Colgate-Palmolive, Energizer 2012 Sustainability Reporting ... · Colgate-Palmolive, Energizer Holdings, Estée Lauder, FUJIFILM ... Our analysis of sustainability reporting has a

Adidas, Avon Products, Beiersdorf, Christian Dior, Clorox, Coach, Inc., Colgate-Pa lmol ive , Energ izer Holdings, Estée Lauder, FUJIFILM Holdings Corporation, Hasbro, H e n k e l K G a A , H e r m è s International, Kao, Kimberly-Clark, L'Oréal Group, Luxottica, Mattel, Mead Johnson, Natura Cosmeticos, Newell Rubbermaid, Nike, Polo Ralph Lauren, Procter and Gamble, Reckitt Benckiser, SCA-Svenska Cellulosa, Shiseido, Swatch Group, T o r a y I n d u s t r i e s , a n d V F .

2012 Sustainability Reporting of the World’sLargest Household, Apparel, & Personal Products Companies

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

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

Contents Topics Page Company Rankings 3 PSI Overview 4 PSI Scoring in a Nutshell 5 Lead Analyst’s Commentary 6 Environmental Intent Topics 13 Environmental Reporting Topics 14 Social Intent Topics 15 Social Reporting Topics 16 Environmental Intent Element of the PSI Scores 17 Environmental Reporting Element of the PSI Scores

18

Social Intent Element of the PSI Scores 19 Social Reporting Element of the PSI Scores 20 Environmental Intent Scores Ranking 21 Environmental Reporting Scores Ranking 22 Environmental Performance Scores Ranking 23 Social Intent Scores Ranking 24 Social Reporting Scores Ranking 25 Social Performance Scores Ranking 26 Human Rights Reporting Element 27 Performance by Country 28 Visual Cluster Analysis 29 Relationship Between PSI Scores and Financial Variables

30

Number of Explicit numerical goals Reported 33 Number of Topics Showing Performance Improvement over Previous Year Data

34

Number of Topics in which Performance was Better than Sector Average

36

Analyst’s Comments, alphabetically listed by company name

37

Appendix: PSI Questionnaire 67 Questions should be addressed to: Dr. J. Emil Morhardt, Director ([email protected]) Roberts Environmental Center Claremont McKenna College 925 N. Mills Ave. Claremont, CA 91711-5916, USA Direct line: (909) 621-8190 Elgeritte Adidjaja, Research Fellow (909) 621-8698 ([email protected]) Departmental Secretaries: (909) 621-8298

The Roberts Environmental Center has been the foremost analyst of corporate sustainability reporting for over a decade. We analyze corporate online disclosure using our Pacific Sustainability Index (PSI) and publish the results online.

Industrial Sector** 2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

Aerospace & Defense X X

Airlines X

X

Banks, Insurance X

Chemicals X X X X

Colleges/Universities X X

Computer, Office Equipment, & Services

X

Conglomerates X

Food & Beverages X

X

X

Electronics & Semiconductors X

X X X

Energy & Utilities X

X X X

Entertainment X

Federal Agencies X

Food Services X

Forest & Paper Products X

X

X

General Merchandiser X

Homebuilders X

Household, Apparel, & Personal Products

X

Industrial & Farm Equipment X X X

Mail, Freight, & Shipping X

Medical Products & Equipment X

Metals X* X X

Mining, Crude Oil X* X

X

Motor Vehicle & Parts X

X X X

Municipalities X

Oil and Gas Equipment X

Petroleum & Refining X

X

X

Pharmaceuticals X

X X

X X

Scientific, Photo, & Control Equipment

X

Telecommunications, Network, & Peripherals

X

Transportation X

* Multiple-sector category was separated in later years. The goal of corporate report analysis conducted by the Roberts Environmental Center is to acquaint students with environmental and

social issues facing the world’s industries, and the ways in which industry approaches and resolves these issues. The data presented in this report were collected by student research assistants and a research fellow at the Roberts Environmental Center. Copyright 2012 © by J. Emil Morhardt. All rights reserved.

www.roberts.cmc.edu 2 Household, Apparel, & Personal Products Sectors 2012

Corporate Environmental and Sustainability Reporting

Overall GradeCompany Rankings

Sustainability Reporting of Worlds' Largest Household, Apparel, and Personal Products Companies

0.00

0.00

0.00

4.38

7.25

7.43

8.13

8.22

14.81

17.77

22.99

23.34

23.96

25.24

26.92

27.23

27.81

28.16

29.97

31.56

32.18

33.51

34.31

34.53

35.01

37.62

40.36

41.20

44.21

51.59

0 25 50 75 100

Christian Dior

Swatch Group

Hermès International

Coach, Inc.

Mead Johnson

L'Oréal Group

Polo Ralph Lauren

Luxottica

Energizer Holdings

VF

Colgate- Palmolive

Mattel

Hasbro

Beiersdorf

Newell Rubbermaid

Reckitt Benckiser

Shiseido

Henkel KGaA

Estée Lauder

SCA- Svenska Cellulosa

FUJIFILM Holdings Corporation

Procter and Gamble

Avon Products

Adidas

Kao

Clorox

Toray Industries

Kimberly- Clark

Nike

Natura Cosmeticos

Natura Cosmeticos (Brazil)A+

Nike (USA)A-

Kimberly-Clark (USA)A-

Toray Industries (Japan)B+

Clorox (USA)B+

Kao (Japan)B

Adidas (Germany)B

Avon Products (USA)B

Procter and Gamble (USA)B

FUJIFILM Holdings Corporation (Japan)

B-

SCA-Svenska Cellulosa (Sweden)B-

Estée Lauder (USA)B-

Henkel KGaA (Germany)B-

Shiseido (Japan)C+

Reckitt Benckiser (England)C+

Newell Rubbermaid (USA)C+

Beiersdorf (Germany)C+

Hasbro (USA)C+

Mattel (USA)C

Colgate-Palmolive (USA)C

VF (USA)C-

Energizer Holdings (USA)D+

Luxottica (Italy)D

Polo Ralph Lauren (USA)D

L'Oréal Group (France)D

Mead Johnson (USA)D

Coach, Inc. (USA)D-

Hermès International (France)F

Swatch Group (Switzerland)F

Christian Dior (France)F

This report is an analysis of the voluntary environmental and social reporting of companies on the Household, Apparel, and Personal Products Consumer Durables and Motor Vehicles sector lists. Data were collected from corporate websites during the initial analysis period (dates shown below). A draft sector report was then made available online and letters were sent to all companies inviting them to review the analysis, to identify anything missed by our analysts, and to post additional material on their websites if they wished to improve their scores.

1/26/2011 11/30/20111/20/2012 3/1/2012

throughthrough

Analysis Period:Draft sector report available for review:


PSI Scoring in a Nutshell

Our analysis of sustainability reporting has a set of basic topics applied to all organizations as well as a series of sector-specific topics. The topics are divided into environmental and social categories—the latter including human rights—and into three types of information: 1) intent, 2) reporting, and 3) performance. 1. Intent The “Intent” topics are each worth two points; one point for a discussion of intentions, vision, or plans, and one point for evidence of specific actions taken to implement them. 2. Reporting The “Reporting” topics are each worth five points and are either quantitative (for which we expect numerical data) or qualitative (for which we don’t). For quantitative topics, one point is available for a discussion, one point for putting the information into perspective (i.e. awards, industry standards, competitor performance, etc., or if the raw data are normalized by dividing by revenue, number of employees, number of widgets produced, etc.), one point for the presence of an explicit numerical goal, one point for numerical data from a single year, and one point for similar data from a previous year. For qualitative topics, there are three criteria summed up to five points: 1.67 points for discussion, 1.67 points for initiatives or actions, and 1.67 points for perspective. 3. Performance For each “Reporting” topic, two performance points are available. For quantitative topics, one point is given for improvement from the previous reporting period, and one point for better performance than the sector average (based on the data used for this sector report normalized by revenue). For qualitative topics, we give one point for any indication of improvement from previous reporting periods, and one point for perspective. The 11 “human rights” topics are scored differently, with five “reporting” points; 2.5 points for formally adopting a policy or standard and 2.5 points for a description of monitoring measures. In addition, there are two “performance” points; one point for evidence of actions to reinforce policy and one point for a quantitative indication of compliance.

Distribution of Scores by topics


The Pacific Sustainability Index (PSI) Overview

the PSI Scoring System The Pacific Sustainability Index (PSI) uses two systematic questionnaires to analyze the quality of the sustainability reporting—a base questionnaire for reports across sectors and a sector-specific questionnaire for companies within the same sector. The selection of questions is based on, and periodically adjusted to, the most frequently-mentioned topics in over 1,900 corporate sustainability reports analyzed from 2002 through 2009 at the Roberts Environmental Center. The Roberts Environmental Center The Roberts Environmental Center is an environmental research institute at Claremont McKenna College (CMC). Its mission is to provide students of all the Claremont Colleges with a comprehensive and realistic understanding of today’s environmental issues and the ways in which they are being and can be resolved--beyond the confines of traditional academic disciplines and curriculum--and to identify, publicize, and encourage policies and practices that achieve economic and social goals in the most environmentally benign and protective manner. The Center is partially funded by an endowment from George R. Roberts (Founding Partner of Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. and CMC alumnus), other grants and gifts, and is staffed by faculty and students from the Claremont Colleges. Methodology Student analysts download relevant English language web pages from the main corporate website for analysis. Our scoring excludes data independently stored outside the main corporate website or available only in hard copy. When a corporate subsidiary has its own sustainability reporting, partial credit is given to the parent company when a direct link is provided in the main corporate website. We archive these web pages as PDF files for future reference. Our analysts use a keyword search function to search reporting of specific topics, fill out a PSI scoring sheet (http://www.roberts.cmc.edu/PSI/scoringsheet.asp), and track the coverage and depths of different sustainability issues mentioned in all online materials. Scores and Ranks When they are finished scoring, the analysts enter their scoring results into the PSI database. The PSI database calculates scores and publishes them on the Center’s website. This sector report provides an in-depth analysis on sustainability reporting of the largest companies of the sector, as listed in the latest 2010 Forbes lists. Prior to publishing our sector report, we notify companies analyzed and encourage them to provide feedback and additional new online materials, which often improve their scores. What do the scores mean? We normalize all the scores to the potential maximum score. Scores of subsets of the overall score are also normalized to their potential maxima. The letter grades (A+, A, A-, B+, etc.), however, are normalized to the highest scoring company analyzed in the report. Grades of individual companies in the report might be different from grades posted online on the Roberts Environmental Center's website, since the normalization of scores of an individual company online is not limited to the companies analyzed in the sector report, but also includes other companies of the same sector irrespective of the year of analysis. Companies with scores in the highest 4% get an A+ and any in the bottom 4% get an F. We assign these by dividing the maximum PSI score obtained in the sector into 12 equal parts then rounding fractional score up or down. This means that A+ and F are under-represented compared to the other grades. The same technique applies to the separate categories of environmental and social scores. Thus, we grade on the curve. We assume that the highest score obtained in the sector and any scores near it represent the state-of-the-art for that sector and deserve an A+.


Lead Analyst’s Commentary

By Hilary Haskel, CMC ‘14

Today, consumers are constantly

faced with choosing between competing household, apparel, and personal products in their daily lives. Bombarded by advertisements

for these products, consumers must consider not only which options suit their needs and preferences; are the best value; and match their budgets; but now, with the current impetus towards environmental and social sustainability, consumers must also consider whether these products are sustainable. However, there is a sea as large as the North Pacific Garbage Gyre of conflicting information, lack of standardization, and even “green washing” that may lead even the most savvy, sustainable consumers astray. Therefore, it is imperative that companies of the Household, Apparel, and Personal Products sector provide corporate sustainability reporting that is as transparent and thorough as possible. This initiative will improve not only their image and marketing as responsible corporations, but also the sustainability of the Sector as a whole. For the Household, Apparel, and Personal Products sector, the most critical Environmental Reporting Topics include Renewable Materials Used; Life Cycle Analysis (LCA); Materials Reused or Recycled: Packaging Materials; Waste: Packaging Materials; and Energy Used: Logistics. These areas are all underreported to a great extent, with companies reporting these topics only 46.7%-16.7% of the time. For the Environmental Intent aspect of the PSI Score, perhaps the most critical aspects include Environmental Labeling and Green Purchasing. These two areas of Environmental Intent are also quite underreported, considering only 50% of companies from the Sector reported data. Turning to the social responsibility aspect of corporate sustainability, the Social Reporting Topics of Customer Emergency Support and Customer Health and Safety are both sector-wide concerns. Customer Health and Safety is reported at a 60% rate by companies of the Sector; however, it is quite concerning that Customer Emergency Support is only reported at a 6.7% rate in comparison. The companies receiving the highest PSI score overall for corporate sustainability of the

Household, Apparel, and Personal Products sector are Natura Cosmeticos Nike, and Kimberly Clark. Each of these companies represents one industry from the Sector as a whole: Personal Products, Apparel, and Household Products, respectively. Another interesting consideration is that the four lowest scoring companies in the Sector, receiving grades of D- to F in their overall corporate sustainability, are brands that may be considered luxury products: Christian Dior, Hermes, Swatch, and Coach, Inc. The following topics represent some of the most controversial and highly discussed areas of sustainability related to the Household, Apparel, and Personal Products Sector, offering insight into best practices, legislation, activism by organizations, and other areas of concern. Green Labeling

One of the most important initiatives that companies of the Household, Apparel, and Personal Products sector can take to make their products more sustainable and their reporting more transparent is to participate in the practice of environmental labeling. According to a study conducted to analyze consumer demand for different fiber origins, types, and production methods, “The growing use of such labels (e.g. organic or ‘locally grown’) suggests consumers have value for more transparency on many of the issues regarding...product’s origin, production methods, and environmental impacts.”1 This assertion is further supported by a study pertaining to the effects of eco-labeling on consumer behavior towards dolphin-safe tuna. In response to the dolphin-tuna crisis, where dolphins were being unnecessarily slaughtered due to being caught in nets when harvesting tuna, the study found “that the dolphin-tuna controversy and the subsequent implementation of dolphin-safe labeling affected consumer behavior...,”ibid and provided“...market-based evidence that consumers can respond to eco-labels...” ibid.

Not only is there pressure from consumers who are becoming increasingly concerned with the “environmental characteristics” of products, but also

1 Hustvedt, Gwendolyn, and John C. Bernard. "Consumer Willingness to Pay for Sustainable Apparel: The Influence of Labelling for Fibre Origin and Production Methods." International Journal of Consumer Studies 32.5 (2008): 491‐98. Print.


from “governments and nongovernment organizations [that] have also responded by organizing, implementing, and verifying eco-label programs” ibid. along with “international efforts to standardize environmental labeling schemes.” ibid. On this national to international scale, “From a policy perspective, one aim of eco-labels is to educate consumers about the environmental impacts of the products’ manufacture, use, and disposal, thereby leading to a change in purchasing behavior, and ultimately to a reduction in negative impacts.” ibid. Green labeling is a growing area of corporate sustainability reporting, and is especially important for personal and household products and apparel. This labeling system aids consumers in making informed decisions about the products that they choose to purchase in their daily lives, with sustainability in mind. However, it is still important to note that while green labeling can be effective in “decreas[ing] the search cost for the information and may signal the importance of the information,” and that “labeling may affect the implicit weights that consumers assign to each attribute,” ibid. according to the study, “...a change in awareness does not necessarily translate into a change in behavior.” ibid. The behavioral implications may occur over a relatively long time period, “as the label is noticed and the information diffuses through the population...” ibid. or that “...consumers who notice the label may initially doubt the veracity of the label information.” ibid.

For this reason, there is still a need for improvement through standardization and governmental policies. If more companies inundate the Sector with green labeling initiatives, green labeling might come to be expected by consumers, and thus, become a more influential and integral aspect of consumers’ purchasing decisions. The study claims that “...if a significant portion of the consumer population demands environmentally friendly products, the presence of an eco labeling program may provide firms an incentive to differentiate and market their products along environmental characteristics.” ibid.

It is beginning to become apparent that in order to move forward and improve current green labeling practices, there must be a single, standardized, thorough practice that embodies all necessary aspects of sustainability. In her study, Harris asserts that her proposed “Green Ticke!” certification system could be used as a model of doing so. She claims that she was unable to uncover any green labeling or “environmental certification systems” that included “....independent, full life cycle

assessment of operations from ‘cradle to grave.’”2 However, she goes on to state that the “Green Ticke” model would remove the “identified gap in the market by providing an easily recognizable, independent, life cycle based sustainability certification.” ibid. Although this system is yet to be implemented, it still provides a basis for researching and implementing more effective green labeling systems, in order to increase the efficacy of this market intervention. Currently, without standardization, there exists an excess of confusion over veracity, reliability, and comparability of green labels. The Green Ticke study proposes that this could be avoided through a program similar to itself that embraces “independence; integrity; transparency; meaningful and verifiable standards; safety/health/environment; instant eco-label recognition; and certification of the certifier.” ibid. Currently, the International Standards Organization (ISO) is attempting to create standards to certify the third party endorsement in the green labeling process.

Legislative initiatives that indicate a shift in U.S. policy towards green labeling are Proposition 65, the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI), and Safe Drinking Water Act. Although each of these pieces of legislation addresses different issues, there are commonalities between them. Proposition 65 required manufacturers to prove that ingredients in their products posed no significant risk of causing cancer or reproductive toxicity. If not, manufacturers are required to include a warning label on any product containing an ingredient "known to the state [of California]" to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity. In 2009, U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein was interested in promoting legislation to “rein in the confusion proliferation of environmental product labels.”3This type of legislation would encourage consumers and manufacturers to voluntarily choose green label products to decrease environmental impacts from cradle to grave, and “provide to consumers accurate, non-deceptive, and scientifically based information on the environmental impact of products.” ibid. Furthermore, the EPA would have needed to create 2 Harris, Susan M. "Green Tick™: An Example of Sustainability Certification of Goods and Services." Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal 18.2 (2007): 167‐78. Print 3 "Federal Eco‐Labeling Law Taking Shape." GreenSource Magazine. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 June 2012. <http://greensource.construction.com/news/2009/090223Eco‐Labeling.asp>.


an “Eco-Labeling Board” to oversee this type of program.

There are already independent organizations, such as Eco-Label Index that aim to “help clients deliver on sustainability promises, by working with them to navigate the complex and diverse international eco-label landscape, create and monitor green purchasing programs, and understand and meet the needs of stakeholders;”4 however, it is a widely held notion that perhaps it would be more effective and efficient to instate a nation-wide, federal program.

Fashionably Unsustainable Green labeling, with its inherent discrepancies and lack of standardization, has even become trendy. But, this is far from being the only issue associated with the apparel industry. In the wake of the ever-evolving fashion scene, the apparel industry faces a unique challenge. Consumers are tempted to buy, shop, and spend more and more on clothing, resulting in an emphasis on a “race to the bottom” for manufacturers to market apparel that is cheap for consumers, yet profitable for the company. Unfortunately, this reality often results in unsustainable manufacturing processes. This includes poor supply chain screening and management as well as usage of unsustainable materials that do not take into account an entire cradle-to-grave approach for a piece of clothing. Without this complete accounting of externalities, consumers are unable to appreciate the true environmental and social costs of apparel that they take for granted.

In the article “Waste Couture,” this troubling phenomenon is discussed in depth. The article cites globalization as the main underlying cause of the issue, making “it possible to produce clothing at increasingly lower prices, prices so low that many consumer consider this clothing to be disposable,” so much so to “make the purchase tempting and the disposal painless.”5 What is even more concerning is

4 "About | Ecolabel Index." About | Ecolabel Index. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 June 2012. <http://www.ecolabelindex.com/about/>. 5 Claudio, Luz. "Waste Couture: Environmental Impact of the Clothing Industry."Environmental Health Prospect 115.9 (2007): A449‐454. Environmental Health Perspectives. National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National

that under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, many of the wastes created by textile manufacturing companies are considered hazardous. From a social sustainability perspective, “according to figures from the U.S. National Labor Committee, some Chinese workers make as little as 12-18 cents per hour working in poor conditions.” ibid. But, when considering a full cradle-to-grave approach in analyzing the apparel industry, the troublesome sustainability implications do not end with the product being handed off to the consumer. Instead, “the ‘national wardrobe,’ which is considered to represent a potentially large quantity of latent waste that will eventually enter the solid waste stream,” is only further concerning when considering end of life cycle implications of “fast fashion” ibid.

Fortunately, groups like the Sustainable Apparel Coalition aim to create “An apparel industry that produces no unnecessary environmental harm and has a positive impact on the people and communities associated with its activities,”6 with its main “objective...[being] to measure the full lifecycle environmental…and social impacts and performance of all apparel and footwear products, and support supply chain decision-making and behavior change improvements in those areas,” ibid. with the hope that “Ultimately, the Index will drive business value throughout the supply chain by presenting opportunities for innovation, and by catalyzing sustainability education and collaboration.” ibid. In addition, there is a trend towards “going green” in the apparel industry—which of course implies its own problems. One will encounter a plethora of sustainability-themed slogans printed across t-shirts, handbags, even shoes when perusing any mall. Many apparel companies have begun to realize that it is the latest trend to assure some “green” customers that their products were produced sustainably. These “eco -fashions” are described by the International Standards Organization as “identifying the general environmental performance of a product within a product group based on its whole life-cycle in order to contribute to improvements in key environmental measures and to support sustainable production methods.” ibid. Still, as previously discussed, this Library of Medicine, Sept. 2007. Web. 4 July 2012. <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1964887/>. 6 "About Us ‐ Sustainable Apparel Coalition." About Us ‐ Sustainable Apparel Coalition. N.p., n.d. Web. June‐July 2012. <http://www.apparelcoalition.org/3.html>.


“green labeling” can lead to its own issues as far as standardization, reliability, and veracity are concerned.

LCA/Green Purchasing/Supply Chains

But, there are ways to address the lack of sustainability present in the manufacturing and LCA of the Sector. Through consideration of LCA, in the stages of the supply chain and manufacturing, green purchasing and procurement come into play. According to the U.S. EPA, green purchasing of Environmentally Preferable Products (EPP) involves:

Products or services that have a lesser or reduced effect on human health and the environment when compared with competing products or services that serve the same purpose... This comparison applies to raw materials, manufacturing, packaging, distribution, use, reuse, operation, maintenance, and disposal. 7

A study by Lyons from Rutger’s University Water Resources Program cites Green Purchasing as a practice that:

Minimizes negative environmental effects through the use of environmentally friendly products, practices and attributes, is a way of adding environmental considerations to the price and performance criteria that businesses use to make purchasing decisions, [and] attempts to identify and reduce environmental impact as well as maximize resource efficiency. 8

For the Household, Apparel, and Personal Products sector, these considerations are especially important, due to the often toxic and/or hazardous chemicals that are involved in the supply chain and manufacturing process. This implication is recognized by the organization StopWaste, which explains that “green purchasing, [is] also known as environmentally responsible supply chain management.”9 For the apparel industry, companies

7 "Basic Information." EPA. Environmental Protection Agency, n.d. Web. 26 June 2012. <http://www.epa.gov/epp/pubs/about/about.htm>. 8 Lyons, Kevin. Greening the Supply Chain, Green Purchasing and the Economic Challenges and Benefits Your State/Global Resource! Sussex County Green Infrastructure Program. Rutgers University, n.d. Web. June‐July 2012. <http://water.rutgers.edu/Projects/Sussex/Rutgers%20Greening%20the%20Supply%20Chain%20(Sussex)%20b.pdf>. 9 "StopWaste.Org ‐ Green Purchasing." StopWaste.Org ‐ Green Purchasing. N.p., n.d. Web. May‐June 2012.

are often cognoscente of their impact. According to a study by Gam and Ma, “... they were aware of the environmental problems associated with dyeing and textile processing. However, interestingly, they did not regard themselves as responsible for correcting these problems,”10 making it even more important that companies of this Sector embrace green purchasing and sustainable manufacturing practices. This same study also found that for the apparel industry, procurement decisions usually rested mainly on maintaining consistent supplier relationships over the course of time, while choosing more sustainable procurement options was often second in importance. ibid. Today, much of the supply chain depends on importing garments and their components from developing countries. This trend was exacerbated in 2005 by the termination of the 1974 Multi Fiber Agreement (MFA). The top three exporters, 75% of which are developing nations, include Asia, South America, and Africa.11 Not only is clothing sourced from developing nations that lack sustainable production technology, but also, “cheap fashion uses cheap fibers, such as polyester and cotton...polyester is an oil-based commodity, [and]...cotton alone uses an estimated 22.5% of the world’s insecticides and 10% of all pesticides.” ibid. With all of this cheap fashion rushing from shelves, to consumers, to landfills, “quicker production lowers product quality, and lower quality garments are easier to dispose of” ibid. All of these consideration were a part of the Rio 2012 conference, where there was “really only one topic on the agenda for the fashion industry; how can they make their supply chains measurably more transparent?” ibid.

Packaging Waste <http://www.stopwaste.org/home/index.asp?page=837>. 10 Gam, Hae J., and Yoon J. Ma. "Research Briefs: Creating a Green Label for Reducing the Gap." Research Briefs. Universtiy of Deleware, n.d. Web. 01 July 2012. <http://www.udel.edu/fiber/issue6/researchbriefs/greenlabel.html>. 11 Network, Ilaria Pasquinelli for the Guardian Professional. "Rio 2012: What Can the Fashion Industry Do to Become More Sustainable?" The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 16 Jan. 2012. Web. 01 July 2012. <http://www.guardian.co.uk/sustainable‐business/fashion‐industry‐sustainability‐strategy>.


Although some clothing may be so cheap to

consumers that it is practically disposable, when it comes to the household and personal products that consumers purchase, almost always, the packaging of these products will indeed be disposable. Packaging waste, according to the EPA is defined as “any material that is used to contain, protect, handle, deliver and present goods.” 12 This issue has lead to a great deal of waste that could easily be prevented through rather easily implemented methods. CalRecycle cites that “simple ideas include eliminating packaging, reducing packaging, designing refillable or reusable packages, and producing recyclable packages and packages made of recycled materials.”13 According to the EPA, in “1999, 42 percent of all paper, 40 percent of all plastic soft drink bottles, 55 percent of all aluminum beer and soft drink cans, and 57 percent of all steel packaging were recycled in the United States.” This rate was achieved due to initiatives by the federal government, despite the fact that “many U.S. states and municipalities have enacted laws or programs to further these goals. U.S. policies and laws generally have not addressed packaging wastes, per se, as a distinct class.” ibid.

Currently, the European Union (EU) has taken the lead in crafting legislation to address this issue. Obviously the U.S. has made some progress; however, in comparison, the EU’s “Directive 2004/12/EC, adopted in early 2004,” that “formally amends the 1994 Packaging Directive...” is by far a much more effective and stringent piece of legislation.14 Directive 2004/12/EC formed from the 94/62/EC Directive, modified the original directive by “clarifying the definition of the term 'packaging' and increas[ing] the targets for recovery and recycling of packaging waste.” ibid. Finally, in 2005, the Directive 12 "Recycling and Reuse: Packaging Material: European Union Directive." EPA. Environmental Protection Agency, n.d. Web. 02 July 2012. <http://www.epa.gov/oswer/international/factsheets/200610‐packaging‐directives.htm>. 13 "Product Stewardship and Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR)." EPR and Stewardship Home: CalRecycle. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 July 2012. <http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/EPR 14 "European Commission." ‐ Environment. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 July 2012. <http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/packaging_index.htm>.

was revised again to allow new Member States transitional periods for attaining the recovery and recycling targets.” ibid. The original directive: Aims to harmonize national measures in order to prevent or reduce the impact of

packaging and packaging waste on the environment and to ensure the functioning of the

Internal Market. It contains provisions on the prevention of packaging waste, on their-use of packaging and on the recovery and recycling of packaging waste. ibid.

Furthermore, according to the EPA, put another way, this directive “require[d] manufacturers to play a role in mitigating the post-consumer environmental impacts of products from which they profit.” ibid. The success of the EU’s Directive can be seen in that “for all materials other than plastics, most EU member States achieved or surpassed the 1994 Directive minimum recycling and recovery targets well ahead of the June 2001 deadline” ibid. Not only is the EU often a leader in creating policies meant to promote sustainability, but California is also. Often, California takes the reins in producing statewide legislation or taking initiatives before the federal government does so, especially due to California’s comparatively large population. Cal Recycle, “ the state's leading authority on recycling, waste reduction, and product reuse” has created programs such as the “shipping and distribution partnership... a voluntary effort created to encourage businesses to adopt more efficient packaging and distribution systems that save money while preventing waste and improving operations.”15 Social Sustainability: Apparel and Personal Products Environmental considerations are not the only aspects that play an important role in the manufacturing of products. For especially the apparel and textile industry, there is significant suspicion and concern over the notion of sweatshops, child labor, and horrific working conditions in many developing nations where much of the world’s apparels and textiles are manufactured. As previously mentioned, developing nations are the primary exporters of

15 "Manufacturers." :Efficient Transport Packaging and Distribution Systems. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 July 2012. <http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/ReduceWaste/Packaging/Manufacture/>.


textiles and apparel, comprising approximately 75% of the market. The apparel industry is best-known for being the main driver behind forced and child labor, especially in sweat shops. The Labor Rights Forum has even gone so far as to create the “2010 Sweatshop Hall of Shame” to raise awareness about the prominence of the issue in the apparel industry. The organization claims that:

Most of the companies listed employ laborers who toil for long hours under dangerous working conditions for poverty wages. When these workers attempt to form a union to voice their collective concerns, they face threats from management and risk being fired or even beaten.16

Moreover, “Hall of Shame inductees are responsible for evading fair labor standards and often are slow to respond or provide no response at all to any attempts by the International Labor Rights Forum (ILRF), workers, or others to improve working conditions.” ibid. The importance of supply chain relationships upstream in corporate sustainability is also highlighted through the startling assertion that “Many of this year’s inductees [in the Sweatshop Hall of Shame] use suppliers that practice illegal tactics to suppress workers’ rights to organize.” ibid. In contrast, on a more commendable note, it is interesting that“recent data from Price Waterhouse Coopers highlights that cosmetic and personal care products companies contribute twice as much to charity in the U.S. as other manufacturing industries,”17 indicating a strong adherence to social community investment by these industries. Household Products Sustainability Aside from green procurement by corporations and the environmentally conscious consumer, household products used in homes, restaurants, hotels, and hospitality industries alike contain many chemicals and even toxic ingredients

16 "International Labor Rights Forum." 2010 Sweatshop Hall of Shame. N.p., n.d. Web. 02 July 2012. <http://www.laborrights.org/creating‐a‐sweatfree‐world/sweatshops/resources/12211>. 17 "New PwC Study Shows Increased Economic and Social Contributions of the Personal Care Products Industry in China‐‐ Study Projects Annual Growth Rate of 12% for the Industry." Personal Care Products Council. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 June 2012. <http://www.personalcarecouncil.org/newsroom/052412>.

that are of concern to the environment and consumer health. In the European Union, the REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorization of Chemicals) Regulation is responsible for managing chemicals. Of course, this European legislation also applies to apparel and personal products, as well as any other industry that requires the use of chemicals in its manufacturing process. This legislation pressures industries in the EU to become more sustainable in the ingredients they use for their products, including those used in households. According to Fraunhofer, a European research group that embodies principles of sustainability in its work:

More and more everyday products are based on renewable resources, with household cleaners now containing active cleaning substances (surfactants) made from plant oils and sugar. These fat and dirt removers are especially environmentally friendly and effective when produced using biotechnology, with the aid of fungi and bacteria.18

Of course, this manufacturing trend remains in its infancy today. However, there is great potential and necessity for its growth, especially with the rise of green labeling and more environmentally conscious consumers. Legislatively, in 2009, there was a proposed Household Product Labeling Act that would have required “...that household cleaning products and similar products bear labels that state completely and accurately all of the ingredients of such products, and for other purposes.”19 This bill, however, died after being introduced. This legislation follows in the footsteps of Proposition 65, Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, that aimed to protect California citizens “...from chemicals known to cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm, and to inform citizens about exposures to such chemicals.”

18 "Environmentally‐friendly Cleaning and Washing ‐ Research News March 2012 ‐ Topic 4."Environmentally‐friendly Cleaning and Washing ‐ Research News March 2012 ‐ Topic 4. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 July 2012. <http://www.fraunhofer.de/en/press/research‐news/2012/march/environmentally‐friendly‐cleaning‐and‐washing.html>. 19 "S. 1697 (111th): Household Product Labeling Act of 2009." Household Product Labeling Act of 2009 (2009; 111th Congress S. 1697). N.p., n.d. Web. 02 July 2012. <http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/s1697>.


Personal Products Sustainability

The personal products industry often faces a great deal of criticism as far as sustainability is concerned, due to the nature of its products, involving chemicals that wash down the drain, excessive disposable packaging, etc. Because of this issue, the Personal Care Products Council (formerly the Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association), highlights the importance of “cosmetic and personal care products companies demonstrat[ing] their environmental commitment through programs focused on recycling and packaging reduction, and energy and water conservation...,”20 and that “many companies [conduct] life cycle assessments to minimize the environmental impacts of their product and manufacturing operations...”ibid. Furthermore, the Council states that “Personal care products companies have built eco-smart facilities and LEED-certified buildings to complement their research, development and distribution operations” ibid. to further improve their sustainability image. The Personal Care Products Council has even adopted its own Sustainable Principles, which “...demonstrate the industry’s commitment to the three pillars of sustainability: Environment, Society, and Economy.” ibid. The Personal Care and Products Council has been instrumental in legislative issues related to the personal care industry. The organization “... [has] also began to focus on environmental packaging and claims issues before state legislatures. Several states enacted regulations or statutes designed to reduce packaging, encourage reuse or incorporate recycled content into packaging.” ibid. Interestingly, the Council “...generally opposed legislative proposals mandating certain percentages of recycled content in packaging by certain dates. Rather, CTFA endorsed an integrated waste management approach.” ibid.

Furthermore, the Personal Care and Products Council has also been involved with two key pieces of legislation related to packaging and labeling for consumer safety. Both the Federal Food , Drug, and Cosmetic (FD&C) Act and The Fair Packaging and Labeling Act (FPLA) are important in ensuring consumer awareness and safety when making

20 "Committed to a Sustainable Future." Personal Care Products Council. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 July 2012. <http://www.ctfa.org/about‐us/committed‐sustainable‐future>.

purchasing decisions about products, to prevent “improperly labeled or deceptively packaged products and subject to regulatory actions” ibid. The FPLA deals specifically with “ingredient declarations” to assist consumers in making their purchasing decisions.” ibid. Concerning consumer health and safety, personal care corporations must also answer to the International Cooperation on Cosmetics Regulation, “a voluntary partnership among the health authorities of Canada...Europe...Japan... and U.S.” ibid.

Consumer Safety Legislation Finally, it is also important to consider the safety of consumers in their usage of products from the Sector. The primary legislation responsible for regulating consumer safety is the Consumer Product Safety Act of 1972, overseen by the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission. For cosmetics, the primary regulatory legislation is the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, under jurisdiction of the Food and Drug Administration. In 2008, the Consumer Product Safety Act of 1972 was amended by the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA), which “authorized a variety of new regulations and testing requirements for children’s products and some non-children’s products...” Furthermore, “The CPSIA fundamentally changed how product safety is regulated in the United States.”21 The main concerns facing the Household, Personal Products, and Apparel sector primarily encompass hazardous wastes, socially sustainable workplaces, transparent environmental labeling practices, and sustainable production with packing and end-of-life cycle implications in mind. As a sector with pertinent implications for everyday consumers, it has great potential for positively impacting sustainability issues and making sustainable choices part of an everyday lifestyle.

21 N.p., n.d. Web. 04 July 2012. <http://www.cpsc.gov/about/cpsia/cpsia.html>.


Percent of possible points for all companies combined.

Environmental Intent Topics

Household, Apparel, and Personal Product

38.33

47.9250.00

43.33

59.17

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Acco

unta

bilit

y

Man

agem

ent

Polic

y

Prod

uct R

espo

nsib

ility

Visi

on

Two possible points for each topic:

Accountability

Report contact person4 *Environmental management structure19 *

Management

Environmental education16 *Environmental management system20 *Environmental accounting21 *Stakeholder consultation23 *

Policy

Environmental policy statement9 *Climate change/global warming10 *Habitat/ecosystem conservation11 *Biodiversity12 *Green purchasing13 *Environmental labelling259 *

Vision

Environmental visionary statement5 *Environmental impediments and challenges6 *

Notes: * These numbers correspond to the numbers in the PSI questionnaire. Items with numbers higher than 99 are sector-specific questions. Appendix 1 has the complete questionnaire.



Environmental Reporting Topics


34.00

24.22

16.40

22.00

8.00

14.50

20.17

43.33

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Emis

sion

s to

Air

Ener

gy

Man

agem

ent

Mat

eria

ls U

sage

Prod

ucts

Recy

clin

g

Was

te

Wat

er

Seven possible points for each topic:

Emissions to Air

Greenhouse gases (or CO2 equivalents), total83 *Ozone depleting substances from refrigerant119 *

Energy

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

Management

Notices of violation (environmental)38 *Environmental expenses and investments39 *Fines (environmental)40 *Green transportation initiatives163 *Raw material reduction3799 *

Materials Usage

Renewable materials used146 *Life Cycle Analysis (LCA)147 *

Products

Eco-efficiency monitoring144 *

Recycling

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

Waste

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

Water

Water used29 *




Social Intent Topics


35.0036.33

69.44

23.33

47.50

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Acco

unta

bilit

y

Man

agem

ent

Polic

y

Soci

al D

emog

raph

ic

Visi

on

Two possible points for each topic:

Accountability

Health and safety, or social organizational structure

51 *

Third-party validation54 *Management

Workforce profile: ethnicities/race17 *Workforce profile: gender18 *Workforce profile: age52 *Emergency preparedness program53 *Employee training for career development82 *

Policy

Social policy statement 45 *Code of conduct or business ethics47 *Supplier screening based on social or environmental performance/ supplier management

49 *

Social Demographic

Employment for individuals with disabilities80 *Vision

Social visionary statement 42 *Social impediments and challenges43 *




Social Reporting Topics


34.06

22.33

46.44

20.56

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Hum

an R

ight

s

Man

agem

ent

Qual

itativ

e So

cial

Quan

titat

ive

Soci

al

Seven possible points for each topic:

Human Rights

Sexual harassment1 *Political contributions7 *Bribery8 *Anti-corruption practices58 *Degrading treatment or punishment of employees59 *Elimination of discrimination in respect to employment and occupation

60 *

Free association and collective bargaining of employees

61 *

Fair compensation of employees62 *Elimination of all forms of forced and compulsory labor

63 *

Reasonable working hours64 *Effective abolition of child labor65 *

Management

Women in management2 *Customer Emergency Support149 *

Qualitative Social

Community development66 *Employee satisfaction surveys67 *Community education68 *Occupational health and safety protection70 *Employee volunteerism72 *Customer health and safety169 *

Quantitative Social

Employee turnover rate3 *Recordable incident/accident rate74 *Lost workday case rate75 *Health and safety citations76 *Health and safety fines77 *Social community investment81 *



Environmental Intent Elements of the PSI Scores

= Percentage of companies addressing the topics= Percentage of the total possible number of points awarded to all companies combined for each topic, indicating the depth of reporting coverage measured by PSI criteria for each topic. If both percentages are the same it means that each of those reporting companies reporting on a topic got all the possible points.


20.0%

23.3%

31.7%

28.3%

38.3%

45.0%

43.3%

50.0%

60.0%

53.3%

71.7%

61.7%

73.3%

80.0%

23.3%

26.7%

33.3%

33.3%

46.7%

50.0%

50.0%

53.3%

63.3%

63.3%

73.3%

73.3%

73.3%

83.3%

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

Environmental accounting

Report contact person

Habitat/ecosystemconservation

Biodiversity

Environmental impedimentsand challenges

Green purchasing

Environmental labelling

Environmental education

Stakeholder consultation

Environmental managementstructure

Environmental policystatement

Environmental managementsystem

Climate change/globalwarming

Environmental visionarystatement


Environmental Reporting Elements of the PSI Scores



5 .7 %

6 .7 %

3 .8 %

10 .5 %

6 .7 %

11.4 %

10 .5 %

10 .5 %

7 .6 %

7 .6 %

9 .5 %

12 .9 %

18 .6 %

11.0 %

15 .7 %

13 .3 %

13 .3 %

19 .0 %

2 4 .3 %

3 1.0 %

3 9 .0 %

3 7 .6 %

16 .7 %

2 0 .0 %

2 0 .0 %

2 0 .0 %

2 3 .3 %

2 6 .7 %

2 6 .7 %

2 6 .7 %

2 6 .7 %

3 0 .0 %

3 6 .7 %

4 3 .3 %

4 3 .3 %

4 3 .3 %

4 6 .7 %

4 6 .7 %

5 3 .3 %

5 3 .3 %

6 0 .0 %

6 3 .3 %

6 6 .7 %

7 0 .0 %

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

Eco-efficiency monitoring

Energy used (renewable)

Waste (office) recycled

Green transportation initiatives

Waste (hazardous) released to the environment

Notices of violation (environmental)

Environmental expenses and investments

Fines (environmental)

Materials recycled: Wastewater

Energy used: Logistics

Ozone depleting substances from refrigerant

Renewable materials used

Life Cycle Analysis (LCA)

Materials reused or recycled: Packaging materials

Raw material reduction

Waste: Packaging materials

Waste (hazardous) produced

Waste recycled: solid waste

Waste (solid) disposed of

Water used

Greenhouse gases (or CO2 equivalents), total

Energy used (total)


Social Intent Elements of the PSI Scores



13.3%

25.0%

23.3%

28.3%

33.3%

38.3%

31.7%

41.7%

68.3%

65.0%

63.3%

70.0%

76.7%

20.0%

30.0%

30.0%

33.3%

40.0%

43.3%

46.7%

50.0%

70.0%

70.0%

73.3%

73.3%

83.3%

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

Workforce profile: age

Social impediments and challenges

Employment for individuals with disabilities

Workforce profile: ethnicities/race

Emergency preparedness program

Third-party validation

Health and safety, or social organizational structure

Workforce profile: gender

Social policy statement

Employee training for career development

Supplier screening based on social or environmentalperformance/ supplier management

Social visionary statement

Code of conduct or business ethics


Social Reporting Elements of the PSI Scores



2.4%

3.3%

4.8%

11.9%

18.6%

16.2%

15.2%

20.5%

25.7%

21.0%

23.8%

20.0%

29.5%

26.7%

26.2%

15.7%

27.1%

31.0%

27.6%

30.5%

35.7%

47.1%

35.7%

33.3%

37.1%

6.7%

13.3%

16.7%

30.0%

36.7%

40.0%

40.0%

43.3%

46.7%

50.0%

53.3%

53.3%

56.7%

56.7%

56.7%

56.7%

60.0%

63.3%

66.7%

66.7%

73.3%

76.7%

76.7%

76.7%

76.7%

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

Customer Emergency Support

Health and safety fines

Health and safety citations

Employee turnover rate

Employee satisfaction surveys

Degrading treatment or punishment of employees

Reasonable working hours


Lost workday case rate

Elimination of all forms of forced and compulsory labor

Fair compensation of employees

Political contributions

Women in management

Recordable incident/accident rate

Sexual harassment

Social community investment

Customer health and safety

Anti-corruption practices

Effective abolition of child labor

Bribery

Community development

Occupational health and safety protection

Elimination of discrimination in respect to employment andoccupation

Community education

Employee volunteerism


Environmental Intent Scores

Environmental intent scores include topics about the firm’s products, environmental organization, vision and commitment, stakeholders, environmental policy and certifications, environmental aspects and impacts, choice of environmental performance indicators and those used by the industry, environmental initiatives and mitigations, and environmental goals and targets.

EI Score RankingsNatura CosmeticosA+KaoAFUJIFILM Holdings CorporationAHenkel KGaAAToray IndustriesA-Avon ProductsA-SCA-Svenska CellulosaA-Kimberly-ClarkA-ShiseidoB+AdidasB+CloroxB+Estée LauderB+Procter and GambleB+NikeBEnergizer HoldingsB-BeiersdorfB-Reckitt BenckiserB-MattelC+VFC+Newell RubbermaidC+HasbroCColgate-PalmoliveC-LuxotticaDMead JohnsonD-Polo Ralph LaurenFHermès InternationalFCoach, Inc.FSwatch GroupFChristian DiorFL'Oréal GroupF

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

3.6

7.1

17.9

28.6

39.3

42.9

50.0

50.0

53.6

57.1

57.1

60.7

67.9

67.9

67.9

71.4

71.4

75.0

75.0

75.0

75.0

82.1

82.1

85.7

92.9

0 25 50 75 100

L'Oréal Group

Christian Dior

Swatch Group

Coach, Inc.


Polo Ralph Lauren

Mead Johnson

Luxottica

Colgate-Palmolive

Hasbro

Newell Rubbermaid

VF

Mattel

Reckitt Benckiser

Beiersdorf

Energizer Holdings

Nike

Procter and Gamble

Estée Lauder

Clorox

Adidas

Shiseido

Kimberly-Clark

SCA-Svenska Cellulosa

Avon Products

Toray Industries

Henkel KGaA


Kao

Natura Cosmeticos


Environmental Reporting Scores

Environmental reporting scores are based on the degree to which the company discusses its emissions, energy sources and consumption, environmental incidents and violations, materials use, mitigations and remediation, waste produced, and water used. They also include use of life cycle analysis, environmental performance and stewardship of products, and environmental performance of suppliers and contractors.

ER Score Rankings

Kimberly-ClarkA+Natura CosmeticosAAvon ProductsB+FUJIFILM Holdings CorporationB+AdidasBNikeBSCA-Svenska CellulosaBCloroxBProcter and GambleB-Newell RubbermaidB-Reckitt BenckiserB-Toray IndustriesB-KaoC+Estée LauderC+ShiseidoCHenkel KGaACColgate-PalmoliveCBeiersdorfC-MattelD+HasbroD+Energizer HoldingsDLuxotticaDPolo Ralph LaurenD-VFD-Mead JohnsonFHermès InternationalFCoach, Inc.FSwatch GroupFChristian DiorFL'Oréal GroupF

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.91

2.73

3.03

6.06

7.88

10.00

11.21

15.15

20.00

20.61

20.91

22.73

25.45

26.97

28.48

28.48

29.70

30.00

30.61

31.51

31.82

35.15

37.27

45.45

47.88

0 25 50 75 100

L'Oréal Group

Christian Dior

Swatch Group

Coach, Inc.


Mead Johnson

VF

Polo Ralph Lauren

Luxottica

Energizer Holdings

Hasbro

Mattel

Beiersdorf

Colgate-Palmolive

Henkel KGaA

Shiseido

Estée Lauder

Kao

Toray Industries

Reckitt Benckiser

Newell Rubbermaid

Procter and Gamble

Clorox


Nike

Adidas


Avon Products

Natura Cosmeticos

Kimberly-Clark


Environmental Performance Scores

Environmental performance scores are based on whether or not the firm has improved its performance on each of the topics discussed under the heading of environmental reporting, and on whether the quality of the performance is better than that of the firm’s peers. Scoring for each topic is one point if performance is better than in previous reports, two points if better than industry peers, three points if both.

EP Score Rankings

Natura CosmeticosA+KaoA-Kimberly-ClarkA-Toray IndustriesBAvon ProductsBReckitt BenckiserBNikeBHasbroC+CloroxC+Estée LauderC+BeiersdorfC+FUJIFILM Holdings CorporationC+SCA-Svenska CellulosaC+Colgate-PalmoliveC+Henkel KGaAC+AdidasC-Energizer HoldingsDShiseidoDProcter and GambleDNewell RubbermaidFMead JohnsonFHermès InternationalFPolo Ralph LaurenFCoach, Inc.FMattelFVFFSwatch GroupFLuxotticaFChristian DiorFL'Oréal GroupF

0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.002.272.272.274.556.826.826.826.826.826.826.826.829.099.099.099.0911.3611.3613.64

0 25 50 75 100

L'Oréal Group

Christian Dior

Luxottica

Swatch Group

VF

Mattel

Coach, Inc.

Polo Ralph Lauren


Mead Johnson

Newell Rubbermaid

Procter and Gamble

Shiseido

Energizer Holdings

Adidas

Henkel KGaA

Colgate-Palmolive



Beiersdorf

Estée Lauder

Clorox

Hasbro

Nike

Reckitt Benckiser

Avon Products

Toray Industries

Kimberly-Clark

Kao

Natura Cosmeticos


Social Intent Scores

Social intent scores include topics about the firm’s financials, employees, safety reporting, social management organization, social vision and commitment, stakeholders, social policy and certifications, social aspects and impacts, choice of social performance indicators and those used by the industry, social initiatives and mitigations, and social goals and targets.

SI Score RankingsToray IndustriesA+Natura CosmeticosA-Procter and GambleA-CloroxB+KaoB+NikeB+Henkel KGaAB+ShiseidoBKimberly-ClarkBEstée LauderBHasbroB-Reckitt BenckiserB-BeiersdorfB-Avon ProductsB-AdidasB-MattelC+Newell RubbermaidC+FUJIFILM Holdings CorporationC+SCA-Svenska CellulosaC+Energizer HoldingsCMead JohnsonCVFCColgate-PalmoliveC-Coach, Inc.D+LuxotticaD+Polo Ralph LaurenDL'Oréal GroupD-Hermès InternationalFSwatch GroupFChristian DiorF

0.000.000.007.6915.38

23.0823.08

30.7734.6238.4638.4642.3142.3142.3146.1550.0050.0050.0053.8553.8557.6961.5461.54

69.2369.2369.2369.2373.0873.08

88.46

0 25 50 75 100

Christian Dior

Swatch Group


L'Oréal Group

Polo Ralph Lauren

Luxottica

Coach, Inc.

Colgate-Palmolive

VF

Mead Johnson

Energizer Holdings



Newell Rubbermaid

Mattel

Adidas

Avon Products

Beiersdorf

Reckitt Benckiser

Hasbro

Estée Lauder

Kimberly-Clark

Shiseido

Henkel KGaA

Nike

Kao

Clorox

Procter and Gamble

Natura Cosmeticos

Toray Industries


Social Reporting Scores

Social reporting scores are based on the degree to which the company discusses various aspects of its dealings with its employees and contractors. They also include social costs and investments.

SR Score Rankings

NikeA+Natura CosmeticosACloroxB+Toray IndustriesB+Kimberly-ClarkBAdidasBProcter and GambleBSCA-Svenska CellulosaB-MattelB-HasbroB-KaoB-FUJIFILM Holdings CorporationB-Estée LauderC+ShiseidoC+Colgate-PalmoliveC+BeiersdorfC+Avon ProductsC+VFC+Newell RubbermaidC+Reckitt BenckiserC+Henkel KGaACL'Oréal GroupD+Polo Ralph LaurenD+Energizer HoldingsD+Mead JohnsonDLuxotticaDCoach, Inc.D-Hermès InternationalFSwatch GroupFChristian DiorF

0.000.000.006.0010.6711.4713.7314.6716.00

28.4029.8731.3332.8033.8734.0034.1334.2734.4034.9335.2036.2736.5338.6740.5342.5342.93

48.4048.67

56.4064.00

0 25 50 75 100

Christian Dior

Swatch Group


Coach, Inc.

Luxottica

Mead Johnson

Energizer Holdings

Polo Ralph Lauren

L'Oréal Group

Henkel KGaA

Reckitt Benckiser

Newell Rubbermaid

VF

Avon Products

Beiersdorf

Colgate-Palmolive

Shiseido

Estée Lauder


Kao

Hasbro

Mattel


Procter and Gamble

Adidas

Kimberly-Clark

Toray Industries

Clorox

Natura Cosmeticos

Nike


Social Performance Scores

Social performance scores are based on improvement, performance better than the sector average, or statements of compliance with established social standards.

SP Score Rankings

Natura CosmeticosA+Toray IndustriesB-KaoB-NikeB-Newell RubbermaidC-CloroxC-Estée LauderC-Avon ProductsC-AdidasC-Kimberly-ClarkC-HasbroD+L'Oréal GroupD+Polo Ralph LaurenDMattelDBeiersdorfDHenkel KGaADProcter and GambleDEnergizer HoldingsDCoach, Inc.DColgate-PalmoliveDShiseidoD-FUJIFILM Holdings CorporationD-SCA-Svenska CellulosaD-Reckitt BenckiserD-Mead JohnsonFHermès InternationalFVFFSwatch GroupFLuxotticaFChristian DiorF

0.000.000.000.000.000.002.004.004.004.006.006.006.008.008.008.008.008.0012.0012.0014.0014.0016.0016.0016.0016.00

26.0026.0028.00

46.00

0 25 50 75 100

Christian Dior

Luxottica

Swatch Group

VF


Mead Johnson

Reckitt Benckiser



Shiseido

Colgate-Palmolive

Coach, Inc.

Energizer Holdings

Procter and Gamble

Henkel KGaA

Beiersdorf

Mattel

Polo Ralph Lauren

L'Oréal Group

Hasbro

Kimberly-Clark

Adidas

Avon Products

Estée Lauder

Clorox

Newell Rubbermaid

Nike

Kao

Toray Industries

Natura Cosmeticos


Human Rights Reporting Elements of the PSI Scores


adoption reinforcement monitoring complianceHuman Rights Topics

Percent of companies reporting*

Anti-corruption practices 63.3% 36.7% 6.7% 0.0%

Bribery 66.7% 33.3% 6.7% 0.0%

Degrading treatment or punishment of employees 40.0% 13.3% 3.3% 0.0%

Effective abolition of child labor 66.7% 23.3% 6.7% 0.0%

Elimination of all forms of forced and compulsory labor 50.0% 20.0% 3.3% 0.0%

Elimination of discrimination in respect to employment and occupation

73.3% 43.3% 3.3% 6.7%

Fair compensation of employees 53.3% 23.3% 6.7% 3.3%


43.3% 16.7% 6.7% 6.7%

Political contributions 53.3% 16.7% 0.0% 0.0%

Reasonable working hours 40.0% 10.0% 3.3% 3.3%

Sexual harassment 53.3% 36.7% 3.3% 0.0%

We assign one point for adoption of a policy standard or for an explicit discussion of an organization’s stance on each of 11 human rights principles.

Adoption

We assign one point for a description of reinforcement actions to make a policy stronger, such as providing educational programs, training, or other activities to promote awareness.

Reinforcement

We assign one point for a description of monitoring measures including mechanisms to detect violations at an early stage, providing systematic reporting, or establishment of committee structure to oversee risky activities.

Monitoring

We assign one point for a quantitative indication of compliance, such as a description of incidences of failure of compliance, or a statement that there were no such incidences.

Compliance

Basis of Scores


Average Overall, Environmental, and Social PSI Scores Performance by Country


Brazil

Brazil

Brazil

England

England

England

France

France

France

Germany

Germany

Germany

Italy

Italy

Italy

Japan

Japan

Japan

Sweden

Sweden

Sweden

Switzerland

Switzerland

Switzerland

USA

USA

USA

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Social

Environmental

Overall

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

Country N

Brazil 1England 1France 3Germany 3Italy 1Japan 4Sweden 1Switzerland 1USA 15


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

Visual Cluster Analysis

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

Natura Cosmeticos

0

2 5

5 0

7 5

1 0 0E R

E P

S P

S R

S I

E I

Nike

0

2 5

5 0

7 5

1 0 0E R

E P

S P

S R

S I

E I

Kimberly-Clark

0

2 5

5 0

7 5

1 0 0E R

E P

S P

S R

S I

E I

Toray Industries

0

2 5

5 0

7 5

1 0 0E R

E P

S P

S R

S I

E I

Clorox

0

2 5

5 0

7 5

1 0 0E R

E P

S P

S R

S I

E I

Kao

0

2 5

5 0

7 5

1 0 0E R

E P

S P

S R

S I

E I

Adidas

0

2 5

5 0

7 5

1 0 0E R

E P

S P

S R

S I

E I

Avon Products

0

2 5

5 0

7 5

1 0 0E R

E P

S P

S R

S I

E I

Procter and Gamble

0

2 5

5 0

7 5

1 0 0E R

E P

S P

S R

S I

E I


0

2 5

5 0

7 5

1 0 0E R

E P

S P

S R

S I

E I


0

2 5

5 0

7 5

1 0 0E R

E P

S P

S R

S I

E I

Estée Lauder

0

2 5

5 0

7 5

1 0 0E R

E P

S P

S R

S I

E I

Henkel KGaA

0

2 5

5 0

7 5

1 0 0E R

E P

S P

S R

S I

E I

Shiseido

0

2 5

5 0

7 5

1 0 0E R

E P

S P

S R

S I

E I

Reckitt Benckiser

0

2 5

5 0

7 5

1 0 0E R

E P

S P

S R

S I

E I

Newell Rubbermaid

0

2 5

5 0

7 5

1 0 0E R

E P

S P

S R

S I

E I

Beiersdorf

0

2 5

5 0

7 5

1 0 0E R

E P

S P

S R

S I

E I

Hasbro

0

2 5

5 0

7 5

1 0 0E R

E P

S P

S R

S I

E I

Mattel

0

2 5

5 0

7 5

1 0 0E R

E P

S P

S R

S I

E I

Colgate-Palmolive

0

2 5

5 0

7 5

1 0 0E R

E P

S P

S R

S I

E I

VF

0

2 5

5 0

7 5

1 0 0E R

E P

S P

S R

S I

E I

Energizer Holdings

0

2 5

5 0

7 5

1 0 0E R

E P

S P

S R

S I

E I

Luxottica

0

2 5

5 0

7 5

1 0 0E R

E P

S P

S R

S I

E I

Polo Ralph Lauren

0

2 5

5 0

7 5

1 0 0E R

E P

S P

S R

S I

E I

L'Oréal Group

0

2 5

5 0

7 5

1 0 0E R

E P

S P

S R

S I

E I

Mead Johnson

0

2 5

5 0

7 5

1 0 0E R

E P

S P

S R

S I

E I

Coach, Inc.

0

2 5

5 0

7 5

1 0 0E R

E P

S P

S R

S I

E I

Swatch Group

0

2 5

5 0

7 5

1 0 0E R

E P

S P

S R

S I

E I

Christian Dior

0

2 5

5 0

7 5

1 0 0E R

E P

S P

S R

S I

E I


0

2 5

5 0

7 5

1 0 0E R

E P

S P

S R

S I

E I


Relationships Between Overall PSI Score and Companies' Revenue and Profit

Company Name Overall Score

Revenue($million)

Profits($million)

Assets($million)

Market Value

($million)

Revenue Profits Assets Market ValueLog10 $M Log10 $M Log10 $M

Log10 $M

Adidas 34.53 14870 350 12140 108301.17 -0.46 1.08 1.03

Avon Products 34.31 10380 630 6830 132401.02 -0.20 0.83 1.12

Beiersdorf 25.24 8230 540 6510 156400.92 -0.27 0.81 1.19

Christian Dior 0.00 24980 1110 48530 182201.40 0.05 1.69 1.26

Clorox 37.62 5500 590 4490 86300.74 -0.23 0.65 0.94

Coach, Inc. 4.38 3340 640 2870 116300.52 -0.19 0.46 1.07

Colgate-Palmolive 22.99 15330 2290 11130 413701.19 0.36 1.05 1.62

Energizer Holdings 14.81 4130 310 6200 41000.62 -0.51 0.79 0.61

Estée Lauder 29.97 7480 410 5710 122400.87 -0.39 0.76 1.09

FUJIFILM Holdings C 32.18 25000 110 28050 162701.40 -0.96 1.45 1.21

Hasbro 23.96 4070 370 3900 49200.61 -0.43 0.59 0.69

Henkel KGaA 28.16 18930 840 22670 210301.28 -0.08 1.36 1.32

Hermès International 0.00 2460 400 3040 141800.39 -0.40 0.48 1.15

Kao 35.01 13110 660 10700 137901.12 -0.18 1.03 1.14

Kimberly-Clark 41.20 19120 1880 19210 252901.28 0.27 1.28 1.40

L'Oréal Group 7.43 24360 2500 33380 630501.39 0.40 1.52 1.80

Luxottica 8.22 7100 440 10360 121500.85 -0.36 1.02 1.08

Mattel 23.34 5430 530 4780 80300.73 -0.28 0.68 0.90

Mead Johnson 7.25 2830 400 2070 97800.45 -0.40 0.32 0.99

Natura Cosmeticos 51.59 2150 350 1570 82200.33 -0.46 0.20 0.91

Newell Rubbermaid 26.92 5580 290 6420 38400.75 -0.54 0.81 0.58

Nike 44.21 18360 1470 13360 336301.26 0.17 1.13 1.53

Polo Ralph Lauren 8.13 4870 410 4650 79700.69 -0.39 0.67 0.90

Procter and Gamble 33.51 76780 13050 135290 1844701.89 1.12 2.13 2.27

Reckitt Benckiser 27.23 12530 2290 13790 376401.10 0.36 1.14 1.58

SCA-Svenska Cellulo 31.56 15480 670 20990 105201.19 -0.17 1.32 1.02

Shiseido 27.81 7090 200 6020 90300.85 -0.70 0.78 0.96

Swatch Group 0.00 4960 730 7450 154300.70 -0.14 0.87 1.19

Toray Industries 40.36 15110 -170 14940 76201.18 1.17 0.88

VF 17.77 7220 460 6490 86500.86 -0.34 0.81 0.94

2010 Forbes List Source:


0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .0 0

4 .3 8

7 .2 5 7 .4 38 .13 8 .2 2

14 .8 1

17 .7 7

2 2 .9 92 3 .3 42 3 .9 62 5 .2 4

2 6 .9 2 2 7 .2 32 7 .8 1 2 8 .162 9 .9 7

3 1.5 6 3 2 .183 3 .5 13 4 .3 1 3 4 .5 33 5 .0 1

3 7 .6 2

4 0 .3 6 4 1.2 0

4 4 .2 1

5 1.5 9

R2 = 0.08550

10

2 0

3 0

4 0

5 0

6 0

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

Revenue

Over

all P

SI S

core

s

Log10 $M

0 .0 00 .0 0 0 .0 0

4 .3 87 .2 5 7 .4 38 .138 .2 2

14 .8 117 .7 7

2 2 .9 92 3 .3 42 3 .9 62 5 .2 4

2 6 .9 2 2 7 .2 32 7 .8 1 2 8 .162 9 .9 7

3 1.5 63 2 .183 3 .5 13 4 .3 13 4 .5 3 3 5 .0 1

3 7 .6 2

4 1.2 04 4 .2 1

5 1.5 9

R2 = 0.0038

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5

Profits

Over

all P

SI S

core

s

Log10 $M


0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .0 0

4 .3 87 .2 5 7 .4 38 .13 8 .2 2

14 .8 117 .7 7

2 2 .9 92 3 .3 42 3 .9 62 5 .2 42 6 .9 2 2 7 .2 32 7 .8 1 2 8 .16

2 9 .9 73 1.5 6 3 2 .18

3 3 .5 13 4 .3 1 3 4 .5 33 5 .0 13 7 .6 2

4 0 .3 64 1.2 04 4 .2 1

5 1.5 9

R2 = 0.0126

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Asset

Over

all P

SI S

core

s

Log10 $M

0 .0 00 .0 00 .0 0

4 .3 87 .2 5 7 .4 38 .13 8 .2 2

14 .8 117 .7 7

2 2 .9 92 3 .3 42 3 .9 62 5 .2 4

2 6 .9 2 2 7 .2 32 7 .8 1 2 8 .162 9 .9 7

3 1.5 6 3 2 .183 3 .5 13 4 .3 13 4 .5 33 5 .0 1

3 7 .6 24 0 .3 6 4 1.2 0

4 4 .2 1

5 1.5 9

R2 = 0.0023

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Market Value

Over

all P

SI S

core

s

Log10 $M


Number of Explicit numerical goals Reported

Explicit Goals Most Frequently Reported

1

1

1

2

2

2

2

3

4

4

5

5

5

5

6

9

11

1

0 5 10 15 20 25

Beiersdorf

Reckitt Benckiser

Estée Lauder

VF

Kao

Colgate-Palmolive


Newell Rubbermaid


Hasbro

Natura Cosmeticos

Adidas

Nike

Shiseido

Toray Industries

Clorox

Avon Products

Kimberly-Clark

Greenhouse gases (or CO2 equivalents), total1 10

Recordable incident/accident rate2 7

Water used3 7

Energy used (total)4 7

Lost workday case rate5 6

Waste (solid) disposed of6 5

Materials reused or recycled: Packaging materials7 4


Number of Topics Showing Performance Improvement over Previous Year Data

Topics Most Frequently Reported as Having Improvements over previous year data

2

2

2

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

4

5

5

5

5

6

6

6

6

8

16

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Shiseido

Newell Rubbermaid

Mattel


Procter and Gamble

Clorox

Energizer Holdings


Adidas

Hasbro

Beiersdorf

Kimberly-Clark

Colgate-Palmolive

Henkel KGaA

Reckitt Benckiser

Estée Lauder

Toray Industries

Nike

Avon Products

Kao

Natura Cosmeticos

Greenhouse gases (or CO2 equivalents), total1 14Energy used (total)2 12Water used3 9Occupational health and safety protection4 8Women in management5 8Recordable incident/accident rate6 6Lost workday case rate7 5Waste recycled: solid waste8 4Employee turnover rate9 2Waste (solid) disposed of10 2Environmental expenses and investments11 2Fines (environmental)12 2Community development13 2Employee satisfaction surveys14 2Employee volunteerism15 2Social community investment16 2


Energy used: Logistics17 2Waste: Packaging materials18 2Ozone depleting substances from refrigerant19 2Renewable materials used20 2Life Cycle Analysis (LCA)21 2Customer health and safety22 1Materials recycled: Wastewater23 1Materials reused or recycled: Packaging materials24 1Notices of violation (environmental)25 1Waste (hazardous) produced26 1Green transportation initiatives27 1Community education28 1


Number of Topics in which Performance was Better than Sector Average*

*Sector averages are calculated from the materials scored for this report.

1

1

1

1

1

0 1 2

Toray Industries

Kimberly-Clark

Kao

Avon Products

Adidas


Adidas

0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

The Adidas Group published information about its environmental and social practices in its most recent sustainability report entitled “Team Talk.” The report describes in detail Adidas Group’s vision and policies to achieve its sustainability goals. For example, the report discusses Adidas Group’s green purchasing and supplier screening processes. However, the report should discuss in more detail the distribution of Adidas workforce and also include a Code of Conduct. The section of the report entitled “Performance Data” outlines basic data about Adidas Group’s environmental impact including total energy use, water use, and greenhouse gas emissions. To make the report more thorough, Adidas Group should also include data on how much and which types of waste are recycled and its environmental expenditures. Another area of concern in the report is that a detailed analysis is done of emissions produced by shipping products via sea freight as oppose to airlines that Adidas Group now uses to ship their products from factories to consumers.

S54%

E4 6 %

Adidas Group 2009 Sustainability Report, Guide to Hazardous Material, Workplace Standard, SEA Team Structure

Comparison with sector averages Source of points

B

Carolyn Campbell

Karun Kiani

Distribution of points

E=Total Environmental Score, ESA=Environmental Sector Average Score, EI=Environmental Intent, ER=Environmental Reporting, EP=Environmental Performance, S=Total Social Score, SSA=Social Sector Average Score, SI=Social Intent, SR=Social Reporting, SP=Social Performance

EI ER EP SI SR SP

Adidas

71

32

5

50 43

14

Analyst(s):

Environmental Intent

Question Category Max Score General CommentScore %Accountability 4 Good2 50

Management 8 Excellent6 75

Policy 10 Good6 60

Product Responsibility 2 Excellent2 100

Vision 4 Excellent4 100

Environmental Reporting

Question Category Max Score General CommentScore %Emissions to Air 14 Needs improvement6 43

Energy 21 Needs substantial improvement4 19

Management 35 Needs improvement10 29

Materials Usage 14 Needs improvement4 29

Products 7 Needs substantial improvement0 0

Recycling 28 Needs substantial improvement0 0

Waste 28 Needs improvement8 29

Water 7 Good4 57

Social Intent


Management 10 Needs substantial improvement1 10

Policy 6 Excellent6 100

Social Demographic 2 Needs substantial improvement0 0


Social Reporting

Question Category Max Score General CommentScore %Human Rights 77 Needs improvement28 36


Qualitative Social 42 Needs improvement18 43

Quantitative Social 42 Needs substantial improvement10 24


Avon Products

0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

Several progressive initiatives by Avon demonstrate a commitment to corporate responsibility, such as a program to increase supplier diversity, its Green Innovation Challenge, Employee Assistance Program, and the Avon Foundation's emergency and disaster relief funds. The Company's philanthropic focus is on bettering the livelihoods of women. Avon is the world's largest micro-lender to women, and it helps victims of breast cancer and domestic violence. •Avon recognizes that it could report more quantitative data. The company views this as unnecessary, but the inclusion of this information would greatly improve its transparency.

S46%

E5 4 %

Avon Products 2011 Sustainability Report and 2011 Web Pages


B

Karen de Wolski

Ashley Scott



EI ER EP SI SR SP

Avon Products

75

37

9

5034

16

Analyst(s):


Question Category Max Score General CommentScore %Accountability 4 Excellent3 75



Product Responsibility 2 Needs substantial improvement0 0

Vision 4 Good2 50



Energy 21 Needs improvement8 38


Materials Usage 14 Needs substantial improvement2 14

Products 7 Needs improvement2 29

Recycling 28 Needs improvement7 25

Waste 28 Needs substantial improvement5 18

Water 7 Good5 71

Social Intent


Management 10 Good5 50

Policy 6 Good4 67


Vision 4 Needs improvement1 25

Social Reporting

Question Category Max Score General CommentScore %Human Rights 77 Needs substantial improvement17 22



Quantitative Social 42 Needs improvement11 26


Beiersdorf

0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

Beiersdorf presents data on its environmental and social impact through its online sustainability report. Statistics on energy used, water used, greenhouse gases emitted, and accident rates are clearly presented through well constructed graphs. Total waste is reported, but the numbers are not separated into water and solid waste. Beiersdorf reports briefly on many of its social development projects, but generally does not go in depth in their discussion. While a Code of Conduct is available, it was not accessible as it was posted online in a flash format. Beiersdorf also extensively reports the efforts of its internal auditing organization, ESMAS, but does not mention any third-party validation.

S60%

E4 0 %

Beiersdorf 2011 Web Pages


C+

Carolyn Campbell

Alan Hu



EI ER EP SI SR SP

Beiersdorf

57

157

5034

8

Analyst(s):




Policy 10 Good5 50


Vision 4 Good2 50









Water 7 Good4 57

Social Intent




Social Demographic 2 Good1 50

Vision 4 Good2 50

Social Reporting






Christian Dior

0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

Christian Dior 2011 website does not contain any sustainability information.

S1%E

1%

Christian Dior 2011 Web Pages


F

Carolyn Campbell

Hilary Haskell



EI ER EP SI SR SP

Christian Dior0 0 0 0 0 0

Analyst(s):


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


Policy 10 Needs substantial improvement0 0


Vision 4 Needs substantial improvement0 0


Question Category Max Score General CommentScore %Emissions to Air 14 Needs substantial improvement0 0







Water 7 Needs substantial improvement0 0

Social Intent






Social Reporting



Qualitative Social 42 Needs substantial improvement0 0



Clorox

0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

The Clorox Company does a very good job of reporting its sustainability practices through its Corporate Responsibility Report and Code of Conduct. The Corporate Responsibility report contains an excellent amount of information about their supplier screening based on environmental performance and dedication towards protecting biodiversity. In addition, the company shows its dedication towards providing a safe and healthy working environment for their employees. The company also does a decent job in reporting quantitative data for energy and water used but could improve this section by including more information about waste recycled and hazardous materials produced. In addition Clorox could improve its score by including more details, specifically initiatives it is going to use in order to reinforce its basic policies. In terms of social sustainability, the company provides in-depth information about its policies against bribery, corruption and other basic social issues.

S59%

E4 1%

Clorox 2010 Corporate Responsibility Report, Code of Conduct, and 2011 Web Pages


B+

Bukola Jimoh

Eric Robert King



EI ER EP SI SR SP

Clorox

68

307

6949

16

Analyst(s):















Water 7 Excellent6 86

Social Intent

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




Vision 4 Good2 50

Social Reporting



Qualitative Social 42 Good21 50



Coach, Inc.

0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

Coach does not have a corporate sustainability report with information about its environmental and social policies. It would be useful for the company to publish a report about its sustainability practices.

S100%

E0 %

Coach 2011 Corporate Governance Principles, Global Business Integrity Program, and 2011 Web Pages


D-

Karen de Wolski

Sachi Singh



EI ER EP SI SR SP

Coach, Inc.0 0 0

23

6 6

Analyst(s):
















Social Intent



Policy 6 Good4 67


Vision 4 Good2 50

Social Reporting






Colgate-Palmolive

0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

Colgate Palmolive struggles to report practical environmental information in its 2008 Sustainability Report. The report, which consists of a collection of web pages from its website, is generally outdated and unfocused. Colgate Palmolive especially struggles to report quantitative data in the fields of waste and recycling. In addition, Colgate Palmolive fails to discuss many environmental intent topics. •Colgate Palmolive successfully reports on a number of social aspects and its code of conduct shows adoption of many important human rights practices. The company states in its Code of Conduct that it has “a civic responsibility to support the health, education and welfare of the community.” Throughout its website and in other reports there is a clear theme of supporting this statement of civic responsibility.

S60%

E4 0 %

Colgate Palmolive 2008 Sustainability Report, Code of Conduct, 2009 Annual Report and 2011 Web Pages


C

Bukola Jimoh

Jordan Lieberman



EI ER EP SI SR SP

Colgate-Palmolive

2920

7

31 34

6

Analyst(s):




Policy 10 Needs improvement4 40


Vision 4 Good2 50









Water 7 Good5 71

Social Intent



Policy 6 Good4 67


Vision 4 Good2 50

Social Reporting






Energizer Holdings

0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

Energizer Holdings is the industry leader in eliminating heavy metals from batteries. Its new inventions in rechargeable batteries demonstrate efforts to reduce its carbon footprint. Its web pages are severely lacking in environmental data. There was no data on emissions or waste and water disposal. Furthermore, there was no information on human rights reporting or social responsibility.

S52%

E4 8 %

Energizer Holdings 2011 Web Pages


D+

Carolyn Campbell

Jaclyn T. D'Arcy



EI ER EP SI SR SP

Energizer Holdings

57

8 2

38

146

Analyst(s):




Policy 10 Good7 70

Product Responsibility 2 Good1 50

Vision 4 Good2 50










Social Intent





Vision 4 Good2 50

Social Reporting






Estée Lauder

0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

Estee Lauder provides clear information about its commitment to sustainability in its 2010 Annual Report, Code of Conduct, and its current web pages. Estee Lauder received the distinction of one of the United States greenest companies, by Newsweek. The company has been recognized for its commitment to occupational health and safety through numerous awards including NSC Occupational Excellence and NSC Perfect Record Award. A highlight of Estee Lauder’s environmental efforts includes its 100% Global No Landfill Policy where all excess waste is converted to ethanol. Estee Lauder emphasizes the importance of supplier compliance with human rights criteria in its 2010 reporting. However, Estee Lauder fails to explicitly state its own individual commitment to doing so. Additionally, Estee Lauder’s Breast Cancer Awareness Campaign, MAC AIDS Fund, and Aveda Fund demonstrate the company’s support of community development, but no total quantitative figure for community investment is reported. Other important areas are not included or not addressed in detail such as environmental accounting, social and environmental impediments and challenges, and anti-discriminatory practices for those with disabilities. Furthermore the GRI Index included at the end of the Annual Report indicates that certain reporting areas are included, yet are not found in the report. • To increase the overall score, more quantitative environmental data should be presented. Additional problems included data reported as percentages and bar graphs without exact values.

S56%

E4 4 %

Estee Lauder 2010 Annual Report, Code of Conduct, and 2011 Web Pages


B-

Bukola Jimoh

Hilary Haskell



EI ER EP SI SR SP

Estée Lauder

68

237

5834

16

Analyst(s):






Vision 4 Good2 50










Social Intent





Vision 4 Good2 50

Social Reporting







0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

Fujifilm goes to great lengths in its reporting to effectively convey its dual corporate philosophy of contributing to people’s quality of life while achieving sustainable management. Fujifilm’s thorough Sustainability Report focuses primarily on its environmental and social activities. To help stakeholders better understand its CSR activities, Fujifilm includes a comprehensive set of quantitative information in its report. Several of the categories included show improvements over previous years. In terms of the environment, Fujifilm set several concrete goals such as reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 30% over fiscal year 2005 levels by fiscal year 2020. Although shrinking its carbon footprint is one major point of emphasis, Fujifilm devotes equal attention to reducing its water consumption, waste generation, and packaging materials. • •Fujifilm’s demonstrates the same level of commitment to fulfilling its social responsibilities as it does to environmental stewardship. Fujifilm primarily focuses on the fields of research and education. The company makes social contributions through its medical systems business by providing a range of diagnostic imaging equipment and pharmaceuticals. In order to expand its social contributions, the company formed a volunteer organization designed to increase •volunteerism among employees.•• Overall, Fujifilm’s willingness to enhance corporate transparency by actively disclosing information in its Sustainability Report and on its web pages warrants a solid score.

S44%

E5 6 %

Fujifilm Holdings 2010 Sustainability Report and 2011 Web Pages


B-

Carolyn Campbell

Daniel Olmsted



EI ER EP SI SR SP

FUJIFILM HoldingsCorporation

82

357

42 35

4

Analyst(s):















Water 7 Good5 71

Social Intent





Vision 4 Good2 50

Social Reporting






Hasbro

0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

Hasbro’s social and environmental corporate responsibility efforts are communicated through its 2009 Corporate Philanthropy Report, Code of Conduct, and 2011 web pages. Overall, Hasbro lacks substantiating quantitative data; when data is presented it is only presented with percentages. Hasbro did report its lost workday case rate, but this information was outdated and in the form of vague bar graphs.•Hasbro’s transparency is not evident in its waste recycling efforts. Only percentages were reported, and only for subsidiaries in Massachusetts and Ireland. •Corporate philanthropy is emphasized in Hasbro’s reporting. The company provides an entire report dedicated to this aspect of corporate responsibility. •Other areas in which Hasbro excels are conducting audits and stakeholder consultation. It is a member of the International Council of Toy Industries (ICTI) and participates in ICTI’s Caring, Aware, Responsible, and Ethical (CARE) program to improve workplace conditions.

S70%

E3 0 %

Hasbro 2009 Corporate Philanthropy Report, Code of Conduct, and 2011 Web Pages


C+

Karen de Wolski

Hilary Haskell



EI ER EP SI SR SP

Hasbro

39

10 7

5436

12

Analyst(s):






Vision 4 Good2 50










Social Intent





Vision 4 Good2 50

Social Reporting






Henkel KGaA

0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

Henkel shows a strong commitment to sustainability and corporate social responsibility through its 2009 Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainability Report and 2011 web pages. Henkel provides a clear environmental and social visionary statement, where the focal areas of energy and climate, water and wastewater, safety and health, social progress, and materials and waste are addressed. The 2011 web pages give specific examples of how these visions and values are being implemented at various production sites, but in the 2009 Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainability Report various quantitative details and specific measures are missing. For example, materials and waste is a reported focal area, but data for hazardous waste and waste released to the environment is not given. Henkel speaks about the use of renewable energy, but provides no quantitative data on amount used or invested. Henkel reports that in 2009, 396 million Euros were spent on research and development, but does not state what type of research and development. In 2010, Henkel was declared the best sustainability brand by the German “Best Brands” ranking, as well as other International sustainability awards, but Henkel should provide a more detailed reporting available for the public.

S52%

E4 8 %

Henkel Group, 2009 Sustainability Report, 2009 Code of Conduct, 2009 Corporate Code of Sustainability, 2009 Vision and Vaules, and 2011 Web Pages


B-

Karen de Wolski

Simone Berkovitz



EI ER EP SI SR SP

Henkel KGaA

82

217

69

288

Analyst(s):




Policy 10 Good7 70











Water 7 Good4 57

Social Intent






Social Reporting







0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

No sustainability information for the corporation was available. Hermès' website only showcases products and financial reports.

S1%E

1%

Hermès International 2011 Web Pages


F

Karen de Wolski

Ashley Scott



EI ER EP SI SR SP

Hermès International0 0 0 0 0 0

Analyst(s):
















Social Intent






Social Reporting






Kao

0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

Kao thoroughly communicates its sustainability efforts in its extensive 2010 CSR/Sustainability Report. Not only does Kao demonstrate a commitment to not only environmental sustainability, but also to social responsibility. Kao’s effort to report its actions and initiatives is concise and clear.• Use of renewable energy, recycling of wastewater, and total amounts of ozone-depleting substances are some areas where Kao lacks quantitative data. In addition, Kao does not seem completely transparent, in its lack of reporting of environmental violations and health and safety citations, and associated fines. • Kao has received the award for being one of the “World’s Most Ethical Companies,” by American ethics magazine Ethisphere, because of its “Find” survey. This survey measures compliance amongst employees. Kao communicates with its suppliers via surveys as well. However, Kao does not monitor its own employee’s satisfaction through surveys.

S54%

E4 6 %

Kao 2010 Kao CSR/Sustainability Report and 2011 Web Pages


B

Bukola Jimoh

Hilary Haskell



EI ER EP SI SR SP

Kao

86

2511

69

35 26

Analyst(s):















Water 7 Good4 57

Social Intent




Social Demographic 2 Excellent2 100

Vision 4 Good2 50

Social Reporting






Kimberly-Clark

0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

Kimberly-Clark’s serious consideration of social and environmental sustainability is evident in its 2009 Environmental Sustainability Report and 2011 web pages. The company provides a very structured and detailed outline of its sustainability actions and goals in its new sustainability program, Vision 2010. It provides specific goals to improve sustainable manufacturing and processes in areas including energy, climate change and greenhouse gas emissions, waste, and water. While Kimberly-Clark develops many of its plans and efforts for decreasing its impact on the environment, the report sometimes lacks data to support its causes. Kimberly-Clark’s social policies are much less detailed than its environmental policies. The company provides benefits and programs, like their LiveWell health program, for its employees, as well as a statement of equal opportunity in hiring and in the workforce, however it lacks data to support this. Kimberly-Clark shows dedication to the community through its involvement with many organizations around the world to increase environmental awareness and fund education and other causes by partnering with Boys and Girls Clubs of America, UNICEF, Green Peace, and more. Kimberly-Clark could provide more quantitative data to support its sustainability efforts and about its employee diversity initiatives. Also, it could provide a more detailed Code of Conduct.

S47%

E5 3 %

Kimberly-Clark 2009 Sustainability Report, Life Cycle Assessment of Tissue Products, and 2011 Web Pages


A-

Stephanie Oehler

Quentin Jones



EI ER EP SI SR SP

Kimberly-Clark

75

48

11

6243

14

Analyst(s):




Policy 10 Good6 60




Question Category Max Score General CommentScore %Emissions to Air 14 Good7 50



Materials Usage 14 Good7 50




Water 7 Good4 57

Social Intent





Vision 4 Good2 50

Social Reporting






L'Oréal Group

0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

The L’Oreal Group reports have no information about its sustainability practices. On the website, they claim to have a section dedicated to sustainable development but the link takes the viewer back to the home page. The only useful information the company describes is in its code of business ethics, in which explains the policies against sexual harassment, bribery and discrimination. L’Oreal Group needs to get its sustainable development website up and running in order to receive a better score.

S100%

E0 %

L'Oreal Group 2011 Web Pages


D

Bukola Jimoh

Eric Robert King



EI ER EP SI SR SP

L'Oréal Group0 0 0

8

1612

Analyst(s):
















Social Intent






Social Reporting






Luxottica

0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

Luxottica Group does a poor job reporting its sustainability practices despite publishing a Corporate Governance Report and various web pages. Its report and web pages contain only the very basic policies for environmental and social sustainability and very rarely go into any detail about its initiatives. The problems in the sustainable reporting continue: Luxottica does not mention basic environmental principles such as biodiversity or climate change. Luxottica does promise proper waste management and plans to reduce waste at source but there is no discussion of how it will accomplish these goals. Additionally, there is no quantitative reporting at all. In terms of social sustainability, the company barely provides any information for basic ideas such as bribery and political contributions. Luxottica Group needs to improve its sustainability reporting and a good start would be to create a formal report to prove they care about environmental and social responsibility.

S60%

E4 0 %

Luxottica Group Corporate Goverance Report and 2011 Web Pages


D

Bukola Jimoh

Eric Robert King



EI ER EP SI SR SP

Luxottica

18

60

23

11

0

Analyst(s):
















Social Intent






Social Reporting






Mattel

0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

Mattel does relatively well in its social and environmental intent, along with its adoption of human rights practices. In addition, Mattel’s community involvement as outlined in their 2009 Annual Report on philanthropy programs is admirable. Programs such as “PLAYers” show Mattel’s commitment as a company to supporting children through more than just making toys. Mattel has a corporate mission of “positively impacting [its] people, [its] products and [the] world by playing responsibly” (p. 5). While it is clear from their 2010 Environmental report that Mattel has the intentions of “playing responsibly” both socially and environmentally, their actions do not always support their objectives. Mattel’s biggest downfall was their inability to report quantitative data to support their discussions of waste, energy use, and fines among others. While many graphs are provided to display progress in these fields, the graphs lack precise numerical data, instead giving a vague image of their progress. Simply giving the appropriate figures to support the many graphs in the report will help improve Mattel’s score greatly.

S68%

E3 2 %

Mattel 2009 global citizenship report and 2009 annual report


C

Carolyn Campbell

Jordan Lieberman



EI ER EP SI SR SP

Mattel

50

110

4637

8

Analyst(s):




Policy 10 Good6 60












Social Intent





Vision 4 Good2 50

Social Reporting






Mead Johnson

0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

Mead Johnson’s 2011 Web Pages demonstrate their lack substantial information regarding environmental sustainability. Although the company has invested a significant amount of time and money in domestic and international community improvement initiatives –including the “Feeding Hope” program in the Philippines, the “Helping Hand” program in China, and the “Greenway Project” in Evansville, Indiana – the company fails to disclose an environmental policy, an environmental management system, or quantitative natural resource use data. In addition, the web pages do not provide the company’s Code of Conduct of business ethics, a workforce profile, or health and safety violations. To increase transparency, the company’s web pages need much more extensive environmental as well as internal social reporting.

S88%

E12 %

Mead Johnson 2011 Web Pages


D

Michael Handler Shoemaker

Gracie Beck



EI ER EP SI SR SP

Mead Johnson7

1 0

38

110

Analyst(s):






Vision 4 Good2 50










Social Intent



Policy 6 Good3 50



Social Reporting






Natura Cosmeticos

0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

Nautra Cosmeticos, a Brazilian brand, recognizes the direct link between their production of cosmetics and environmental harm. Drawing raw materials for many of their products directly from the Amazon, Natura focuses most of its sustainability efforts on issues such as biodiversity, habitat conservation, and waste disposal. Natura’s 2010 Biodiversity Policy is an expansion on Natura’s biodiversity procedures, and outlines in great detail the company’s efforts to preserve the Amazon. There was no environmental report separate from the 2009 Annual Report, but this was not an issue. The 2009 Annual Report was certified by the Global Reporting Initiative and was given an impressive A+ rating by third-party validation.•Though the 2009 Annual Report was quite thorough, it was obviously translated from Portuguese, made clear by many failed translations and un-translated Portuguese words in the report. Natura’s web pages were difficult to navigate, and material was not consistent between Portuguese, Spanish, and English versions. There was no Code of Conduct accessible to the public. Therefore, many basic human rights policies could not be scored.

S55%

E4 5 %

Natura Cosmeticos 2009 Annual Report, 2010 Biodiversity Policy, and 2011 Web Pages


A+

Carolyn Campbell

Leah Bross



EI ER EP SI SR SP

Natura Cosmeticos

93

45

14

7356 46

Analyst(s):













Recycling 28 Good14 50


Water 7 Good4 57

Social Intent



Policy 6 Good3 50



Social Reporting



Qualitative Social 42 Excellent35 83

Quantitative Social 42 Good22 52


Newell Rubbermaid

0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

Newell Rubbermaid provides sustainability information in a brief 2009 Environmental Sustainability Report, information from its 2011 web pages, and Code of Business Conduct and Ethics. While Environmental and social initiatives and actions are reported for many areas most information is not thorough. • Newell Rubbermaid’s new headquarter building is a highlight of its sustainability efforts. It received two Green Globes from the Green Building Initiative. The company’s Green Office Program to encourage awareness and environmental responsibility with employees is also notable. Unfortunately, Newell Rubbermaid does not report much substantiating quantitative data. The quantitative data provided is only for the current year therefore making any performance trends indiscernible. • Newell Rubbermaid shows a commitment to improving safety by the demonstrated reduction in recordable incident rate. The company also demonstrates clear efforts to support its employees through its Employee Resource Groups, which allow individuals from different backgrounds to network and collaborate in a supportive environment.

S55%

E4 5 %

Newell Rubbermaid 2009 Environmental Sustainability Report, Code of Business Ethics, and 2011 Web Pages


C+

Bukola Jimoh

Hilary Haskell



EI ER EP SI SR SP

Newell Rubbermaid

4328

0

4231

16

Analyst(s):






Vision 4 Good2 50









Water 7 Needs improvement2 29

Social Intent



Policy 6 Good4 67


Vision 4 Good2 50

Social Reporting






Nike

0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

The Corporate Responsibility Report (CSR) published by Nike, Inc. is a thorough examination of the company’s environmental and social impact over the 2007, 2008, and 2009 fiscal years. By including data from three years in its CSR, the company is able to demonstrate the advances it has made in minimizing its environmental impacts and the progress it has made towards achieving its environmental goals. The report goes in depth about the impact the company has on the areas, both foreign and domestic, where its manufacturing or production elements are based. Nike offers many examples of how the implementation of its environmental and social policies has produced a positive effect, while also offering a wide range of specific environmental goals for various aspects of its production and manufacturing processes. However, Nike could improve the clarity of its graphical displays of data. Several of the graphs in the report, while visually pleasing, are unclear or offer data in terms that are not applicable to all of the products the company makes. For instance, the report contains several graphs that demonstrate the amounts of energy, CO2, and waste that are embedded in each pair of Pegasus Air running shoes. However, as Nike manufactures far more than just running, shoes these graphs are not representative of the company’s environmental impact and are somewhat misleading. Nike’s reporting includes a very detailed Leadership Standard, in addition to a Code of Conduct, that together provide employees and suppliers with specific expectations of environmental and ethical standards. Additionally, the company publishes a list of environmental and ethical awards it has won from major publications and auditing groups, demonstrating its desire to develop and maintain a reputation as a responsible corporate citizen. One element that was noticeably absent from Nike’s CSR was a contact person to whom consumers could direct questions about the company’s environmental and social impact. Providing a sustainability contact would help Nike to clarify any questions that emerged from reading the CSR, especially the graphical portion, and would help the company solidify its reputation as a responsible actor, dedicated to addressing climate change.

S64%

E3 6 %

Nike, Inc. 2007-2009 Corporate Responsibility Report, Code Leadership Standard, Code of Conduct, and 2011 Web Pages


A-

Bukola Jimoh

Elizabeth Duckworth



EI ER EP SI SR SP

Nike

6132

9

69 64

26

Analyst(s):




Policy 10 Good6 60












Social Intent





Vision 4 Good2 50

Social Reporting

Question Category Max Score General CommentScore %Human Rights 77 Excellent58 75





Polo Ralph Lauren

0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

Polo Ralph Lauren provides information in its Code of Conduct and on its 2011 web pages. There is no environmental sustainability reporting; however, Polo Ralph Lauren does demonstrate a commitment to corporate philanthropy on its web pages. No substantiating quantitative data is provided for any area of corporate responsibility. Inclusion of this would increase Polo Ralph Lauren’s PSI Score. The many philanthropic projects of Polo Ralph Lauren are notable, and include Haiti Hope and Relief, Habitat for Humanity, Star Spangled Banner, Pink Pony, Polo Volunteers, and Cancer Care and Prevention.

S85%

E15 %

Polo Ralph Lauren Code of Conduct and 2011 Web Pages


D

Bukola Jimoh

Hilary Haskell



EI ER EP SI SR SP

Polo Ralph Lauren4 3

0

15 15

8

Analyst(s):
















Social Intent





Vision 4 Good2 50

Social Reporting






Procter and Gamble

0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

Proctor & Gamble’s 2010 Sustainability Report clearly presents its social and environmental sustainability information in several well-organized sections. Important yearly statistics, such as greenhouse gas emissions, water usage, and waste disposal are presented in clear graphs accompanied by exact data. Proctor & Gamble mentions at the beginning of its report that its long term sustainability vision is to operate on 100% renewable energy. While this vision is laudable, renewable energy is only mentioned again briefly.• Proctor and Gamble also shows initiative in social sustainability through its many humanitarian efforts, including earthquake relief to Haiti and Chile, as well as additional programs in China. The company is transparent about its workforce profile, presenting comprehensive information on the breakdown of its employee population by gender and minority status. Also, an extensive occupational health and safety program is reported along with past and present quantitative data on incident and lost workday rates.

S56%

E4 4 %

Proctor & Gamble 2010 Sustainability Report, Business Conduct Manual, and 2011 Web Pages


B

Karen de Wolski

Alan Hu



EI ER EP SI SR SP

Procter and Gamble

68

302

73

41

8

Analyst(s):















Water 7 Good4 57

Social Intent





Vision 4 Good2 50

Social Reporting






Reckitt Benckiser

0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

Reckitt Benckiser’s 2008 Sustainability Report is a well-organized and third party checked study of its environmental and social figures. Reckitt Benckiser provides a sustainability contact person, complete with the name of the individual, physical address, and email address. Reckitt Benckiser also presents detailed information on its important environmental sustainability figures such as energy used, solid waste disposal, hazardous waste produced, water used, and greenhouse gas emissions. However, the company does not report significant social quantitative statistics such as employee turnover rate or social community investment. •Reckitt Benckiser also provides significant information regarding its efforts to aid children around the globe in its partnership with Save the Children. Overall, the report is well put together and quite thorough. To improve, Reckitt Benckiser should consider adding a segment stating its views on habitat/ecosystem conservation and biodiversity, and data on its environmental and social investment.

S48%

E5 2 %

Reckitt Benckiser 2008 Corporate Sustainability Report, Occupational Health and Safety Policy Document, Environmental Policy Document, Code of Business Conduct, 2011


C+

Carolyn Campbell

Alan Hu



EI ER EP SI SR SP

Reckitt Benckiser

54

28

9

54

30

2

Analyst(s):






Vision 4 Good2 50









Water 7 Good5 71

Social Intent





Vision 4 Good2 50

Social Reporting







0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

Svenska-Cellulosa is dedicated to sustainability and transparency. Its concise and organized sustainability report is easy to read and clearly shows the company’s environmental goals and initiatives. The report effectively presents a great deal of quantitative data by organizing it all on one page rather than dispersed throughout the report. The data could be made clearer by including totals of such values as carbon dioxide emissions rather than data from individual plants. While the report contains quantitative social data, it does not mention any social initiatives or goals. In the introduction and CEO report there are clear environmental statements and goals, but both lack any information on the company's social commitments. This is further reflected in the very sparse code of conduct which does not clearly elaborate on the social agenda and policy of the company.

S49%

E5 1%

SCA-Svenska Cellulosa 2009 Sustainability Report, Code of Conduct, and 2010 Web Pages


B-

Karen de Wolski

Sam Kahr



EI ER EP SI SR SP

SCA-SvenskaCellulosa

75

317

42 39

4

Analyst(s):
















Social Intent






Social Reporting






Shiseido

0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

Shishedo has a Corporate Social Responsibility Reports supplemented with a GRI content index. Much reporting is about social responsibility to its employee and society, less about the environmental issues. The Corporate seems to lay down strong foundation for sustainability and much of these are reflected by the programs and initiatives undertaken by the companies. The company also participate in the United Nations Global Compact, which give much support to the human rights oversight.

S56%

E4 4 %

Shiseido 2011 Annual Report and 2011 Web Pages


C+

Karen de Wolski

Sachi Singh



EI ER EP SI SR SP

Shiseido

71

212

6234

4

Analyst(s):






Vision 4 Good2 50










Social Intent





Vision 4 Good2 50

Social Reporting






Swatch Group

0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

Swatch Group does not at this time have any explicit information on their web pages about the social or environmental commitment of the company.

S1%E

1%

Swatch Group 2011 Web Pages


F

Karen de Wolski

Danielle L. Manning



EI ER EP SI SR SP

Swatch Group0 0 0 0 0 0

Analyst(s):
















Social Intent






Social Reporting






Toray Industries

0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

The products Toray Industries produces such as plastics, chemicals, and IT technology, have the potential to be very harmful environmentally. Toray has recognized this possibility and in response has minimized the potential negative consequences of some of its production by implementing Life Cycle Analysis into aspects of the production process. Toray has also endorsed and strives to model its practices around the social guidelines set forth in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Toray’s seriousness about enforcing the ethical policies of the company is reflected by its establishment of a Human Rights Promotion Committee and by providing human rights training workshops to its’ employees. • Toray is also committed to ensuring the products it produces are safe for the customers who purchase them, stating that, “we shall place priority on the various measures required to ensure product safety.” Toray’s website is well-organized and succinctly states company goals and values. When the company has not reached an official position the web pages also disclose that information. According to one statement, Toray is in the process of determining the companies’ official stance on biodiversity.

S62%

E3 8 %

Toray Industries Sustainability Report and 2011 Web Pages


B+

Carolyn Campbell

Danielle L. Manning



EI ER EP SI SR SP

Toray Industries

75

279

88

4828

Analyst(s):




Policy 10 Good7 70












Social Intent






Social Reporting






VF

0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

In 2009, VF adopted a corporate-wide commitment to sustainability. VF has recently established a global Sustainability Advisory Team, which identified four long-term goals for realizing its sustainability vision: carbon footprint/energy efficiency, waste, education/training/communication, and tools. Despite setting ambitious goals for these four main categories, VF’s plan to actually accomplish these goals is vague. For example, VF hopes to achieve a zero waste standard yet it has not even taken the necessary steps to measure the current amount of waste produced. Major gaps exist in VF’s quantitative reporting. With the exception of carbon dioxide emissions, VF fails to include any quantitative data whatsoever. It would behoove VF to expand upon these goals as well as establish some sort of baseline data in order to effectively monitor its progress. ••Although VF’s environmental reporting is lacking in many areas, its stance on corporate responsibility is much more pronounced. VF subscribes to Global Compliance Principles, which specifies acceptable working conditions for employees. In addition to the GCP, VF requires its factories to comply with rigorous safety requirements outlined in its Code of Business Conduct. Furthermore, VF will only conduct business with suppliers and vendors that meet GCP requirements. ••In terms of social responsibility, VF provides monetary support to a number of local charitable organizations. In order to encourage employee volunteerism, VF recognizes the top 100 associates who have accumulated the most community service hours each year. Overall, VF must address several more key environmental issues in greater depth before it can fully realize its vision of becoming a sustainable company.

S73%

E2 7 %

VF Corporation Code of Business Conduct, Global Compliance Principles, Environmental Compliance Guidelines, and 2011 Web Pages


C-

Karen de Wolski

Daniel Olmsted



EI ER EP SI SR SP

VF

50

3 0

35 33

0

Analyst(s):
















Social Intent



Policy 6 Good3 50


Vision 4 Good2 50

Social Reporting






Household, Apparel, and Personal Products

Environmental visionary statement-Discussion: includes a clear visionary statement expressing an organizational commitment to good environmental performance. -Initiatives/actions: include measures to fulfill that commitment.

5

DiscussionInitiatives/actions

Discussion Pg#

Initiatives Pg#

Environmental impediments and challenges-Discussion: of impediments and challenges faced by the organization in attempting to realize its environmental vision and commitments.-Initiatives/actions: include measures to overcome them.

6


Discussion Pg#

Initiatives Pg#

Social visionary statement -Discussion: includes a clear visionary statement expressing an organizational commitment to good social performance.-Initiatives/actions: include measures taken to fulfill that commitment.

42


Discussion Pg#

Initiatives Pg#

Social impediments and challengesDiscussion: of impediments and challenges faced by the organization in attempting to realize its social vision and commitments.Initiatives/actions: include measures taken to overcome them.

43


Discussion Pg#

Initiatives Pg#

Environmental policy statement-Discussion: includes a formal statement of the organization's environmental policy or plan.-Initiatives/actions: include a description of how the policy is being implemented.

9


Discussion Pg#

Initiatives Pg#

Social policy statement -Discussion: includes a formal statement of the company's social policy or plan.-Initiatives/actions: include a description of how the policy is being implemented.

45


Discussion Pg#

Initiatives Pg#

Report contact person-Discussion: identifies the person specifically designated to answer questions about the report or sustainability issues. Investor relations or public relations contact representatives are not valid contacts for this question. -Initiatives/actions: to facilitate such contact, i.e. providing email address, phone number, or a link for feedback and questions.

4


Discussion Pg#

Initiatives Pg#

Environmental management structure-Discussion: of the organization's environmental management structure or staffing.-Initiatives/actions: include identification of individuals currently holding the staff positions.

19


Discussion Pg#

Initiatives Pg#

Environmental management system-Discussion: includes a statement of adoption of ISO 14001 or other formal environmental management system. -Initiatives/actions: include information on the extent to which the system has been implemented.

20


Discussion Pg#

Initiatives Pg#

Health and safety, or social organizational structure-Discussion: of organizational structure or staffing for ensuring health and safety or social responsibility.-Initiatives/actions: include identification of the individuals currently holding the staff positions.

51


Discussion Pg#

Initiatives Pg#

Stakeholder consultation-Discussion: of consultation and dialogue with stakeholders about the organization's environmental aspects or impacts.-Initiatives/actions: include identification of specific consultation activities.

23


Discussion Pg#

Initiatives Pg#

Environmental education-Discussion: of efforts to promote environmental education and awareness of employees, the general public, or children.-Initiatives/actions: taken to provide such education.

16


Discussion Pg#

Initiatives Pg#

Environmental accounting-Discussion: of environmental expenditures.-Initiatives/actions: include detailed accounting of such expenditures.

21


Discussion Pg#

Initiatives Pg#

Third-party validation-Discussion: of the value (or lack thereof) of third-party auditing or validation. -Initiatives/actions: include formal auditing or validation by a qualified external third-party source.

54


Discussion Pg#

Initiatives Pg#

Environmental labellingEfforts to label products that are environmentally-friendly.

259


Discussion Pg#

Initiatives Pg#



Climate change/global warming-Discussion: of the organization's position on climate change and/or global warming.-Initiatives/actions: include measures taken by the organization to decrease its contribution to climate change.

10


Discussion Pg#

Initiatives Pg#

Habitat/ecosystem conservation-Discussion: of the organization's position on conserving natural ecosystems and habitat.-Initiatives/actions: taken to increase conservation of natural ecosystems either associated with or separate from the organization's business activities.

11


Discussion Pg#

Initiatives Pg#

Biodiversity-Discussion: of the organization's position on biodiversity.-Initiatives/actions: taken by to the organization to foster biodiversity.

12


Discussion Pg#

Initiatives Pg#

Green purchasing-Discussion: about preferential purchasing of eco-friendly (non-polluting, recycled, recyclable, etc.) products.-Initiatives/actions: taken to implement such purchasing.

13


Discussion Pg#

Initiatives Pg#

Supplier screening based on social or environmental performance/ supplier management-Discussion: or description of procedures to evaluate and select suppliers on their ability to meet the requirements of the company's social or environmental policy and principles.-Initiatives/actions: include measures to implement or assure such screening or selection.

49


Discussion Pg#

Initiatives Pg#

Workforce profile: ethnicities/race-Discussion: of racial or ethnic distribution of workforce.-Initiatives/actions: taken to avoid racial or ethnic discrimination.

17


Discussion Pg#

Initiatives Pg#

Workforce profile: gender-Discussion: of gender distribution of workforce.-Initiatives/actions: taken to avoid gender discrimination and achieve appropriate balance

18


Discussion Pg#

Initiatives Pg#

Workforce profile: age-Discussion: of age distribution of workforce.-Initiatives/actions: include measures taken to avoid age discrimination or to encourage a balanced age structure.

52


Discussion Pg#

Initiatives Pg#

Employment for individuals with disabilities-Discussion: of appropriate actions to accommodate employees with disabilities.-Initiatives/actions: taken to implement such accommodations.

80


Discussion Pg#

Initiatives Pg#

Emergency preparedness program-Discussion: of emergency preparedness programs to prepare employees or the public to cope with potential emergencies at the organization's facilities.-Initiatives/actions: include measures taken to implement such programs.

53


Discussion Pg#

Initiatives Pg#

Employee training for career development-Discussion: of training, skills and learning programs appropriate to support employees' upward mobility.-Initiatives/actions: taken to implement such training.

82


Discussion Pg#

Initiatives Pg#

Code of conduct or business ethics-Discussion: includes a formal organizational code of conduct or of ethical behavior.-Initiatives/actions: include measures to assure that the code of conduct is followed.

47


Discussion Pg#

Initiatives Pg#

Energy used (total)Sum of the energy used by the organization in all different forms, including electricity, fuel, natural gas and others.

26

Discussion Discussion Pg#:Context Pg#:

Goal Pg#:Quant Pg#:

Prev Quan Pg#:Improve Pg#

Year Data Values Units

ContextGoalCurrent Period Quantitative DataPrevious Quantitative DataImprovement Over Previous



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

27


Goal Pg#:Quant Pg#:




Energy used: LogisticsAmount of fuel consumed for logistics purposes

103


Goal Pg#:Quant Pg#:




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

30


Goal Pg#:Quant Pg#:




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

32


Goal Pg#:Quant Pg#:




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

34


Goal Pg#:Quant Pg#:




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

35


Goal Pg#:Quant Pg#:






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

37


Goal Pg#:Quant Pg#:




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

106


Goal Pg#:Quant Pg#:




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

107


Goal Pg#:Quant Pg#:




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

109


Goal Pg#:Quant Pg#:




Green material usedMaterials used in production generated from recycled materials or easily recyclable or reusable after product life.

146


Goal Pg#:Quant Pg#:




Water usedSum of all water used during operations.

29


Goal Pg#:Quant Pg#:






Greenhouse gases (or CO2 equivalents), totalThe sum of all greenhouse gases released, which could include CO2, CH4 (methane), N2O (nitrous oxide), SF6 (Sulphur hexafluoride), PFCs (Perfluorocarbons) and HFCs (hydrofluorocarbons). The report should label this indicator as "greenhouse gases released", "CO2 Equivalents", or similar.

83


Goal Pg#:Quant Pg#:




Ozone depleting substances from refrigerantTotal ozone-depleting substances include CFCs (Class I); and halons, carbon tetrachloride, methyl chloroform, and HCFCs (Class II), not a CO2 emission.

119


Goal Pg#:Quant Pg#:




Employee turnover rateAnnual employee turnover rate.

3


Goal Pg#:Quant Pg#:




Recordable incident/accident rateNumber of employee incidents or accidents, such as: “total case incident rate,” “incident rate,” or "accident rate."

74


Goal Pg#:Quant Pg#:




Lost workday case rateNumber of employee injuries or illnesses that resulted in one or more lost workdays.

75


Goal Pg#:Quant Pg#:




Social community investmentAmount of money spent on community outreach, including education grants, donations, and relief effort funds.

81


Goal Pg#:Quant Pg#:






Notices of violation (environmental)Notices of violation (NOVs) for environmental infractions.

38


Goal Pg#:Quant Pg#:




Environmental expenses and investmentsAn accounting of money spent or invested specifically to decrease environmental damage or to benefit the environment.

39


Goal Pg#:Quant Pg#:




Fines (environmental)Government imposed fines for environmental infractions.

40


Goal Pg#:Quant Pg#:




Health and safety citationsNumber of health and safety citations or notices of violation. If it is stated that there were none, check lines 1,2,3, 4, and 6.

76


Goal Pg#:Quant Pg#:




Health and safety finesFines levied against a company for health and safety violations.

77


Goal Pg#:Quant Pg#:




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

147

Discussion Discussion Pg#:

Context Pg#:Improve Pg#:

Initiative Pg#:Initiatives/ActionContextImprovement Over Previous

Raw material reductionDoes the report describe effort to reduce the company’s usage of raw materials?

3799




Women in managementRelative numbers of women in management.

2






Employee satisfaction surveysSurveys to monitor employee satisfaction.

67




Occupational health and safety protectionEfforts to provide a safe and healthy working environment at all sites.

70




Employee volunteerismEfforts to promote employee volunteerism in social or environmental projects.

72




Green transportation initiativesPrograms to encourage carpooling, mass transit or other reductions in total commuting.

163




Community developmentEfforts to participate in social activities that improve the quality of life of communities including that of indigenous people, where the organization operates.

66




Community educationEfforts to support education in the communities where the company is located.

68




Customer health and safetyEfforts to help improve the user's health and safety in using the products or service provided by the company. Some companies provide Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) with health and safety information about each product.

169




Eco-efficiency monitoringEco-efficiency is a numerical indicator to measure the degree of environmental impact caused relative to the scale of business activities. Many such indicators exist.

144




Customer Emergency SupportEffort to help customers with medical emergencies involving the company's product.

149




Sexual harassmentRejection of any form of sexual harassment.

1

Initiative Pg#:Policy Adopt Pg#:

Monitoring Pg#:Qty Perf Pg#:

Adoption of PolicyAction to Reinforce PolicyMonitoringQuant. Indication of Compliance

Political contributionsPolicy about political contributions.

7




BriberyRejection of bribery

8




Anti-corruption practicesEfforts to uphold the highest standards of business ethics and integrity. May be foundunder a Code of Conduct.

58




Fair compensation of employeesAssurance that wages paid meet or exceed legal or industry minimum standard.

62






Reasonable working hoursCompliance with applicable laws and industry standards on working hours, including overtime.

64




Degrading treatment or punishment of employeesCommitment to oppose any corporal/hard labor punishment, mental/physical coercion, or verbal abuse.

59




Elimination of discrimination in respect to employment and occupationCommitment not to engage in any kind of discrimination based on ethnicity, caste, religion, disability, sex, age, sexual orientation, union membership, or political affiliation in hiring practices or employee treatment.

60




Free association and collective bargaining of employeesEfforts to respect the right of employees to form and join trade unions of their choice and to bargain collectively.

61




Elimination of all forms of forced and compulsory laborAssurance that all employees enter employment with the company of their own free will, not by compulsion.

63




Effective abolition of child laborRejection of illegal child labor by the company or its affiliates.

65





Adidas, Avon Products, Beiersdorf, Christian Dior, Clorox, Coach, Inc., Colgate-Pa lmol ive , Energ izer Holdings, Estée Lauder, FUJIFILM Holdings Corporation, Hasbro, H e n k e l K G a A , H e r m è s International, Kao, Kimberly-Clark, L'Oréal Group, Luxottica, Mattel, Mead Johnson, Natura Cosmeticos, Newell Rubbermaid, Nike, Polo Ralph Lauren, Procter and Gamble, Reckitt Benckiser, SCA-Svenska Cellulosa, Shiseido, Swatch Group, T o r a y I n d u s t r i e s , a n d V F .

Contact Information

Roberts Environmental Center

The Roberts Environmental Center is a research institute at Claremont McKenna College, endowed by George R. Roberts, Founding Partner, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. The Center is managed by faculty and sta�, and its research, including the material in this report, is done by students at the Claremont Colleges.

Dr. J. Emil Morhardt, Director, Phone: 909-621-8190, email: [email protected] Adidjaja, Research Fellow, Phone: 909-621-8698, email: [email protected] Environmental Center, Claremont McKenna College, 925 N. Mills Avenue, Claremont, CA 91711-5916, USA.

Claremont McKenna College, a member of the Claremont Colleges, is a highly selective, independent, coeducational, residential, undergraduate liberal arts college with a curricular emphasis on economics, government, and public a�airs.

Claremont McKenna College

The Claremont CollegesThe Claremont Colleges form a consortium of �ve undergraduate liberal arts colleges and two graduate institutions based on the Oxford/Cambridge model. The consortium o�ers students diverse opportunities and resources typically found only at much larger universities. The consortium members include Claremont McKenna College, Harvey Mudd College, Pitzer College, Pomona College, Scripps College, Keck Graduate Institute of Applied Life Sciences, and the Clremont Graduate University which—includes the Peter F. Drucker and Masatoshi Ito Graduate School of Management.

Documents

Colgate-Palmolive, Energizer 2012 Sustainability Reporting ... · Colgate-Palmolive, Energizer Holdings, Estée Lauder, FUJIFILM ... Our analysis of sustainability reporting has a