?
company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3)
Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting)
0
Identify and
4 quantify
emissions (22)
4
6
Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years?
One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
0
4
Has a clear goal been set?
No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)
1
0
56
4
8
Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in
company's size/composition)
No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2);
Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested
during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the
appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible
0
3
9
Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year)
No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than
small reduction goal set far in the future)
0
10
Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible
parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate
action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available
detailed plan
0
Set goals and
5 establish internal
management
(19)
5
11
Is there top-level support for climate change action?
0
2
12
Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of
on reduction)
emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future
reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on
level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points
0
8
13
Has the company achieved emissions reductions?
0
10
14
Absolute or intensity-based reductions?
Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be
achieved even if a relative target was set
Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.)
0
4
0
5
16
Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of
products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2);
Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of
products/services (3-4)
0
4
17
Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or
customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct
education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)?
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education,
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
1
4
18
Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2)
to those that do?
Reduce
7
15
Policy Stance
19
Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2)
No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a
timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for
absolute or intensity-based achievements
Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple
action by business?
strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points
awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website,
publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying
20
Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change
action?
No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly
opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and
active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to
undermine climate change action
21
Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)?
No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through
company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
(emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
10Ks)
Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other
meaningful subsegments?
Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1);
Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2)
Report
22
Total
Sources
0
2
0
0
10
10
0
(up to -10)
0
0
12
10
0
1
Yum! Brand
Yum! Brand
Yum! Brand
Energy Star
Foods Sustainability website
Foods Worldwide Code of Conduct report
Foods Supplier Code of Conduct report
Success Story: Pizza Hut
Published June 2007
Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007
Achieve
reductions (take
steps, achieve,
verify) (27)
Encourage
reductions by
others (10)
Support public
policy to require
reductions
(-10, +10)
Publicly disclose
emissions
(inventory),
reductions, and
2 related actions
(12)
100