The Top Ten CSR Reports of 2012

Previous posts on the CSR Reporting Blog with my pick of the Top Ten Reports of 2010 and the Top Ten Reports of 2011 have actually been among some of the most popular posts of all time on the CSR Reporting Blog. Who am I to mess with a winning formula? 

What do I look for in a winning report? Authenticity, Materiality and Impacts. The AIM model. This is how it works (reproduced from last years' post)

 

Authenticity: I look for whether the company has reported in an honest way, using stakeholder voices to supplement performance data. Authenticity for me includes balance, accuracy and completeness. I look for targets and progress against stated targets.

Materiality: I look for whether the company has clearly defined the most important issues for the company and its stakeholders and described the way in which those issues have been identified and prioritized. Reporting materiality should also include a certain amount of contextual information which can assist us in understanding the issues and why they are material.

Impacts: I look for whether the company identified impacts rather than just presenting a shopping list of activities. This means discussing the outcomes of what was achieved. The outcomes are the achievement, not the activities. This is by far the most difficult thing for companies to address and very few, if any, do it well.

My Top Ten are reports that have caught my eye and stand out for me in some way. It's not an objective or methodological selection. But, I do use, browse, read and review many many many reports throughout the year, so you might say that the ones that stand out are hitting the mark in one way or another. By the way, you can also read Leon Kaye's Top Ten Sustainability Reports of 2012 on Triple Pundit.  His picks are all western global companies: Cisco, Coca Cola, Intel, Marks and Spencer, Microsoft, Nike, Philips, SAP, Unilever and UPS. All great works, and worthy of any top report list. My selection includes reports which are probably lesser known and reflect a more diverse group of companies from different parts of the world.  

Here... drumroll..... in alpha order are my Top Ten Picks of Sustainability Reports published in 2012.

 

(Becker Underwood, BT, CEMEX, China Mobile, Estee Lauder, Impahla Clothing, Larsen & Toubro, Maersk Line, Symantec and Tieto Corporation)

Becker Underwood Sustainability Report 2011
First report, GRI Application Level C, 81 pages

Becker Underwood is a privately-held multinational company, founded in 1982 in Ames, Iowa, that develops and produces a wide range of agricultural and horticultural solutions, including seed colorants and polymers, inoculants, beneficial nematodes, and mulch and turf colorants. Becker Underwood operates on five continents and employs over 430 people and generates $200 million in net sales. (Just in case you are wondering, as I was, what beneficial nematodes are, here's a definition: "Beneficial nematodes seek out and kill over 200 species of pest insect in the soil and will have no detrimental effect on species such as ladybugs, earth worms and other helpful beneficial insects." )

 

What I like about this report, in addition to the fact that it's a first, is its simplicity in reflecting a single overarching aim of this company: to have a NET positive impact from all direct and indirect business practices. That's easier said than done, but Becker Underwood, as a global but small-ish company, has taken the long view and developed a clear strategy to progress focused actions against seven strategic objectives. Actions include purchasing Renewable Energy Credits to offset 100% of electricity use, installing 84 solar panels at the company's Missouri site, energy efficiency improvements at several facilities and Becker Underwood has been working with Trucost to develop an environmental profit and loss account for the company's supply chain.  

 

If anything, this report adheres too rigidly to the GRI framework which has constrained its writing. Rather than help us understand the true impacts of the company's activities, the report follows the GRI profile disclosure elements in order, and bypasses the stories and case studies that would make this report come alive. Nonetheless, as a first report, it's a credible testimony to the company's approach and actions, and is carefully crafted,  modeling what can be done by businesses below $1billion revenues and 1,000 employees size.

BT Better Future Report 2012
GRI Application Level A, web-based report with 8 page downloadable summary

BT is one of the world’s leading communications services companies, operating in the UK and in more than 170 countries worldwide. Main activities are the provision of fixed-line services, broadband, mobile and TV products and services as well as networked IT services. BT employees over 90,000 people and has a total revenue of over GBP 19 billion.

BT has been reporting since the 90's and they always tend to do a good job. One of the best features of BT's reporting for some years now is the linkage of non-financial indicators and financial indicators. You can see this clearly on page 7 of the summary report. For example, one financial measure of the value of sustainability to BT's business is the value of customer contracts that BT competes for that have a sustainability element as part of the bid, which reached GBP 2.7 billion in 2012. This is linked to the underlying sustainability action of maintaining or improving BT's ethical index score.

Aside from this, BT's reporting is centered around their mission to "provide reliable and secure networks that help people and businesses to thrive". The web-based report contains a selection of interesting case studies which illustrate the ways in which BT lives this mission. For example, a story about how BT's emergency services 999-number wait time was reduced significantly shows how technology and new social media tools can be used in innovative ways.

BT's material issues are clearly laid out and a commentary from an external Leadership Panel adds extra perspective.

CEMEX 2011 Sustainable Development Report
GRI Application Level A+, 61 pages

Founded in Mexico in 1906, CEMEX, S.A.B. de C.V. is the world’s leading supplier of ready-mix concrete, and a leading cement and aggregates producer, with net sales of over $15 billion, selling to over 50 countries with 44,104 employees worldwide and an annual production capacity of 95.6 million tons of cement.   CEMEX operates 59 cement plants, 1,921 ready-mix concrete facilities, 377 aggregate quarries, 226 land-distribution centers, and 70 marine terminals. That's a heck of a lot of cement.

CEMEX began publishing annual environmental, health, and safety reports in 1996, and then in 2003 published its first Sustainable Development Report. Entitled "Building a Better Future", the 2011 Sustainable Development Report is CEMEX's ninth report that covers the range of environmental, social, and governance issues and performance.

What's great about CEMEX's reporting is a very clear approach to sustainability with three key drivers and seven priorities, and a materiality matrix which highlights the priority issues, which are reported in detail. Health and Safety, for example, the highest material issue, takes five pages in this 61 page report, and, while demonstrating improved safety performance, doesn't omit to mention that a whopping 44 individuals died in connection with CEMEX's activities. I am sure that's a painful disclosure. Not surprisingly, really, that all these 44 fatalities were contractor and third party employees. This reinforces the big differential between safety performance for own employees and safety performance for third parties. I see this pattern with many companies (Note to self: This deserves a post of its own. Sometime soon). Companies using contractor or third party employees must pay far more attention to safety training and supervision. In the same section, CEMEX reports a reduction in lost-time accidents among its own employees versus prior year.

CEMEX is involved in activities to "proactively contribute to the transformation of the construction sector" through a range of collaborations and research programs on the value of concrete as a sustainable building material. CEMEX has even become somewhat of a consultant to customers in construction of sustainable buildings. A life-cycle approach to concrete features in the report. The impacts of concrete in so many different aspects of our lives - construction, urban infrastructure, even road congestion, makes this report a fascinating read, very informative and even educational, as CEMEX provides relevant background information. Each section opens up with "performance highlights" and continues with a description of the company's management approach and a selection of challenges ahead. Clearly a report which has been carefully planned, it is well structured, and presents issues in a credible way. The report is bolstered by the commentary of an Advisory Panel.

The thing I wonder is why the materiality matrix is hidden away on page 45, instead of being right up front as an essential backdrop to the company's strategy and reporting approach.


China Mobile Ltd 2011 Sustainability Report
GRI undeclared level, 58 pages

 

China Mobile has over 176,000 employees, nearly 650 million customers and a 66.5% market share of mainland China telecoms services. The company was incorporated in 1997, and has mushroomed to be one of the largest mobile networks in the world. Just a list of the China Mobile wholly owned subsidiaries takes up a full page in this report. China Mobile was the first company in mainland China to publish a Sustainability Report in 2007 and this is their sixth. It is indexed to the GRI, the UNGC and ISO26000. 

China Mobile's vision is "Mobile Changes Life" and this report links the activities of the company with outcomes for a better society and environment. The company covers a broad range of issues relating to mobile technologies and consumer behavior and impacts, providing contextual information and background to this company's extensive reach. One small example: empty nesters. This is what China Mobile says:

"Mainland China is continuing to become an elderly society and the number of “empty nest” families has increased significantly. According to the statistics, currently “empty nest” families have surpassed 50% in both cities and rural areas, with the number increasing to 70% in some large and medium-sized cities. The question of how to care for the elderly becomes more pressing. We have fully considered the need of the elderly in their daily life and innovated on information services for them through customised terminals."

 

The Sustainability Performance key indicators are collected towards the end of the report and provide a great overview of China Mobile's performance. I like the fact that some of the performance areas are expressed in terms of impacts, and not just inputs (although there is room for even broader thinking in this area).

Estee Lauder Corporate Responsibility Report 2012
GRI undeclared level, 80 pages

The Estée Lauder Companies Inc. is one of the world's leading manufacturers and marketers of quality skin care, makeup, fragrance and hair care products, with sales of products are sold in over 150 countries and territories under the following brand names: Estée Lauder, Aramis, Clinique, Prescriptives, Lab Series, Origins, Tommy Hilfiger, and many more. The company has net sales of  almost $10 billion, and employs  approximately 38,500 people. The company was founded in 1946 by Estee Lauder.

The report is entitled "The Beauty of Responsibility" and this report is indeed a beauty. It projects a certain grace and refinement through its pleasing design, and well-placed imagery. Goals, progress in the reporting period and new goals are clearly set out up front, and issues such as diversity and inclusion, people development, advancing women, corporate philanthropy and environmental stewardship are well addressed. A large section is devoted to women's health and especially breast cancer, which has been the flagship cause of Estee Lauder for 20 years. Evelyn Lauder, who is credited with creating the pink ribbon, sadly passed away after battling with ovarian cancer in 2012 and a touching memorial page is devoted to her in this report.

While lacking some of the heavyweight aspects of Sustainability Reporting (stakeholder engagement processes, materiality analysis, value chain impacts, specific challenges etc), this report does present a credible picture of a company doing much to operate in a sustainable way as part of a core business philosophy. It certainly is the beauty of responsibility.
  

 

Impahla Clothing Integrated Annual Report 2012
Integrated Financial and Sustainability Report, GRI Application Level A, 64 pages.

Spring Romance Properties 34 (Pty) Limited, trading as Impahla Clothing (Impahla), is a company based in Cape Town, South Africa and manufactures clothing under a sole source agreement for PUMA, a world-class sport and lifestyle company. Impahla is a privately owned business that has grown organically over the last eight years from 60 employees in 2004 to 234 in February 2012. In 2012, Impahla supplied in the order of 445,000 garments for a total turnover of R38 million, 31% up from 2011. The most significant recent development in the Impahla business has been the move to manufacture exclusively for PUMA. 

 

Impahla started reporting in 2007 and this is their fifth report, and each one has been a gem. If anyone wants a role model for SME reporting, this is it. The open and inclusive style, the genuine and frank discussion of core issues, the well-written and carefully crafted messages, the conformance to the GRI framework without the appearance of a tick-box approach and the focus around material issues all make this company and its reporting one of the best, not just of 2012, but of several years. Design is always great too, with original photos of the operations and employees at all levels. Nothing Stock about this report. This discipline and degree of transparency does not come easy for a privately owned SME and is by no means an obvious approach. It requires absolute consistency and integrity by the company's leader-owners. We need more of this in business today. (Watch out for my DoShort book to be published in January about Sustainability Reporting for SME's in which I use Impahla as a case study, having interviewed the Managing Director, William Hughes).  

 

Larsen and Toubro Sustainability Report 2011
GRI Application Level A+, 112 pages

I covered Larsen and Toubro's reporting on the CSR Reporting Blog earlier this year with a Triple Cone Award for consistently compelling and creative reporting.

Larsen & Toubro Limited (L&T) is a technology, engineering, construction and manufacturing company. It is one of the largest companies in India, founded in Bombay (Mumbai) in 1938 by two Danish engineers, Henning Holck-Larsen and Soren Kristian Toubro. Both of them were strongly committed to developing India's engineering capabilities to meet the demands of industry. L&T is traded on the Indian Stock Exchange and employs over 50,000 full-time employees and over 300,000 contract workers, boasting a turnover of around $13 billion.

 

For more detail, read my post earlier this year. Suffice it to say here that this company has become one of the few that delivers a report which I look forward to reading each year.

Maersk Line’s Sustainability Progress Report 2011
Not GRI, 127 pages.

 

Maersk Line, headquartered in Denmark, is the largest shipping company in the world with a global market share of 15%. Maersk Line employs 25,000 people with 325 offices in 125 countries around the world and operates a fleet of more than 600 ships which sail every major trade lane on the globe, and make about 35,000 port calls every year.

This is Maersk Line's second report and what I like about it is the vision and long-term thinking it projects. Entitled "Route 2", the name of Maersk Line's sustainability strategy, the report's introduction kicks off with "Towards 2050" and an overview of the challenges facing the shipping industry in the light of global issues and mega-trends. The report is structured around five core issues that are at the heart of Maersk Line's strategy, and includes fascinating insights. For example, the report includes a description of the Indian banana trade based on a socio-economic impact study conducted by Maersk Line, and examines the risks to this sector in light of the different findings. Maersk Line's cold-chain shipping is an important part of the global perishable food distribution network.  

 

Maersk Line also presents good environmental data, including the impacts on its customers' supply chains. For example, Maersk reports that 169 key customers saved over 748,000 tons of carbon emissions by shipping with Maersk versus the industry average. In fact, overall, this report is one of the most fascinating reports I have read this year. It's immensely readable, with each section providing context, case studies and highly informative content. Maersk covers issues ranging from energy efficiency to illegal trade, from biodiversity to the floorboards in containers and from waste handling to exhaust gases from ships.

 

While I miss the structure of the GRI framework (an index, for example, and certain key indicators), and a materiality matrix, and this report is a little light on process for engaging with stakeholders, overall this is a great example of high-quality narrative and visionary sustainability performance.

Symantec Corporation 2011 Corporate Responsibility Report
GRI Application Level B+, 43 pages

I reviewed this report for the December edition of Ethical Corporation Magazine, and gave it a thumbs-up. These are the first two paragraphs of my review:
 

"Symantec’s latest report reflects a step-change in the company’s thinking and presentation of its corporate responsibility approach and performance. For the first time – the company has been reporting since 2008 – the report is organized around Symantec’s three strategic responsibility priorities: people (employees), world (environment, human rights, sourcing and community) and information (online security). These three focus areas form the basis of the structure of this report, which, at 43 pages, covers a healthy breadth of information in a crisp, coherent and intelligent way, while retaining focus. As reports go, this has all the positive elements: materiality matrix, input from internal and external stakeholders, clearly laid-out performance data over three financial years, and even a few failures frankly discussed. In fact, this is one of the few reports that lend themselves to reading cover to cover without inducing sleep." Enough said. Read it!

Tieto Corporation Corporate Responsibility Report 2011
GRI Application Level A+, 45 pages.

Tieto is an IT and product engineering services company headquartered in Finland and operating mainly in Nordic markets, Russia and Poland, with net sales of close to EURO 2 billion and employing 18,000 people.

 

This is Tieto's third CR Report, and it covers the spectrum of CR issues well. There is a detailed (and colorful) materiality matrix covering 25 issues, of which 10 are more material than others. Tieto clearly links its role as a business to the context of Green IT, about which there has been much research and clear conclusions drawn about the environmental benefits of online living. Providing good context, Tieto describes the ways in which it supports the online transition and offers customers lower-carbon lifestyles, calculating that in 2011, Tieto helped customers reduce carbon emissions by over 160,000 tons.  Tieto has a vision to achieve carbon neutrality in its own operations, and provides detail on carbon performance including specific multi-year targets.

Tieto reports authentically, for example, detailing non-conformities found in quality audits and corrective actions taken. Similarly, customer satisfaction, a key material issue, is reported both in terms of the positive aspects mentioned in customer feedback, and also in terms of points for improvement.

While the Tieto report could be livened up with a little more in the way of case studies and stakeholder voices, and a greater shift from inputs to outcomes, it is a good example of clear, straightforward, well-structured GRI-based reporting.  

Special Mention:

All the above reports are published by corporations. I wanted to make a special mention of another excellent report published in 2012: CEFIC's Towards Sustainability 2011/2012 Report.
 

 

The world of business is moving into a future of sectors, not just individual corporations. More and more, we need to consider value chain impacts by sector because there is a minimum threshold of sustainability performance is required by all companies in a sector to enable meaningful systemic collective progress. The more advanced companies understand this and the more advanced sectors are already organizing themselves around sustainability themes. CEFIC (The European Chemical Industry Council "the forum and the voice of the chemical industry in Europe") is not the first sector association to publish a Sustainability Report - there are many, some geography specific as well as sector specific. However, I highlight the CEFIC Report because it is a good, serious example of a strong considered approach to sustainability by an industry sector, and as a first report published in 2012, represents another breakthrough on our collective sustainability journey.

Note: To be fair, as in previous years, I did not include published reports of clients which my company, Beyond Business, served this year. These include:
GSK Romania Sustainability Report
Netafim Ltd Sustainability Report
Novus International Sustainability Report
Liberty Global Corporate Responsibility Report

Wishing everybody Happy Reporting in 2013!


elaine cohen, CSR consultant, winning (CRRA'12) Sustainability Reporter, HR Professional, Ice Cream Addict. Author of CSR for HR: A necessary partnership for advancing responsible business practices  Contact me via www.twitter.com/elainecohen   on Twitter or via my business website www.b-yond.biz  (Beyond Business Ltd, an inspired CSR consulting and Sustainability Reporting firm)

The proposed GRI G4 GHG Emissions draft - explained

The plot thickens. After presenting the G4 Exposure Draft available for comment between 25th June and 25th September, the GRI has now published what it's calling Thematic Revisions, for public comment between 14th August and 12th November. I think that's what they call eating the elephant in two easy slices. Of course, the CSR Reporting Blog is here and ready with our analysis of one of the two new Thematics  - Greenhouse Gas Emissions - to make your life a little easier.  The other one (Anti Corruption) will be the subject of my next post.

First, download the draft GHG Thematic document here. It's 55 pages. Get them all. You're gonna have your work cut out as you go through this document.

According to the draft, the proposed revisions align with the GHG Protocol, jointly released by the World Resources Institute and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, and the ISO 14064 Standard. The proposed GHG Emissions Indicators are fully aligned with the GHG Protocol’s grouping of emissions into three subsets (Scopes 1, 2, and 3), as well as the ISO 14064 grouping. Energy Indicators have been modified to align with the GHG Emissions Indicators and intensity Indicators were added for both energy and GHG emissions. More about intensity later....

Specifically the draft contains:

• New disclosures and guidance for the Energy and Emissions Aspect (Environmental Category)
• Edits to Indicator EC2 (Economic Performance Aspect, Economic Category)
• Edits to Indicators EN3 – EN7 and Indicators EN16 – EN20 (Energy and Emissions Aspects, Environmental Category)
• New indicators under the Energy and Emissions Aspects, Environmental Category

Before discussing the changes in detail, it might be worth listing the new EC2, EN3-7 and EN16 -20 and new indicators proposed in this section. First point to note is that 11 indicators now becomes 13 indicators, and this includes two intensity measures, energy intensity and GHG emissions intensity. As promised, more about that later.

• CORE EC2: Financial implications and other risks and opportunities for the organization’s activities due to climate change
• CORE EN3 Direct energy consumption
• ADD EN4 Indirect energy consumption
• CORE G415 Energy intensity
• ADD EN5 Reduction of energy consumption
• ADD EN6 Reductions in energy requirements of products and services
• CORE EN16 Direct greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
• CORE G416 Energy indirect greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
• CORE EN17 Other indirect greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
• CORE G417 Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions intensity
• ADD EN18 Reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
• CORE EN19 Emissions of ozone-depleting substances (ODS)
• CORE EN20 NOx, SOx, and other significant air emissions

So what's different? Intensity, as we've seen.  But more about that later.

GHG Protocol framework

A key difference is the clarification in definitions for energy and emissions reporting. The GRI has aligned itself with the leading carbon reporting standard - the GHG Protocol in which direct and indirect energy are classified into three scopes of emissions.

• Direct Energy > Scope 1 emissions
• Indirect Energy > Scope 2 emissions
• Other Energy > Scope 3 emissions

You probably already know this, but for those of us who are not environmental experts, it does take some getting your mind around. Scope is a classification of the organizational boundaries where GHG emissions occur.

• Direct (Scope 1) refers to emissions are created by sources owned or controlled by the organization. For instance, a coal-powered power plant which makes electricity.
• Indirect Energy (Scope 2) refers to emissions resulting from the generation of the electricity, heating, cooling, and  steam that is purchased by the organization. Scope 2 emissions occur at facilities which are owned or operated by other organizations. For example, using electricity purchased from the coal-fired power plant (probably via a national grid) is classified as Scope 2, because the emissions were generated in producing the electricity and not in your organization.
• Other Indirect  Energy (Scope 3) refers to emissions resulting from the organization’s activities, but are not created by the organization. This includes emissions from outsourced activities, such as the transportation of goods by haulage companies using vehicles that are not owned or controlled by the organization.

In other words, most companies report fuel and coal as direct energy sources and purchased electricity as an indirect energy source. In environmental reporting, the  energy source and what you do  with it is less important than where you do it. If the emissions occur in your factory, cue Scope 1. If they occur in someone else's factory, cue Scope 2 and if they happen on the bus to work or on a truck to China, cue Scope 3 (provided you don't own the bus or the truck).  

The John Lewis Partnership CSR Report for 2011 contains a good graphic that makes this all crystal clear:

Which emissions to account for: Control or Equity
The key to defining what to count is the precise scope of where emissions occur. On the face of things, it sounds straightforward, but in practice, there are two definitions are available: the equity or control method.

The control method calls for a company to account for the total GHG emissions from operations over which it has control, whether this be financial or operational control. It does not account for GHG emissions from operations in which it owns an interest but has no control. In other words, if you lease a factory, and you run it, and all the people working there are your employees, and all the materials used in the factory are sourced by you, and the final output is your products, then you have control.

The equity method calls for a company to account for GHG emissions from operations according to its share of equity in the operation. For example, if you have a 51% financial share in an operation, or even a lower financial share but full management control, you would report your emissions proportionately, according to the percentage share, and not full control.

This is an important distinction and must be applied consistently throughout the entire reporting spectrum. It could significantly change the level of emissions reported, so watch for the fine print when you are reading reports.

Alignment is Good
Closer alignment with the GHG Protocol (which is also used as the basis for CDP reporting) clearly makes sense, and hopefully will encourage greater comparability in energy and emissions reporting. At present, there are still wide variations but some do it well. ENEL, the energy company, for example, reports  for 2011 in classic textbook G4 style:

ENEL 2011 reporting EN3

ENEL 2011 reporting EN4

ENEL 2011 reporting EN16 Scope 1 Emissions

ENEL 2011 reporting EN16 Scope 2 emissions

ENEL 2011 reporting Scope 3 other emissions

Oh, did we mention intensity ?
G4 includes two new indicators relating to Energy Intensity (G415) and GHG Emissions Intensity (G417). This is a way of normalizing consumption and impacts to a common denominator which may be financial ($ of revenue), human (per person), physical (per square meter of factory or office space, or per vehicle) or per product (units sold, units produced) or, in fact, any other factor that you can imagine which is relevant to your business (or which makes your numbers look better than the absolute numbers). In most cases, my experience tells me, the intensity figures will always look better than the absolute figures - companies use more and more energy and generate more and more emissions, but on a per something basis, they proudly show a major reduction.  Take these examples:

Air China reports in the 2010 Corporate Responsibility Report on fuel consumption and carbon emissions by PTK (per ton/kilometer), stating that they have achieved "remarkable results" as they have reduced fuel consumption PTK by 6.6% in 2010 versus 2009. We do not know what the total fuel consumption was during this period.

Delhaize, the Belgian supermarket chain, shows fabulous energy intensity results per m2 sales in the company's 2011 CR Report. A 7.5% percent reduction over three years. (It is not clear whether this is all three Scopes, but I assume just Scope 1 and 2)

Delhaize 2011 reporting on emissions intensity

Delhaize does not disclose the total number of carbon emissions. Delhaize also reports to the Carbon Disclosure Project and you can access their report (after several clicks and registration on the CDP website) but you will find that the 2011 report covers 2010 data, and is therefore not comparable to the CSR Report 2011 period. After a quick calculation, I note that Delhaize absolute Scope 1 and 2 emissions increased by 3%, using 2008 as a baseline. Turning an increase into a decrease is the power of the intensity measure. This might have been achieved by increasing some prices, changing the sales mix or recording some currency adjustments and wow, suddenly the carbon emissions performance looks actually quite positive.

NH Hoteles 6th's CSR Report includes both absolute emissions and intensity rates per guest per night. Absolute emissions fell by 8.82% while intensity emissions fell by 11.9%.

What did NH Hoteles choose to highlight in its reporting narrative ? Intensity, of course.

 

 

CapitaLand's Sustainability Report for 2011 also shows a similar picture, in one handy graph.

Again, you can see that on an absolute basis, there is an increase of emissions by 39% since 2008 but intensity on a square meters basis reduces by 11.1% since 2008. CapitaLand's emissions target is an intensity target reduction of 20% by 2020, but there is no absolute target.

BT uses yet another model for calculation of emissions intensity and that is emissions per GBP million value added - which is EBITDA plus employee costs.  This formula is what BT has called its Climate Stabilization Intensity Target - a measure of carbon emissions in relation to its (financial) value added as a company and the contribution it makes to a country's GDP. Hmm. Make more profit, improve your carbon emission performance. BT's absolute emissions reduced 53% versus their 1997 baseline, and intensity improved by 61%.

What would be interesting to know is what specific factors contributed to this intensity improvement. BT report that they have improved energy efficiency, invested in renewable energy generation and purchased low-carbon energy. Wonder how much of what went into that 61%? And how much was a change in profit and employee costs?

Ericcson, on the other hand, report a different type of intensity. According to Ericcson's 2011 CSR Report, the carbon dioxide emissions associated with the lifetime operation of delivered products totaled approximately 24 Mtonnes in 2010. This is the measure used for carbon intensity. Don't worry about the fact that while carbon intensity was reducing every year, absolute emissions were increasing by 8% between 2008 and 2011.

Procter and Gamble have a lofty goal, stated in the P&G 2011 Sustainability Report: of powering their plants with 100% renewable energy. In the past few years, however, total carbon emissions (Scope 1 & 2, Scope 3 is off the radar) have increased  by 5% in 2 years. This doesn't prevent  P&G from proudly displaying the intensity figures:

As you can see, P&G refers to intensity per unit of production. Hmm. Now would that be a 5kg pack of washing powder, or a tube of Crest toothpaste, or a pack of Eukaneuba for dogs Denta Defense®, a type of micro-cleaning crystals that help reduce tartar by up to 55%?

Enough of intensity. By now you get the picture. Carbon emissions can be normalized to practically anything at all, depending on what a company wants to manage or what it wants to show to the world. In almost every single case you can find, intensity measures will always beat absolute measures. If only the planet would respond to intensity and become more sustainable. If every company were emitting carbon emissions relative to the number of expense claim-forms submitted, or the value of bottle-caps sold or the number of emails sent per hour, we might find carbon reporting much more interesting but it would hardly be saving the planet. If only we could become more sustainable by becoming less intense.

Why would the GRI choose to add two intensity measures to the G4 reporting framework? The GRI says this: "In combination with an organization’s absolute GHG emissions, disclosed with Indicators EN16, G416, and EN17, GHG emissions intensity helps to contextualize the organization’s efficiency, including in  relation to other organizations."
 
Normalizing energy consumption or carbon to financial values - turnover, sales or profit - or to other operational values - may be a way of comparing the performance of companies of different size in a similar sector. The carbon footprint of a cellphone is comparable whereas the manufacturers of cellphones may be very different in size and scope of operation. This might help investors (the ones who understand) to make decisions. Similarly, whatever the normalization factor, if a company consistently uses this to benchmark its own performance, it can be a management assessment and decision making tool. However, the trick is in the selected normalization factor. If such a factor has no direct relationship to whatever causes or influences the level of emissions, it may simply be a way to present good-news numbers. If my operations are the same size and my turnover increases because of a price-hike, or a change in currency exchange rates, I may still be generating equal or more carbon emissions but all of a sudden, my intensity plummets. We will have to be vigilant of the way that intensity measures are used in reporting, and ensure they are never  a replacement for absolute measures.

Some Less Intense General Points
The environmental disclosures as with, I think, all other disclosures in the proposed G4 framework are not time-specific. This means that the reporting company could report data only for the declared reporting period. I believe it would make sense to require organizations to present 5 years data on these critical data points. Of course, those who do not have 5 years data cannot do this. But of the many companies who have been producing sustainability reports over the years do have the data available (and several already include this). As we look at sustainability with a long-term lens, it is often frustrating when companies report only current and prior year data. We should require a little more perspective in G4.

Similarly, I believe that the G4 could be tightened up by requiring explanations of how performance has been achieved. For example, it would make sense, if energy consumption has decreased by 20%, to know what the organization has done to reduce this. The G4 proposals  in the updated EN5 (Reductions in energy consumption) and EN6 (Reduction of energy requirements in products and services) require listings of the reductions achieved but not a full explanation for HOW they were achieved. Adding such information would be helpful both for internal review and for external stakeholders. Companies who have made serious efforts to reduce carbon emissions should be able to say what actions caused the reduction. Unless it was all a lucky strike!

The Last Word (it's not intensity)
Overall the new GHG Reporting Thematic Revision tightens up environmental reporting and makes several aspects both clearer and less overlapping. G4 also ups the stakes a little (a lot). The G4 framework requires reporting on all three scopes of carbon emissions as core indicators (EN16, EN17, EN18). This is also the case in G3 (EN16 and EN17), but in G3, companies had the option to report at Application Level B or C, reporting Scope 1 and 2 emissions under EN16 and avoid Scope 3 emissions in EN17. With G4, every company which includes climate change as a material issue will be required to report all three Scopes in order to be In Accordance with the G4 framework. Sounds like there's gonna be a lotta scrambling around for data going on, and suppliers of goods and services to In Accordance reporters are going to feel the heat.

Whew! Glad that's covered. I hope  Anti-corruption is not so complicated. Watch this space.
   

 

elaine cohen, CSR consultant, winning (CRRA'12) Sustainability Reporter, HR Professional, Ice Cream Addict. Author of CSR for HR: A necessary partnership for advancing responsible business practices Contact me via www.twitter.com/elainecohen   on Twitter or via my business website www.b-yond.biz (Beyond Business Ltd, an inspired CSR consulting and Sustainability Reporting firm)

Part Two: Sustainability: What the Numbers Tell You

Since my recent Sustainability: What the Numbers Tell You post was so resoundingly successful, I have decided to maintain the momentum and  take a look at some more numbers. This time I am going to look at environmental metrics that were covered in the Sustainability Practices 2012 Edition, which I fairly glossed over in my previous (resoundingly successful) post. The Report covers a range of environmental metrics including those relating to: emissions, energy, water, waste, recycling, packaging, purchasing and spills and fines. Let's start with this number:

39%

of companies in the Bloomberg ESG 3000 Index report having a Climate Change Strategy. This compares with only 26% of the S&P 500 and 16% of the Russell 1000. (Just to remind you, the Bloomberg ESG 3000 covers a range of global companies while the S&P and Russell indices cover large-cap U.S. companies. So when the Bloomberg is higher than the S&P/Russell, it means that the world is doing better than the U.S.) In this case,  U.S. companies have not yet caught up on climate change as something they need to be making decisions about.

Many people probably don't know the difference between a climate change strategy and reducing energy consumption. In the Sustainability Practices Report, a climate change strategy is defined as: "a set of risk management procedures designed to mitigate the impact on business operations of climate change". Typically, as defined in the report, such a strategy will include: an assessment of the energy efficiency of the business, a commitment to capital investment in environmentally preferable technologies and a search for new sources of capital through commodity trading of GHG emissions or government subsidies for GHG emission reductions. 71% of big companies (over $100 billion revenues) have apparently given this some thought as they do have a climate change strategy. Only 22% of companies under $1 billion have done the leg-work in this area. The rest of them either they have a policy and are not disclosing (unlikely) or they don't have a policy and they are ostriching (likely). That's a shame, because "if you think mitigated climate change is expensive, try unmitigated climate change", (a quote from Dr Richard Gammon) .

And now for a little quiz: How many of the Bloomberg ESG 3000 actually report their total carbon  emissions?
A: 83%
B: 72%
C: 65%
D: 48%
E   34%
F:  21%

Yes, great, you were either wrong or right. The correct answer is:

 34%

That's it. Just over a third of the world's leading companies disclose their total carbon emissions. But this is not really the world's companies - it's Japan. In the Bloomberg 3000, there are 644 companies from Japan of which 80% disclose CO2 emissions, which is required by law. In the U.S., for example, only 8% of the 70 U.S. companies in the 3000 Index disclose CO2 emissions, which is the lowest rate of disclosure across a range of countries. The Netherlands and Sweden do better at 70% and 62% respectively, but France and the UK are lagging with 39% and 30%. This might be changing fairly soon in the UK with new legislation which will require large listed UK companies to disclose GHG emissions.  But disclosure is one thing and sustainable performance is another.  Think about this next number:

16,536,533

which is the average total CO2 emissions in tons from the 36 disclosing companies in the S&P 500 Index. This is a whopping 5 times higher than the total emissions from the 1,033 disclosing companies in the Bloomberg ESG 3000.  Utilities and energy companies reported the highest level of emissions, as you might expect. It takes energy to produce energy, apparently. Double whammy. When normalized per employee, we find that the utilities sector produces 1,473 tons of CO2 emissions per employee (median, not average). This is equivalent to emissions per employee resulting from powering 167 homes with electricity for a full year, or running 262 passenger cars for a full year. Wonder if all those employees think about that on their morning commute: "Hah, wonder how many cars on the road the carbon emissions resulting from my working today will equate to?" Perhaps this could be the next stage in sustainability-driven Employer Branding. It might work for the Financial Services Industry, where CO2 emissions are a mere 3 tons per year per employee (median). "Do you feel you have a personal responsibility for protecting our planet? Come and work for us. Your work will generate only 3 tons of carbon emissions per year, which is less than the equivalent of keeping one car on the road. You can manipulate interest rates with hardly any impact on the environment".  

But, enough of CO2, let's go deeper and look at energy efficiency. Consider these numbers:

 1,933  -  249  -  321

These are the actual numbers of companies in our three reference indices of 3,000, 500 and 1,000 companies which declare that they have an energy efficiency policy. 64%, 50% and 33%. I find that incredible. Forget sustainability, just think about energy costs. Heck, we even have an energy efficiency policy in our home! (Well, I admit, it's not a written policy, but if the kids leave the lights on in their bedrooms, they know there will be unpleasant consequences). Why wouldn't businesses have an energy efficiency policy? Ah, you might say, "companies which are primarily office based have more significant sustainability impacts to think about and more important cost considerations". Ah, I might say back to you, "and pigs can fly".  Even the financial sector, primarily office based as it may be, has a higher rate of energy-efficiency policy disclosure at 52% of companies than the energy sector itself at 46%. Energy efficiency is the second most material issue for companies everywhere, based on a study that was done last year on materiality issues. So how come so few have a policy? Possible they are just doing it because it's in their DNA. (A friendly reference to Oliver Balch, who tweeted "Please, one piece of advice to all companies: ban the phrase 'In our DNA' from your corporate lexicon"). Consider this number:

5%

which is the percentage of companies in the Bloomberg ESG 3000 which report using renewable energy. That's just 164 companies. For all the others, renewables are apparently not yet in their DNA.

Moving on to water consumption, consider this:

3.72

is the ratio of average water consumption in the U.S. based S&P 500 to the average in the Bloomberg ESG 3000. The average water consumption per S&P company in the U.S. sample (104 companies disclosing) is 3.72 times higher than the global sample (1,111 companies disclosing). Clearly, size does matter, as the bigger companies have higher water consumption.  Yet still only 74% of the companies in the $100 million revenue category disclose total water consumption, despite the fact that the median water consumption for this group is over 35 million cubic meters in comparison to a $1-10 million revenue company which uses 1.4 million cubic meters per year. With water scarcity becoming the number one resource issue globally, it seems incredible that disclosure for such large corporate users should not be mandatory, leaving 26% of the largest companies in the world to decide for themselves whether to manage water consumption transparently or not. But it gets worse. Consider this:

2%

is the number of companies which report that they use recycled water. 74 companies in a sample of 3000. But it gets worser. Waste is also one of the big drags on our economies and quality of life, not to mention sustainability. Here's another number:

31,739,944

is the average waste in tons generated by companies in the materials sector (which is made up of companies that manufacture chemicals, construction materials, containers and packaging, paper and forest products, extractives etc) which is more than the total average waste of all the other sectors added together, yet only 36% of companies in this sector report on the total levels of waste generated. Waste is cost. More often than not, it's unnecessary cost. How are investors using this information? Companies which are generating so much waste are also wasting investors' money.  Which brings us to the next number:

$997,299

which is the average amount that companies in the Bloomberg ESG 3000 spend on environmental fines each year. In the S&P 500 index, this becomes a whopping $2,224,831.

I could go on, but I won't. The Sustainability Practices 2012 Edition Report is an encyclopedia of data and comparative numbers. I have given you a jump start. You'll have to do the rest of the leg-work yourself :)  

By now, I think you get the picture. It's one of desperately poor levels of disclosure. Despite the growing momentum of voluntary disclosure and Sustainability Reporting, frameworks, measures, surveys, CEO commitments, investor pressures and all the hype that this brings with it, the picture on transparency is still bleak. Most of the largest companies in the world are barely disclosing most of the most important sustainability metrics. And this low level of disclosure gets proportionally lower and lower as company size decreases. In the U.S., performance is generally lower in comparison to the rest of the world. So it's fabulous that the U.S. is now leading the Medals League Table at London 2012 (39 Gold Medals as I write), but sooner or later, even that performance will not be sustainable without stronger and more transparent behavior by American corporations.

There is something about numbers. They clarify our reality. In this review of environmental sustainability and transparency-by-numbers, that reality is rather depressing, because there is a stark realization that, for all the talk, the results are pretty shameful and perhaps, voluntary disclosure is not all it's cracked up to be. Self-regulation is more self than regulation. When the authors of this Sustainability Practices benchmark report maintain that "there is significant room for improvement", I think we can safely agree that this is more than a mild understatement. With Paragraph 47 not promising to be massively instrumental in driving change in transparent disclosure, we have to wonder just what will propel corporations around the world into a different paradigm, before something else propels them out of ostrichland.

An eternal optimist, I believe change will happen. As a realist, I see it's painfully slow. As a pragmatist, I accept that we have to move on and, as the amazing Pema Chodron says, Start Where we Are. As an icecreamist, I know there is always comfort just around the corner.

elaine cohen, CSR consultant, winning (CRRA'12) Sustainability Reporter, HR Professional, Ice Cream Addict. Author of CSR for HR: A necessary partnership for advancing responsible business practices  Contact me via www.twitter.com/elainecohen   on Twitter or via my business website www.b-yond.biz  (Beyond Business Ltd, an inspired CSR consulting and Sustainability Reporting firm)

Ten examples of Carbon Footprint Reporting

There are just 7 days to go until close of voting in the CorporateRegister.com CRRA '12 fifth annual online reporting awards. While you are finalizing your votes, please consider voting for my own Sustainability Report - How a little consulting firm makes a big impact - which is entered in four categories: Best Report, Best First Time Report, Best SME Report and Best Creativity in Communications. Additionally, you might also please consider reviewing and voting for the Baran Group Report - which I worked on - which is entered in two categories: Best Relevance and Materiality and Best Openness and Honesty.

If you want a recap of the awards this year and the reports entered, you could look at the three posts I have written about CRRA '12:

• The CRRA Navigation Guide
• 25 examples of creativity in Sustainability Reports 
• 18 examples of (not so) integrated Sustainability Reports

Today, I thought I would see how companies are reporting on carbon, by reviewing the Best Carbon Disclosure Category. The Awards guidelines ask us to consider: Which report gives the best disclosure of the company’s carbon emissions, the implications for climate change, and the mitigation measures taken? Check for policy, quantified data, targets.

There are just 10 entries this time around in this category, three from the U.S., two from Brazil and the UK, and one each from the Netherlands, Austria and Finland. Here they all are in alfa order:

Amcor Limited - global packaging manufacturer

Banco Bradesco SA - bank

Banco Santander Brasil SA - bank

Bank of America - bank

British Sky Broadcasting Group plc - TV entertainment

Coca-Cola Enterprises Inc - beverages

Royal Dutch Shell plc - energy

Tieto Corporation - IT and product engineering services company

Vodafone Group plc - telecoms

Wyndham Worldwide Corporation - hotels and leisure

You might think it would be quite straightforward to report on Carbon Emissions. After all, it's one of the most measurable and trackable areas of sustainability performance.

The GRI Indicators covering carbon emissions are simply stated (all the reports in this category in CRRA '12 are written in accordance with the GRI Framework):

EN16:  Total direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions by weight.

EN18: Initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reductions achieved.

Calculation of carbon emissions often uses the framework of the Greenhouse Gas Protocol which defines three scopes. The GHG Protocol further categorizes these direct and indirect emissions into three broad scopes:

Scope 1: All direct GHG emissions from sources that are owned or controlled by the reporting entity.

Scope 2: Indirect GHG emissions from consumption of purchased electricity, heat or steam.

Scope 3: Other indirect emissions, such as the extraction and production of purchased materials and fuels, transport-related activities in vehicles not owned or controlled by the reporting entity, electricity-related activities (e.g. Transmission & Distribution  losses) not covered in Scope 2, outsourced activities, waste disposal, etc.

However, in addition to these indicators, each company can choose to disclose a host of information which puts the data into a certain context relative to the organization's overall impacts and performance, explains the sources of carbon emissions and actions taken to control carbon emission impacts. What we actually find is that companies tend to report in very different ways. Some more detailed, some less. Some clearer, some less. Some barely giving more than a single number, some offering long stories and explanations. Some also refer to their carbon impacts on third parties - indirect impacts - which are often greater than the directly generated impacts of doing their business. All in all, reporting on carbon is as diverse as the carbon performance of companies itself. Looking at the ten companies which entered their reports in this category, aspiring to be the Best Carbon Disclosure reporters, I found this to be true.

What would I expect the best carbon disclosure to include?

• Overall absolute emissions - the scope (Scope 1, Scope 2 and Scope 3) and their sources.
• The scope of the reporting - covering all operation or just a selection.
• Performance versus prior years and performance versus targets with explanations.
• The way carbon reductions have been achieved.
• How employees have been engaged in the carbon emission reduction efforts.
• How external stakeholders (customers/suppliers) have been engaged in carbon emission reduction efforts.
• Future plans/targets to reduce the emissions burden and the way these will be achieved.

What did I find ?

Overall absolute emissions - the scope (Scope 1, Scope 2 and Scope 3) and their sources.

Amcor provides details of carbon intensity (per unit of production) by Scope over 6 years for Amcor "legacy" sites, representing Amcor prior to its Alcan Packaging acquisition.

Amcor also discloses the level of total absolute carbon emissions.

Banco Bradesco does not include details of carbon emissions in their 61 page report, but refers to the website, which is all in a foreign language - Portuguese ?  with no English option. The emissions numbers - in toneladas - are stated as part of the GRI Index. 

Banco Santander shows Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions for the reporting year:

The Bank also confirms that emissions per employee dropped 76% between 2005 and 2010.

Bank of America details Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions for 2010 and prior year 2009, by source, including details of Renewable Energy Credits.

British Sky Broadcasting provides details data for Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions since 2008 baseline tracking. Data is shown for absolute emissions and per GBP million turnover. Even the Sky News Helicopter is detailed as generating 183 tons of (Scope 3) carbon emissions in 2010/2011.

Coca Cola Enterprises reports in detail against all three Scope emissions, explaining methodology, sources, and even an estimation of the likely effect of new additional territories:

Royal Dutch Shell provides 10 years of carbon emission data in a concentrated data table separate from the report narrative. The narrative states that higher emissions were due to higher production, especially in Nigeria because of an improved security situation. Shell makes a distinction in the report narrative between Scope 1 and 2 emissions (also splits emissions between production operations and flaring). It is not clear whether Scope 3 emissions are included.

Tieto explains the sources of carbon emissions, mainly generated through data center consumption plus employee work and travel.

Tieto provides details for all Scope 1, 2 and 3 for the year 2010.

Between 2009 and 2010, Tieto has increased the scope of its reporting from 7 offices in Sweden and Finland to 58 offices - a significant achievement- but rendering an absolute comparison with prior year data not relevant.  As you might imagine, total CO2 emissions increased significantly with increased business activity. However, while Scope 1 and 2 emissions per person decreased in 2010 vs 2009, Scope 3 emissions per person increased from 0.7 tons to 0.82 tons in 2010, this, despite a stated decrease in travel expenses per person by 3% (Scope 3 emissions, as can be seen, is primarily business travel). This is not explained.

Vodafone reports absolute emissions in the printed report, supplemented by significant detail on the Vodafone Sustainability Report website.

Wyndham Worldwide Corporation reports total Scope 1 and Scope 2 carbon emissions and sources.

The scope of the reporting - covering all operations or just a selection.

Amcor's reporting covers all manufacturing sites.

Banco Bradesco's report covers all the Bank's operations.

Banco Santander's report covers all the Bank's operations.

Bank of America's report covers the entire activities of the Bank.

British Sky Broadcasting covers all sites except joint ventures and is annualized data based on 11 months operations.

Coca Cola Enterprises reports on all the business with some omissions for newly acquired territories in 2010/2011. 

Royal Dutch Shell reports on all operations.

Tieto's carbon reporting covers between 73% and 90% of employees (18,000 employees).

Vodafone's report includes all operations with the exception of joint ventures.

Wyndham Worldwide Corporation reports on all facilities over which the company has direct control.

Performance versus prior years and performance versus targets with explanations.

Amcor reports a 2.4% carbon emission reduction in intensity (per unit of production) over 5 years for Scope 1 and 2 but did not meet the 10% 5-year target. No explanation for falling short of targets is provided. 

Banco Bradesco does not refer to prior year performance or express any carbon targets.

Banco Santander does not disclose targets and does not explain performance versus prior years beyond a passing reference.

Bank of America shows a big increase in Scope 3 emissions. However, 2010 data now includes all forms of business travel, not just air travel which was the only element reported in the 2009 report - a good example of how reporting scope improves from year to year. BoA also reports emissions from waste disposal and negative emissions from recycling and composting (232,171 tons).

British Sky Broadcasting clearly shows performance against targets over two reporting periods.

Coca Cola Enterprises provides data for prior years, showing improvements in absolute performance while increasing sales. 

Royal Dutch Shell makes general comments about performance relating to manufacturing efficiency.

Tieto Corporation of Sweden makes no secret of their carbon vision - though it is not clear by when this is scheduled to be achieved. 

Vodafone provides good, clear detail relating to performance versus objectives:

Wyndham Worldwide Corporation does not provide details of past performance (this is a first Sustainability Report).

The way carbon reductions have been achieved.

Amcor refers to "a range of procedural and technical improvements" including lighting replacement, improving boiler efficiencies, insulating steam pipes and replacing inefficient heating with infrared space heating.

Banco Bradesco offers no information. In fact, it is not clear whether there have been any carbon reductions.

Banco Santander advances construction or maintenance of branches to reduce the use of natural resources and raw materials that contribute to the Bank´s direct and indirect GHG emissions. It also compensates its emissions through the Projeto Floresta Real. 2010 emissions will be offset by March 2011 by planting 60,000 native forest trees in degraded areas with low Human Development Index (HDI) levels.

Bank of America achieved a 7.5% reduction in Scope 1 and 2 emissions in 2010 by improving energy efficiency in its retail banking centers, office buildings, and data centers and optimizing real estate portfolio to make the most efficient use of space. The Bank also discloses that there was a reduction in the GHG intensity of the U.S. electricity grid, which also contributed to their improved performance.

British Sky Broadcasting refers to building efficiency improvements including lighting, increased air sensors and air conditioning chiller units. Energy at UK Sites is purchased at renewable tariffs. The British Sky report also includes a page entitled "30 things we have done to reduce our environmental impact", many of which relate to energy consumption and carbon emissions.

Coca Cola Enterprises provides data for prior years and detailed explanations of what carbon emissions are generated where and what actions have been taken through energy-efficient technologies in manufacturing (compressed air, lighting and heating), renewable energy use, transportation efficiencies and cooling equipment for soft drinks (which are 62% of Coca Cola's core business emissions) and vending machines. Also, plant production lines are equipped with energy meters which show energy consumption performance in real-time and can be used to make adjustments which affect resulting carbon emissions.

Royal Dutch Shell does not give details about specific actions taken to reduce carbon emissions.

Tieto's main advance has been the opening of  "one of the most environmentally efficient" data centers in Sweden, called "Tieto Cave", with 20 meter rock solid walls. Wow. Sounds like a good setting for Mission Impossible 6. I can just see Tom Cruise tunneling through that. When fully utilized, the data center will supply 1,000 homes with heat and warm water.  

Vodafone discloses great detail about the way carbon efficiencies have been achieved including using fresh air to cool equipment instead of air conditioning, increasing temperature at which base stations can operate, thereby reducing cooling requirements, remote shutdown of base stations, installing more energy efficient base stations, reducing number of computer servers, using alternative energy (solar and wind) for part of the operations and reducing operating time of generators through technology improvements.

Wyndham Worldwide Corporation provides a long list of carbon-reducing activities relating to lighting, heating, Energy Star appliances and the company purchases 100% of its energy usage from wind power at the corporate HQ.


How employees have been engaged in the carbon emission reduction efforts.

Amcor does not refer to employee engagement in carbon emission reductions. Amcor refers only to an EMS, using ISO18000.

Banco Bradesco offers no information.

Banco Santander lays on 85 free daily chartered buses between subway stations and the organization's administrative buildings. The service is used by 1,662 employees. Santander also provides bicycle parks and changing rooms with showers, towels and shampoo.

Bank of America engages "thousands" of employees in environmental issues through workshops and other activities. Employees saved 2,268 tons of carbon savings and 350 employees became Environment Ambassadors.  Bank of America also offers a subsidy to employees to purchase hybrid electric (and now also, compressed natural gas) vehicles - over 3,700 employees have bought hybrids since 2007. This is important as Scope 3 emissions, which are mainly employee commuting and business travel, increased in 2010. Business travel emissions increased by over 150%.

British Sky Broadcasting ran a second Flight Challenge for employees focusing on minimising flights between Scotland and London by raising awareness of alternatives.

Coca Cola Enterprises does not specifically refer to employee engagement in environmental performance though there is one short employee story.

Royal Dutch Shell does not mention employees.

Tieto does not specifically refer to employee engagement in Green activities, though much of the company's carbon performance will be affected by reducing business travel which clearly requires employees to collaborate.

Vodafone does not specifically refer to employees in relation to carbon emission activities.

Wyndham Worldwide Corporation runs a Wyndham Green Council with representatives from across the Company, including over 200 associates from cross-functional departments in each business unit in over 20 countries. Innovations, experiences, and best practices are regularly shared across the Company and published annually in a Global Best Practices document.

In addition, Wyndham offers Sustainability 101 training in 10 languages, and has already trained 35% of the company's employees. This is supplemented by educational efforts reaching 76% of the workforce on Earth Day and around other events. Wyndham also has a Green Kids program, designed to teach children about sustainability and the best of all, a Caught Green Handed program, to recognize positive environmental performance of employees.

How external stakeholders (customers/suppliers) have been engaged in carbon emission reduction efforts.

Amcor does not disclose information on how Amcor engages with customers or suppliers with regard to carbon reduction efforts, except in the area of future targets. 

Banco Bradesco is a signatory to the Equator Principles and reports on how they apply environmental thinking to credit decisions. The bank offers four environmentally positive investment funds. However, aspects related to carbon disclosure are not specifically discussed.

Banco Santander participates in the Sectoral Forum for the Management of GHG Emissions – Engagement of Suppliers. The objective is to persuade suppliers to adopt a systematic inventory process, establishing activities for mitigating and offsetting emissions.

Through its core business, the Bank of America is committed to advancing a low-carbon economy and has generated low-carbon business worth $11.6 billion between 2007 and 2010 including more than $1.9 billion in “green” commercial real estate debt and equity transactions, $1 billion in debt and equity for green affordable housing in 23 states, $476 million in financing for energy efficiency upgrades and retrofitting for K–12 schools, colleges and universities and acted as underwriter on four IPOs, raising $3.7 billion in capital for renewable energy, clean technology and energy efficiency companies. Bank of America also held a supplier conference, encouraging disclosure to the Carbon Disclosure Project - 75 of the Bank's largest suppliers responded to the CDP.

British Sky Broadcasting asked 50 most carbon intensive suppliers to measure their carbon footprint and further reduce emissions using the Carbon Disclosure Project reporting framework. 25 agreed to participate so far. Through the Sky Rainforest Rescue campaign, in partnership with WWF, British Sky involves customers in a campaign to help save one billion trees in the Amazon rainforest.

Coca Cola Enterprises does not specifically refer to customers though the section on sustainable packaging and carbon footprint throughout the lifecycle of Coca Cola products involves consumers and requires their participation in responsible environmental behavior such as recycling.

Royal Dutch Shell describes in detail what the company is doing to develop produce cleaner energy and advanced biofuels and lubricants developed to help customers use less energy.

Tieto confirms that their core business offering, data centers and IT solutions, can help customers reduce their carbon footprints.

Vodafone reports on offerings of low-carbon solutions including smart metering for customers. "Combined with innovative technology from our partners – such as Isotrak’s Active Transport Management System or AMS’ smart metering solutions – more than 5 million Vodafone M2M connections are providing access to data that help businesses improve efficiency and cut costs. We believe that at least 4 million of these connections also help to reduce energy use and related carbon emissions."

Wyndham Worldwide Corporation operates a vacation ownership program with certification programs reaching over 800,000 timeshare owners, focusing on reduction of energy, water and waste. At Wyndham Hotel Group, the Green Franchisee Hotel Advisory Board was formed in 2010 in which 12 cross-brand hotel owners and general managers showcased and shared green practices to advance sustainability in the hotel group portfolio. Also, Wyndham has a Green Supplier initiative to partner with suppliers and vendors who have a similar commitment to protecting the environment.

Future plans/targets to reduce the emissions burden and the way these will be achieved.

Amcor announces a new target of an additional 10% reduction in carbon intensity by FY 2015/2016. This will be achieved through engaging suppliers, working with customers to make packaging more environmentally friendly and continuing internal efficiency drives.

Banco Bradesco established an Eco-efficiency Working Group which developed a Master Plan that aims to establish an environmental management structure in line with the Bank’s activities, including actions to be developed over the next five years. What this space, as they say.

Banco Santander is not explicit about future plans to achieve carbon reductions.

Bank of America has declared a goal to reduce carbon emissions by 15% in the next 5 years. They will do this by increasing LEED certified space to 20% by end 2015 and will offer monetary rewards and career advancement for employees who contribute to achieving environmental goals.

British Sky Broadcasting includes a narrative relating to next steps, in which the company will continue to do what it has already been doing in terms of carbon management.

Coca Cola Enterprises: "We are reviewing our carbon reduction goal in 2011, looking at our carbon impacts beyond our immediate operations and the demands of our stakeholders and policy makers." Watch this space, too.

Royal Dutch Shell does not specify future targets.

Tieto explains how the company will work towards carbon neutrality: reduced business travel, lower data-center energy consumption, lower office energy consumption etc.

Vodafone offers a detailed program for future carbon emissions reduction, the only reporter in this category to do so at this level of detail:

Wyndham Worldwide Corporation also give some specific through not quantifiable targets, indicating positive intention.

So, any conclusions about which report YOU will VOTE for in this category? (if you got this far, CONGRATULATIONS!!!)  

My votes go to Vodafone, Coca Cola Enterprises, Wyndham and British Sky. I especially like Wyndham's employee practices.

So remember, carbon is carbon is carbon but reporting is not reporting is not reporting is not reporting. Help the best reporters gain recognition and raise the bar through your VOTES >>>;.

elaine cohen, CSR consultant, Sustainability Reporter, HR Professional, Ice Cream Addict. Author of CSR for HR: A necessary partnership for advancing responsible business practices Contact me via www.twitter.com/elainecohen  on Twitter or via my business website www.b-yond.biz/en  (BeyondBusiness, an inspired CSR consulting and Sustainability Reporting firm)