DNV GL Business Assurance USA, Inc. (DNV GL) was commissioned by Lockheed Martin Corporation (Lockheed
Martin) to conduct independent assurance of its 2015 Sustainability Report (‘the Report’), as published on the company’s website at http://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed/data/corporate/documents/
Sustainability/2015-sustainability-report.pdf
and to carry out an independent verification of select 2015 Global
Reporting Initiative (GRI) indicators.
Our assurance engagement was planned and carried out in accordance with AA1000AS (2008), using DNVGL’s
VeriSustain methodology.
VeriSustain is based on our professional experience, international assurance best practice including AA1000
Assurance Standard, and the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) Sustainability Reporting Guidelines. We understand that the reported financial data and information are based on data from Lockheed Martin’s Annual Report and
Accounts 2015, which are subject to a separate independent audit process. The review of financial data taken from the Annual Report and Accounts is not within the scope of our work.
We planned and performed our work to obtain the evidence we considered necessary to provide a basis for our assurance opinion. We were engaged to provide Type 2 moderate level assurance, which covers:
• Evaluation of adherence to the AA1000AS (2008) principles of inclusivity, materiality and responsiveness
(the Principles); and
• The reliability of specified sustainability performance information along with related claims in the report including: o
The 31 reportable Performance Indicators within Lockheed Martin’s Sustainability Management
Plan (SMP) that represent its six core issues: Governance, Product Performance, Talent
Competitiveness, Supplier Sustainability, Resource Efficiency, and Information Security; o
GRI Indicators G4-17 – G4-27, G4-SO4, G4-34, G4-PR6, G4-LA6, G4-LA12, G4-EN3, G4-EN6, G4-
EN15, G4-EN19, G4-12; o
Energy use and greenhouse gas (GHG) Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions, with and without Renewable
Energy Credits (RECs), waste generated, and water use assertion.
A ‘high level’ of assurance would have required additional work at the headquarters and site level to gain further evidence to support the basis of our assurance opinion. We evaluated the performance data using the reliability principle.
DNV GL Business Assurance USA, Inc. (DNV GL), 155 Grand Ave, Oakland, CA 94612

We followed the procedures as outlined in the VeriSustain protocol to complete the project. We used the Global
Reporting Initiative (GRI) Quality of Information Principles (Balance, Clarity, Accuracy, Reliability, Timeliness and
Comparability) as criteria for evaluating performance information, together with Lockheed Martin’s data protocols for how the data are measured, recorded and reported.
The verification of energy, GHG emissions, waste generation and water use assertions were verified to a limited level of assurance and the organizational boundaries are all global sites under Lockheed Martin’s operational control. All data were verified for the period between 1 November 2014 to 31 October 2015.
Lockheed Martin has sole responsibility for preparation of the Report. In performing our assurance work, our responsibility is to the management of Lockheed Martin. Our statement, however, represents our independent opinion and is intended to inform all Lockheed Martin’s stakeholders.
DNV GL was not involved in the preparation of any statements or data included in the Report, except for this assurance statement. This is our first year of providing assurance for Lockheed Martin. We adopt a balanced approach towards all stakeholders when performing our evaluation.
DNV GL’s assurance engagements are based on the assumption that the data and information provided by the client to us as part of our review have been provided in good faith. DNV GL expressly disclaims any liability or coresponsibility for any decision a person or an entity may make based on this Assurance Statement.
A multi-disciplinary team of sustainability and assurance specialists performed work at headquarters and site level.
We undertook the following activities:
•
Review of the current corporate responsibility issues that could affect Lockheed Martin and are of interest to stakeholders;
• Review of Lockheed Martin’s approach to stakeholder engagement and recent outputs;
• Review of information provided to us by Lockheed Martin on its reporting and management processes relating to the Principles;
•
We conducted in-person and phone interviews at the corporate headquarters in Bethesda, MD as well as
Rockville, MD with a selection of the senior directors and managers who are responsible for areas of management and stakeholder relationships covered by the Report. The objective of these discussions was to understand top level commitment and strategy related to corporate responsibility and Lockheed
Martin’s governance arrangements, stakeholder engagement activity, management priorities, and systems;

•
We visited one site in Marietta, GA. We were free to choose the site location. During the site visit, we met with ethics, environmental, health and safety and security representatives. The review work on site focused on ethics case management, energy consumption, GHG emissions, waste generated, water consumption, security, and health and safety management;
•
We assessed documentation and evidence that supported and substantiated claims made in the Report;
•
We reviewed the specified data collated at the corporate level, including that gathered by other parties, and statements made in the Report. We interviewed managers responsible for internal data validation, reviewed their work processes, and undertook sample-based audits of the processes for generating, gathering, and managing the quantitative and qualitative sustainability data;
•
We reviewed information systems to support reporting on energy use, GHG emissions, waste generated and water use, including processes for collecting, processing, consolidation and report data and information; systems and processes that ensure the accuracy of data and information; design and maintenance of the information system; and systems and processes that support the information system.
•
In addition, we: o
Examined data and information to support the reported energy use, GHG, waste generate and water use assertions; o
Evaluated whether the evidence and data are sufficient to support our opinion and Lockheed
Martin’s assertions.
•
We provided feedback on a draft of the report based on our assurance scope.
Our team included: Tom Andresen Gosselin, Stephanie Alderson, and Shruthi Poonacha Bachamanda.
On the basis of the work conducted, nothing came to our attention to suggest that the Report does not properly describe Lockheed Martin’s adherence to the Principles of Inclusivity, Materiality, and Responsiveness. In terms of the reliability of performance data, nothing came to our attention to suggest that these data and claims have not been properly collated from information reported at operational level, nor that the assumptions used were inappropriate.
Without affecting our assurance opinion, we also provide the following observations.
.
Lockheed Martin has demonstrated a commitment to engage with internal and external stakeholders across the business systematically. Lockheed Martin undertook a materiality assessment refresh at the end of 2015, expanding the inclusion of external and internal stakeholders that impact all five business areas.

Lockheed Martin has developed a governance and outreach structure for monitoring and guiding ethics and sustainability performance through the Ethics and Sustainability Committee of the Board of the Directors. In addition, the Independent Insights Group provides an additional component of external stakeholder input to the company’s strategy.
The company’s involvement with consortiums such as the Defense Industry Initiative (DII) on
Business Ethics and Conduct as well as the International Forum on Business Ethics and Conduct (IFBEC) increase its initiatives to develop and encourage industry-wide ethical performance. We recommend that Lockheed Martin should include in future reports information on how it understands the range of viewpoints of its stakeholders and how the company is using these dialogues to inform its sustainability strategy. We also recommend that the Ethics and Sustainability Committee of the Board of Directors undergo specific sustainability training to enhance their qualifications to review sustainability performance.
Lockheed Martin used the outputs of its first formal materiality assessment, conducted in 2013, to confirm the topics covered in the report. At an overall level, the report addresses the most material environmental and social issues facing the company and its stakeholders. Future reports would benefit from identifying and exploring in more detail the underlying issues of some of these material issues, for example what the sustainability risks are associated with counterfeit parts, and how these risks are reflected in the company’s management approach.
To better inform the company’s reporting on risk management, we recommend that Lockheed Martin should continue to develop their Supplier Sustainability program by performing a formal risk assessment processes and by expanding systems for monitoring and reviewing supplier adherence to the Code of Conduct.
During our review, we found evidence that Lockheed Martin engages and responds to stakeholders throughout the company’s operations, and that sustainability is integrated into formalized decision-making processes. The company has in place a comprehensively integrated ethics program that extends from the Board of the Directors to international consultants and suppliers.
A challenge for Lockheed Martin is to take the technical nature of its operations and sustainability performance and make the language in the report accessible to external stakeholder audiences. We recommend that Lockheed
Martin should further consider how to ensure that the Report is as accessible to others who use the report for their own decision-making purposes.

Lockheed Martin’s reporting of performance including the disclosure of data is comprehensive and the performance indicators are disclosed in a balanced manner. In future reports we recommend that Lockheed
Martin should describe the challenges they face in meeting performance goals, as well as the opportunities, to ensure that stakeholder’s expectations are aligned with the operational context.
Lockheed Martin provides a clear description of the boundaries and scope on the reported information, although we note that for some data these boundaries vary, which is not always explained in the report. We recommend that future reports should describe the basis for reporting each indicator, noting any variance from the generally applicable boundaries of scope. The tone of the Report is broadly neutral with no obvious and deliberate intent to unduly influence the reader.
For the specified data presented in the report, minimal technical errors were identified during our sampling.
Lockheed Martin applies multiple checks and balances on reported data and requires peer review or approval by management throughout the reporting year and before collection by the Sustainability team.
Our review found evidence to support the below listed environmental data for Lockheed Martin’s fiscal year 2015:
• Energy o
Total Energy Consumption: 8,650,667 MMBtu
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions o
Scope 1 Emissions o
Scope 2 Emissions o
Scope 3 Emissions
 Purchased goods
233,439 (MtCO
897,840 (MtCO
2
2 e) e)
 Upstream transportation and distribution
657,907 (MtCO
2 e)
 Fuel and energy related activities (not included in Scope 1 and 2) 56,699 (MtCO
2 e)
82,575 (MtCO
2 e)




Waste generated in operations
Business travel
Employee commuting
Use of sold products
6,046 (MtCO
2 e)
195,902 (MtCO
2 e)
224,287 (MtCO
2 e)
86,698,317 (MtCO
2 e)
• REC Total:
• Waste Generated:
• Water Used:
DNV GL Business Assurance USA Inc.
Oakland, California
229,362 (MtCO
2 e)
52,884,772 pounds
1,145,018,334 gallons

4/18/2016
Tom Gosselin Stephanie Alderson Jon Woodhead
Project Director Project Consultant Technical Reviewer
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The purpose of the DNV GL group of companies is to promote safe and sustainable futures. The USA & Canada
Sustainability team is part of DNV GL Business Assurance, a global provider of certification, verification, assessment and training services, helping customers to build sustainable business performance. www.dnvglsustainability.com