Adidas, Avon Products, Beiersdorf,
Christian Dior, Clorox, Coach, Inc.,
C o2012
l g aSustainability
t e - P a l mReporting
o l i v eof, the
E nWorld’s
ergizer
Largest
Household,
Apparel,FUJIFILM
&
Holdings,
Estée
Lauder,
Personal
Products
Companies
Holdings Corporation, Hasbro,
Henkel KGaA, Hermès
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,
Toray Industries, and VF.
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
Company Rankings
PSI Overview
PSI Scoring in a Nutshell
Lead Analyst’s Commentary
Environmental Intent Topics
Environmental Reporting Topics
Social Intent Topics
Social Reporting Topics
Environmental Intent Element of the PSI Scores
Environmental Reporting Element of the PSI
Scores
Social Intent Element of the PSI Scores
Social Reporting Element of the PSI Scores
Environmental Intent Scores Ranking
Environmental Reporting Scores Ranking
Environmental Performance Scores Ranking
Social Intent Scores Ranking
Social Reporting Scores Ranking
Social Performance Scores Ranking
Human Rights Reporting Element
Performance by Country
Visual Cluster Analysis
Relationship Between PSI Scores and Financial
Variables
Number of Explicit numerical goals Reported
Number of Topics Showing Performance
Improvement over Previous Year Data
Number of Topics in which Performance was
Better than Sector Average
Analyst’s Comments, alphabetically listed by
company name
Appendix: PSI Questionnaire
Page
3
4
5
6
13
14
15
16
17
18
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**
2
0
0
4
2
0
0
5
X
Electronics & Semiconductors
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Entertainment
X
Federal Agencies
Food Services
X
X
X
X
X
General Merchandiser
X
Homebuilders
X
X
X
X
X
X
X*
X*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Petroleum & Refining
X
Pharmaceuticals
X
Scientific, Photo, & Control
Equipment
Telecommunications, Network, &
Peripherals
Transportation
X
X
Municipalities
Oil and Gas Equipment
Elgeritte Adidjaja, Research Fellow
(909) 621-8698
(eadidjaja@cmc.edu)
X
X
X
Motor Vehicle & Parts
Dr. J. Emil Morhardt, Director
(emorhardt@cmc.edu)
Roberts Environmental Center
Claremont McKenna College
925 N. Mills Ave. Claremont, CA 91711-5916, USA
Direct line: (909) 621-8190
2
0
1
2
X
X
X
Household, Apparel, & Personal
Products
Industrial & Farm Equipment
Mail, Freight, & Shipping
Medical Products & Equipment
Metals
Mining, Crude Oil
Questions should be addressed to:
2
0
1
1
X
Forest & Paper Products
67
2
0
1
0
X
Energy & Utilities
37
2
0
0
9
X
Colleges/Universities
Computer, Office Equipment, &
Services
Conglomerates
Food & Beverages
36
2
0
0
8
X
Banks, Insurance
Chemicals
33
34
2
0
0
7
X
Aerospace & Defense
Airlines
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
2
0
0
6
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
* Multiple-sector category was separated in later years.
Departmental Secretaries: (909) 621-8298
The goal of corporate report analysis conducted by the Roberts Environmental Center is to acquaint students with environmental and
social issues facing the world’s industries, and the ways in which industry approaches and resolves these issues.
The data presented in this report were collected by student research assistants and a research fellow at the Roberts Environmental
Center. Copyright 2012 © by J. Emil Morhardt. All rights reserved.
www.roberts.cmc.edu
2
Household, Apparel, & Personal Products Sectors 2012
Sustainability Reporting of Worlds' Largest Household,
Apparel, and Personal Products Companies
Corporate Environmental and Sustainability Reporting
Company Rankings
Overall Grade
51.59
Natura Cosmetic os
44.21
Nike
A+
Natura Cosmeticos (Brazil)
A-
Nike (USA)
A-
Kimberly-Clark (USA)
B+
Toray Industries (Japan)
Kimberly- Clark
41.20
B+
Clorox (USA)
Toray Industries
40.36
B
Kao (Japan)
B
Adidas (Germany)
B
Avon Products (USA)
37.62
Clorox
Kao
35.01
B
Procter and Gamble (USA)
Adidas
34.53
B-
Avon Produc ts
34.31
FUJIFILM Holdings Corporation
(Japan)
B-
SCA-Svenska Cellulosa (Sweden)
Proc ter and Gamble
33.51
B-
Estée Lauder (USA)
B-
Henkel KGaA (Germany)
C+
Shiseido (Japan)
C+
Reckitt Benckiser (England)
C+
Newell Rubbermaid (USA)
C+
Beiersdorf (Germany)
C+
Hasbro (USA)
C
Mattel (USA)
32.18
FUJIFILM Holdings Corporation
31.56
SCA- Svenska Cellulosa
29.97
Estée Lauder
28.16
Henkel KGaA
27.81
Shiseido
Rec kitt Benc kiser
27.23
C
Colgate-Palmolive (USA)
Newell Rubbermaid
26.92
C-
VF (USA)
D+
Energizer Holdings (USA)
D
Luxottica (Italy)
25.24
Beiersdorf
Hasbro
23.96
D
Polo Ralph Lauren (USA)
Mattel
23.34
D
L'Oréal Group (France)
D
Mead Johnson (USA)
D-
Coach, Inc. (USA)
F
Hermès International (France)
F
Swatch Group (Switzerland)
F
Christian Dior (France)
22.99
Colgate- Palmolive
17.77
VF
14.81
Energizer Holdings
8.22
Luxottic a
Polo Ralph Lauren
8.13
L'Oréal Group
7.43
Mead Johnson
7.25
4.38
Coac h, Inc .
Hermès International
0.00
Swatc h Group
0.00
Christian Dior
0.00
0
25
50
75
100
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.
Analysis Period:
1/26/2011 through 11/30/2011
Draft sector report available for review:
1/20/2012 through 3/1/2012
www.roberts.cmc.edu
3
Household, Apparel, & Personal Products Sectors 2012
PSI Scoring in a Nutshell
Our analysis of sustainability reporting has a set of basic topics applied to all organizations as well as a series of
sector-specific topics. The topics are divided into environmental and social categories—the latter including human
rights—and into three types of information: 1) intent, 2) reporting, and 3) performance.
1. Intent
The “Intent” topics are each worth two points; one point for a discussion of intentions, vision, or plans, and one point
for evidence of specific actions taken to implement them.
2. Reporting
The “Reporting” topics are each worth five points and are either quantitative (for which we expect numerical data)
or qualitative (for which we don’t).
For quantitative topics, one point is available for a discussion, one point for putting the information into perspective
(i.e. awards, industry standards, competitor performance, etc., or if the raw data are normalized by dividing by
revenue, number of employees, number of widgets produced, etc.), one point for the presence of an explicit
numerical goal, one point for numerical data from a single year, and one point for similar data from a previous year.
For qualitative topics, there are three criteria summed up to five points: 1.67 points for discussion, 1.67 points for
initiatives or actions, and 1.67 points for perspective.
3. Performance
For each “Reporting” topic, two performance points are available.
For quantitative topics, one point is given for improvement from the previous reporting period, and one point for
better performance than the sector average (based on the data used for this sector report normalized by revenue).
For qualitative topics, we give one point for any indication of improvement from previous reporting periods, and one
point for perspective.
The 11 “human rights” topics are scored differently, with five “reporting” points; 2.5 points for formally adopting a
policy or standard and 2.5 points for a description of monitoring measures. In addition, there are two “performance”
points; one point for evidence of actions to reinforce policy and one point for a quantitative indication of compliance.
Distribution of Scores by topics
www.roberts.cmc.edu
4
Household, Apparel, & Personal Products Sectors 2012
The Pacific Sustainability Index (PSI) Overview
the PSI Scoring System
The Pacific Sustainability Index (PSI) uses two systematic questionnaires to analyze the quality of the
sustainability reporting—a base questionnaire for reports across sectors and a sector-specific
questionnaire for companies within the same sector. The selection of questions is based on, and
periodically adjusted to, the most frequently-mentioned topics in over 1,900 corporate sustainability reports
analyzed from 2002 through 2009 at the Roberts Environmental Center.
The Roberts Environmental Center
The Roberts Environmental Center is an environmental research institute at Claremont McKenna College
(CMC). Its mission is to provide students of all the Claremont Colleges with a comprehensive and realistic
understanding of today’s environmental issues and the ways in which they are being and can be resolved-beyond the confines of traditional academic disciplines and curriculum--and to identify, publicize, and
encourage policies and practices that achieve economic and social goals in the most environmentally
benign and protective manner. The Center is partially funded by an endowment from George R. Roberts
(Founding Partner of Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. and CMC alumnus),
other grants and gifts, and is staffed by faculty and students from the
Claremont Colleges.
Methodology
Student analysts download relevant English language web pages from
the main corporate website for analysis. Our scoring excludes data
independently stored outside the main corporate website or available
only in hard copy. When a corporate subsidiary has its own
sustainability reporting, partial credit is given to the parent company
when a direct link is provided in the main corporate website. We archive these web pages as PDF files for
future reference. Our analysts use a keyword search function to search reporting of specific topics, fill out
a PSI scoring sheet (http://www.roberts.cmc.edu/PSI/scoringsheet.asp), and track the coverage and depths
of different sustainability issues mentioned in all online materials.
Scores and Ranks
When they are finished scoring, the analysts enter their scoring results into the PSI database. The PSI
database calculates scores and publishes them on the Center’s website. This sector report provides an indepth analysis on sustainability reporting of the largest companies of the sector, as listed in the latest 2010
Forbes lists. Prior to publishing our sector report, we notify companies analyzed and encourage them to
provide feedback and additional new online materials, which often improve their scores.
What do the scores mean?
We normalize all the scores to the potential maximum score. Scores of subsets of the overall score are also
normalized to their potential maxima. The letter grades (A+, A, A-, B+, etc.), however, are normalized to the
highest scoring company analyzed in the report. Grades of individual companies in the report might be
different from grades posted online on the Roberts Environmental Center's website, since the normalization
of scores of an individual company online is not limited to the companies analyzed in the sector report, but
also includes other companies of the same sector irrespective of the year of analysis. Companies with
scores in the highest 4% get an A+ and any in the bottom 4% get an F. We assign these by dividing the
maximum PSI score obtained in the sector into 12 equal parts then rounding fractional score up or down.
This means that A+ and F are under-represented compared to the other grades. The same technique applies
to the separate categories of environmental and social scores. Thus, we grade on the curve. We assume
that the highest score obtained in the sector and any scores near it represent the state-of-the-art for that
sector and deserve an A+.
www.roberts.cmc.edu
5
Household, Apparel, & Personal Products Sectors 2012
Lead Analyst’s
Commentary
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.
By Hilary Haskel, CMC ‘14
T
oday, 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
www.roberts.cmc.edu
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“...marketbased evidence that consumers can respond to ecolabels...” 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. 6
Household, Apparel, & Personal Products Sectors 2012
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
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
www.roberts.cmc.edu
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/2009/0
90223Eco‐Labeling.asp>. 7
Household, Apparel, & Personal Products Sectors 2012
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.
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
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 www.roberts.cmc.edu
Library of Medicine, Sept. 2007. Web. 4 July 2012. <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC19
64887/>. 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>. 8
Household, Apparel, & Personal Products Sectors 2012
“green labeling” can lead to its own issues as far as
standardization, reliability, and veracity are
concerned.
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.
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,
7
use, reuse, operation, maintenance, and disposal.
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
8
impact as well as maximize resource efficiency.
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
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/g
reenlabel.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>. 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. www.roberts.cmc.edu
9
Household, Apparel, & Personal Products Sectors 2012
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 theiruse 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
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
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
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/factsheet
s/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>. www.roberts.cmc.edu
15
"Manufacturers." :Efficient Transport Packaging and Distribution Systems. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 July 2012. <http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/ReduceWaste/Packa
ging/Manufacture/>. 10
Household, Apparel, & Personal Products Sectors 2012
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:
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:
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
16
beaten.
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
18
aid of fungi and bacteria.
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.
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.”
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
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>
. 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/05
2412>. www.roberts.cmc.edu
11
Household, Apparel, & Personal Products Sectors 2012
Personal Products
Sustainability
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.
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 LEEDcertified 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.”
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 nonchildren’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.
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>. www.roberts.cmc.edu
21
N.p., n.d. Web. 04 July 2012. <http://www.cpsc.gov/about/cpsia/cpsia.html>. 12
Household, Apparel, & Personal Products Sectors 2012
Household, Apparel, and Personal Product
Environmental Intent Topics
Percent of possible points for all companies combined.
Two possible points for each topic:
Accountability
59.17
60
4
19
50.00
Management
47.92
50
16
20
21
23
43.33
40
* Report contact person
* Environmental management structure
38.33
* Environmental education
* Environmental management system
* Environmental accounting
* Stakeholder consultation
Policy
9
10
11
12
13
259
30
20
* Environmental policy statement
* Climate change/global warming
* Habitat/ecosystem conservation
* Biodiversity
* Green purchasing
* Environmental labelling
Vision
10
* Environmental visionary statement
* Environmental impediments and challenges
Vision
Product Responsibility
Policy
Management
Accountability
0
5
6
Notes:
* These numbers correspond to the numbers in the PSI questionnaire. Items with numbers higher than 99 are sectorspecific questions. Appendix 1 has the complete questionnaire.
www.roberts.cmc.edu
13
Household, Apparel, & Personal Products Sectors 2012
Household, Apparel, and Personal Product
Environmental Reporting Topics
Seven possible points for each topic:
Emissions to Air
Percent of possible points for all companies combined.
83
119
43.33
45
Energy
26
27
103
40
35
38
39
30
40
163
24.22
3799
22.00
* Energy used: Logistics
146
147
20
16.40
14.50
144
30
32
106
5
107
* Eco-efficiency monitoring
* Waste recycled: solid waste
* Waste (office) recycled
* Materials recycled: Wastewater
* Materials reused or recycled: Packaging materials
Waste
Water
Waste
Recycling
Products
Materials Usage
0
Management
* Renewable materials used
* Life Cycle Analysis (LCA)
Recycling
8.00
Energy
* Green transportation initiatives
* Raw material reduction
Products
15
10
* Notices of violation (environmental)
* Environmental expenses and investments
* Fines (environmental)
Materials Usage
20.17
Emissions to Air
* Energy used (total)
* Energy used (renewable)
Management
34.00
25
* Greenhouse gases (or CO2 equivalents), total
* Ozone depleting substances from refrigerant
34
35
37
109
* Waste (solid) disposed of
* Waste (hazardous) produced
* Waste (hazardous) released to the environment
* Waste: Packaging materials
Water
29
* Water used
Notes:
* These numbers correspond to the numbers in the PSI questionnaire. Items with numbers higher than 99 are sectorspecific questions. Appendix 1 has the complete questionnaire.
www.roberts.cmc.edu
14
Household, Apparel, & Personal Products Sectors 2012
Household, Apparel, and Personal Product
Social Intent Topics
Two possible points for each topic:
Percent of possible points for all companies combined.
Accountability
51
69.44
70
54
*
structure
Third-party validation
Management
60
17
18
47.50
50
52
53
40
* Health and safety, or social organizational
35.00
82
36.33
* Workforce profile: ethnicities/race
* Workforce profile: gender
* Workforce profile: age
* Emergency preparedness program
* Employee training for career development
Policy
45
30
47
23.33
49
* Social policy statement
* Code of conduct or business ethics
* Supplier screening based on social or
environmental performance/ supplier
management
20
Social Demographic
10
80
* Employment for individuals with disabilities
42
Vision
Social Demographic
Policy
Management
Accountability
Vision
0
43
* Social visionary statement
* Social impediments and challenges
Notes:
* These numbers correspond to the numbers in the PSI questionnaire. Items with numbers higher than 99 are sectorspecific questions. Appendix 1 has the complete questionnaire.
www.roberts.cmc.edu
15
Household, Apparel, & Personal Products Sectors 2012
Household, Apparel, and Personal Product
Social Reporting Topics
Seven possible points for each topic:
Human Rights
Percent of possible points for all companies combined.
1
7
50
46.44
8
58
45
59
40
60
* Sexual harassment
* Political contributions
* Bribery
* Anti-corruption practices
* Degrading treatment or punishment of employees
* Elimination of discrimination in respect to
employment and occupation
34.06
35
61
* Free association and collective bargaining of
employees
30
62
63
22.33
25
* Fair compensation of employees
* Elimination of all forms of forced and compulsory
labor
20.56
64
20
65
Management
15
2
10
149
* Women in management
* Customer Emergency Support
Qualitative Social
5
67
Quantitative Social
Qualitative Social
Management
Human Rights
66
0
* Reasonable working hours
* Effective abolition of child labor
68
70
72
169
* Community development
* Employee satisfaction surveys
* Community education
* Occupational health and safety protection
* Employee volunteerism
* Customer health and safety
Quantitative Social
3
74
75
76
77
81
* Employee turnover rate
* Recordable incident/accident rate
* Lost workday case rate
* Health and safety citations
* Health and safety fines
* Social community investment
Notes:
* These numbers correspond to the numbers in the PSI questionnaire. Items with numbers higher than 99 are sectorspecific questions. Appendix 1 has the complete questionnaire.
www.roberts.cmc.edu
16
Household, Apparel, & Personal Products Sectors 2012
Household, Apparel, and Personal Product
Environmental Intent Elements of the PSI Scores
Environmental visionary
statement
83.3%
80.0%
Climate change/global
warming
73.3%
73.3%
Environmental management
system
73.3%
61.7%
Environmental policy
statement
73.3%
71.7%
Environmental management
structure
63.3%
53.3%
Stakeholder consultation
63.3%
60.0%
53.3%
50.0%
Environmental education
Environmental labelling
50.0%
43.3%
Green purchasing
50.0%
45.0%
Environmental impediments
and challenges
46.7%
38.3%
Biodiversity
33.3%
28.3%
Habitat/ecosystem
conservation
33.3%
31.7%
26.7%
23.3%
Report contact person
23.3%
20.0%
Environmental accounting
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
= Percentage of companies addressing the topics
= Percentage of the total possible number of points awarded to all companies combined for each topic,
indicating the depth of reporting coverage measured by PSI criteria for each topic. If both percentages are
the same it means that each of those reporting companies reporting on a topic got all the possible points.
www.roberts.cmc.edu
17
Household, Apparel, & Personal Products Sectors 2012
Household, Apparel, and Personal Product
Environmental Reporting Elements of the PSI Scores
70.0%
Energy used (total)
37.6%
66.7%
Greenhouse gases (or CO2 equivalents), total
39.0%
63.3%
Water used
3 1. 0 %
60.0%
Waste (solid) disposed of
24.3%
53.3%
Waste recycled: solid waste
19 . 0 %
53.3%
Waste (hazardous) produced
13 . 3 %
Waste: Packaging materials
13 . 3 %
46.7%
46.7%
Raw material reduction
Materials reused or recycled: Packaging materials
15 . 7 %
43.3%
11. 0 %
43.3%
Life Cycle Analysis (LCA)
18 . 6 %
43.3%
Renewable materials used
12 . 9 %
36.7%
Ozone depleting substances from refrigerant
9.5%
Energy used: Logistics
7.6%
Materials recycled: Wastewater
7.6%
30.0%
26.7%
26.7%
Fines (environmental)
10 . 5 %
Environmental expenses and investments
10 . 5 %
Notices of violation (environmental)
Waste (hazardous) released to the environment
26.7%
26.7%
11. 4 %
23.3%
6.7%
Green transportation initiatives
20.0%
10 . 5 %
Waste (office) recycled
20.0%
3.8%
Energy used (renewable)
20.0%
6.7%
Eco-efficiency monitoring
16 . 7 %
5.7%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
= Percentage of companies addressing the topics
= Percentage of the total possible number of points awarded to all companies combined for each topic,
indicating the depth of reporting coverage measured by PSI criteria for each topic. If both percentages are
the same it means that each of those reporting companies reporting on a topic got all the possible points.
www.roberts.cmc.edu
18
Household, Apparel, & Personal Products Sectors 2012
Household, Apparel, and Personal Product
Social Intent Elements of the PSI Scores
83.3%
76.7%
Code of conduct or business ethics
Social visionary statement
73.3%
70.0%
Supplier screening based on social or environmental
performance/ supplier management
73.3%
63.3%
Employee training for career development
70.0%
65.0%
Social policy statement
70.0%
68.3%
50.0%
41.7%
Workforce profile: gender
46.7%
31.7%
Health and safety, or social organizational structure
43.3%
38.3%
Third-party validation
40.0%
33.3%
Emergency preparedness program
33.3%
28.3%
Workforce profile: ethnicities/race
Employment for individuals with disabilities
30.0%
23.3%
Social impediments and challenges
30.0%
25.0%
20.0%
13.3%
Workforce profile: age
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
= Percentage of companies addressing the topics
= Percentage of the total possible number of points awarded to all companies combined for each topic,
indicating the depth of reporting coverage measured by PSI criteria for each topic. If both percentages are
the same it means that each of those reporting companies reporting on a topic got all the possible points.
www.roberts.cmc.edu
19
Household, Apparel, & Personal Products Sectors 2012
Household, Apparel, and Personal Product
Social Reporting Elements of the PSI Scores
Employee volunteerism
Community education
76.7%
47.1%
Community development
73.3%
35.7%
Bribery
66.7%
30.5%
Effective abolition of child labor
66.7%
27.6%
Anti-corruption practices
63.3%
31.0%
Customer health and safety
60.0%
27.1%
Social community investment
56.7%
15.7%
Sexual harassment
26.2%
Recordable incident/accident rate
26.7%
Women in management
56.7%
56.7%
56.7%
29.5%
Political contributions
53.3%
20.0%
Fair compensation of employees
53.3%
23.8%
Elimination of all forms of forced and compulsory labor
50.0%
21.0%
Lost workday case rate
25.7%
Free association and collective bargaining of employees
20.5%
Reasonable working hours
15.2%
Degrading treatment or punishment of employees
16.2%
46.7%
43.3%
40.0%
40.0%
36.7%
18.6%
Employee satisfaction surveys
Employee turnover rate
Customer Emergency Support
76.7%
35.7%
Occupational health and safety protection
Health and safety fines
76.7%
33.3%
Elimination of discrimination in respect to employment and
occupation
Health and safety citations
76.7%
37.1%
11.9%
30.0%
16.7%
4.8%
13.3%
3.3%
6.7%
2.4%
0%
10% 20%
30% 40%
50% 60%
70% 80%
90% 100%
= Percentage of companies addressing the topics
= Percentage of the total possible number of points awarded to all companies combined for each topic,
indicating the depth of reporting coverage measured by PSI criteria for each topic. If both percentages are
the same it means that each of those reporting companies reporting on a topic got all the possible points.
www.roberts.cmc.edu
20
Household, Apparel, & Personal Products Sectors 2012
EI Score Rankings
Environmental Intent Scores
92.9
Natura Cosmeticos
Kao
85.7
A+
Natura Cosmeticos
A
Kao
A
FUJIFILM Holdings Corporation
Henkel KGaA
Toray Industries
FUJIFILM Holdings Corporation
82.1
A
A-
Henkel KGaA
82.1
A-
Avon Products
SCA-Svenska Cellulosa
Kimberly-Clark
T oray Industries
75.0
AA-
Avon Products
75.0
B+
Shiseido
SCA-Svenska Cellulosa
75.0
B+
Adidas
75.0
B+
B+
Clorox
Estée Lauder
71.4
B+
Procter and Gamble
71.4
B
B-
Nike
Energizer Holdings
Kimberly-Clark
Shiseido
Adidas
Clorox
67.9
B-
Beiersdorf
Estée Lauder
67.9
B-
Reckitt Benckiser
67.9
C+
C+
Mattel
VF
C+
Newell Rubbermaid
C
C-
Hasbro
Colgate-Palmolive
D
Luxottica
D-
Mead Johnson
F
F
Polo Ralph Lauren
Hermès International
F
Coach, Inc.
F
F
Swatch Group
Christian Dior
F
L'Oréal Group
Procter and Gamble
Nike
60.7
Energizer Holdings
57.1
Beiersdorf
57.1
Reckitt Benckiser
53.6
Mattel
50.0
VF
50.0
Newell Rubbermaid
42.9
39.3
Hasbro
28.6
Colgate-Palmolive
Luxottica
17.9
Mead Johnson 7.1
Polo Ralph Lauren 3.6
Hermès International 0.0
Coach, Inc. 0.0
Swatch Group 0.0
Christian Dior 0.0
L'Oréal Group 0.0
0
25
50
75
100
Environmental intent scores include topics about the firm’s products, environmental organization, vision and commitment,
stakeholders, environmental policy and certifications, environmental aspects and impacts, choice of environmental
performance indicators and those used by the industry, environmental initiatives and mitigations, and environmental goals
and targets.
www.roberts.cmc.edu
21
Household, Apparel, & Personal Products Sectors 2012
ER Score Rankings
Environmental Reporting Scores
A+
Kimberly-Clark
A
Natura Cosmeticos
37.27
B+
B+
Avon Products
FUJIFILM Holdings Corporation
35.15
B
Adidas
Nike
SCA-Svenska Cellulosa
47.88
Kimberly-Clark
45.45
Natura Cosmeticos
Avon Products
FUJIFILM Holdings Corporation
Adidas
31.82
Nike
31.51
B
B
SCA-Svenska Cellulosa
30.61
B
Clorox
B-
Procter and Gamble
Newell Rubbermaid
Reckitt Benckiser
Clorox
30.00
Procter and Gamble
29.70
BB-
Newell Rubbermaid
28.48
B-
Toray Industries
Reckitt Benckiser
28.48
T oray Industries
26.97
C+
C+
Kao
Estée Lauder
Kao
25.45
C
Shiseido
C
Henkel KGaA
Colgate-Palmolive
Beiersdorf
Estée Lauder
22.73
Shiseido
20.91
C
C-
Henkel KGaA
20.61
D+
Mattel
Colgate-Palmolive
20.00
D+
D
Hasbro
Energizer Holdings
D
Luxottica
D-
Polo Ralph Lauren
DF
VF
Mead Johnson
Luxottica 6.06
F
Hermès International
Polo Ralph Lauren 3.03
F
F
Coach, Inc.
Swatch Group
F
Christian Dior
F
L'Oréal Group
15.15
Beiersdorf
Mattel 11.21
Hasbro 10.00
Energizer Holdings 7.88
VF 2.73
Mead Johnson 0.91
Hermès International 0.00
Coach, Inc. 0.00
Swatch Group 0.00
Christian Dior 0.00
L'Oréal Group 0.00
0
25
50
75
100
Environmental reporting scores are based on the degree to which the company discusses its emissions, energy sources
and consumption, environmental incidents and violations, materials use, mitigations and remediation, waste produced, and
water used. They also include use of life cycle analysis, environmental performance and stewardship of products, and
environmental performance of suppliers and contractors.
www.roberts.cmc.edu
22
Household, Apparel, & Personal Products Sectors 2012
Environmental Performance Scores
EP Score Rankings
A+
Natura Cosmeticos
13.64
A-
Kao
Kao 11.36
A-
Kimberly-Clark
T oray Industries 9.09
B
B
Toray Industries
Avon Products
Avon Products 9.09
B
Reckitt Benckiser
Nike 9.09
B
C+
Nike
Hasbro
Hasbro 6.82
C+
Clorox
Clorox 6.82
C+
Estée Lauder
Estée Lauder 6.82
C+
C+
Beiersdorf
FUJIFILM Holdings Corporation
C+
SCA-Svenska Cellulosa
C+
C+
Colgate-Palmolive
Henkel KGaA
C-
Adidas
D
Energizer Holdings
D
D
Shiseido
Procter and Gamble
F
Newell Rubbermaid
Newell Rubbermaid 0.00
F
F
Mead Johnson
Hermès International
Natura Cosmeticos
Kimberly-Clark 11.36
Reckitt Benckiser 9.09
Beiersdorf 6.82
FUJIFILM Holdings Corporation 6.82
SCA-Svenska Cellulosa 6.82
Colgate-Palmolive 6.82
Henkel KGaA 6.82
Adidas 4.55
Energizer Holdings 2.27
Shiseido 2.27
Procter and Gamble 2.27
Mead Johnson 0.00
F
Polo Ralph Lauren
Hermès International 0.00
F
Coach, Inc.
Polo Ralph Lauren 0.00
Coach, Inc. 0.00
F
F
Mattel
VF
Mattel 0.00
F
Swatch Group
VF 0.00
Swatch Group 0.00
F
F
Luxottica
Christian Dior
Luxottica 0.00
F
L'Oréal Group
Christian Dior 0.00
L'Oréal Group 0.00
0
25
50
75
100
Environmental performance scores are based on whether or not the firm has improved its performance on each of the
topics discussed under the heading of environmental reporting, and on whether the quality of the performance is better
than that of the firm’s peers. Scoring for each topic is one point if performance is better than in previous reports, two
points if better than industry peers, three points if both.
www.roberts.cmc.edu
23
Household, Apparel, & Personal Products Sectors 2012
SI Score Rankings
Social Intent Scores
T oray Industries
88.46
A+
A-
Toray Industries
Natura Cosmeticos
Natura Cosmeticos
73.08
A-
Procter and Gamble
Procter and Gamble
73.08
Clorox
Kao
Clorox
69.23
B+
B+
Kao
69.23
B+
Nike
69.23
B+
Henkel KGaA
69.23
Shiseido
Kimberly-Clark
Nike
Shiseido
61.54
B
B
Kimberly-Clark
61.54
B
Estée Lauder
BB-
Hasbro
Reckitt Benckiser
B-
Beiersdorf
B-
Avon Products
BC+
Adidas
Mattel
C+
Newell Rubbermaid
FUJIFILM Holdings Corporation
SCA-Svenska Cellulosa
Henkel KGaA
Estée Lauder
57.69
Hasbro
53.85
Reckitt Benckiser
53.85
Beiersdorf
50.00
Avon Products
50.00
Adidas
50.00
Mattel
46.15
Newell Rubbermaid
42.31
C+
C+
FUJIFILM Holdings Corporation
42.31
C
Energizer Holdings
SCA-Svenska Cellulosa
42.31
C
Mead Johnson
C
C-
VF
Colgate-Palmolive
D+
Coach, Inc.
23.08
D+
D
Luxottica
Polo Ralph Lauren
23.08
D-
L'Oréal Group
F
Hermès International
F
F
Swatch Group
Christian Dior
Energizer Holdings
38.46
Mead Johnson
38.46
VF
34.62
Colgate-Palmolive
30.77
Coach, Inc.
Luxottica
Polo Ralph Lauren
15.38
L'Oréal Group 7.69
Hermès International 0.00
Swatch Group 0.00
Christian Dior 0.00
0
25
50
75
100
Social intent scores include topics about the firm’s financials, employees, safety reporting, social management
organization, social vision and commitment, stakeholders, social policy and certifications, social aspects and impacts,
choice of social performance indicators and those used by the industry, social initiatives and mitigations, and social goals
and targets.
www.roberts.cmc.edu
24
Household, Apparel, & Personal Products Sectors 2012
SR Score Rankings
Social Reporting Scores
Nike
64.00
A+
Nike
48.67
A
B+
Natura Cosmeticos
Clorox
48.40
B+
Toray Industries
Kimberly-Clark
Adidas
Natura Cosmeticos
56.40
Clorox
T oray Industries
Kimberly-Clark
42.93
Adidas
42.53
B
B
Procter and Gamble
40.53
B
Procter and Gamble
SCA-Svenska Cellulosa
38.67
B-
SCA-Svenska Cellulosa
BB-
Mattel
Hasbro
B-
Kao
BC+
FUJIFILM Holdings Corporation
Estée Lauder
C+
Shiseido
C+
Colgate-Palmolive
C+
C+
Beiersdorf
Avon Products
C+
VF
Newell Rubbermaid
Reckitt Benckiser
Mattel
36.53
Hasbro
36.27
Kao
35.20
FUJIFILM Holdings Corporation
34.93
Estée Lauder
34.40
Shiseido
34.27
Colgate-Palmolive
34.13
Beiersdorf
34.00
Avon Products
33.87
VF
32.80
Newell Rubbermaid
31.33
C+
C+
Reckitt Benckiser
29.87
C
Henkel KGaA
Henkel KGaA
28.40
D+
L'Oréal Group
Polo Ralph Lauren
Energizer Holdings
L'Oréal Group
16.00
Polo Ralph Lauren
14.67
D+
D+
Energizer Holdings
13.73
D
Mead Johnson
D
D-
Luxottica
Coach, Inc.
Mead Johnson 11.47
Luxottica 10.67
Coach, Inc. 6.00
F
Hermès International
Hermès International 0.00
F
Swatch Group
Swatch Group 0.00
F
Christian Dior
Christian Dior 0.00
0
25
50
75
100
Social reporting scores are based on the degree to which the company discusses various aspects of its dealings with its
employees and contractors. They also include social costs and investments.
www.roberts.cmc.edu
25
Household, Apparel, & Personal Products Sectors 2012
SP Score Rankings
Social Performance Scores
Natura Cosmeticos
46.00
A+
Natura Cosmeticos
B-
Toray Industries
Kao
Nike
T oray Industries
28.00
Kao
26.00
BB-
Nike
26.00
C-
Newell Rubbermaid
Clorox
Estée Lauder
Newell Rubbermaid
16.00
Clorox
16.00
CC-
Estée Lauder
16.00
C-
Avon Products
Avon Products
16.00
C-
Adidas
Adidas
14.00
Kimberly-Clark
14.00
CD+
Kimberly-Clark
Hasbro
Hasbro 12.00
D+
L'Oréal Group
Polo Ralph Lauren 8.00
D
D
Polo Ralph Lauren
Mattel
Mattel 8.00
D
Beiersdorf
D
Henkel KGaA
D
D
Procter and Gamble
Energizer Holdings
D
Coach, Inc.
D
D-
Colgate-Palmolive
Shiseido
D-
FUJIFILM Holdings Corporation
D-
SCA-Svenska Cellulosa
DF
Reckitt Benckiser
Mead Johnson
Reckitt Benckiser 2.00
F
Hermès International
Mead Johnson 0.00
Hermès International 0.00
F
F
VF
Swatch Group
VF 0.00
F
Luxottica
Swatch Group 0.00
F
Christian Dior
L'Oréal Group 12.00
Beiersdorf 8.00
Henkel KGaA 8.00
Procter and Gamble 8.00
Energizer Holdings 6.00
Coach, Inc. 6.00
Colgate-Palmolive 6.00
Shiseido 4.00
FUJIFILM Holdings Corporation 4.00
SCA-Svenska Cellulosa 4.00
Luxottica 0.00
Christian Dior 0.00
0
25
50
75
100
Social performance scores are based on improvement, performance better than the sector average, or statements of
compliance with established social standards.
www.roberts.cmc.edu
26
Household, Apparel, & Personal Products Sectors 2012
Household, Apparel, and Personal Product
Human Rights Reporting Elements of the PSI Scores
Percent of companies reporting*
Human Rights Topics
adoption
reinforcement
monitoring
63.3%
36.7%
6.7%
0.0%
66.7%
33.3%
6.7%
0.0%
40.0%
13.3%
3.3%
0.0%
66.7%
23.3%
6.7%
0.0%
50.0%
20.0%
3.3%
0.0%
73.3%
43.3%
3.3%
6.7%
53.3%
23.3%
6.7%
3.3%
43.3%
16.7%
6.7%
6.7%
53.3%
16.7%
0.0%
0.0%
40.0%
10.0%
3.3%
3.3%
53.3%
36.7%
3.3%
0.0%
Anti-corruption practices
Bribery
Degrading treatment or punishment of employees
Effective abolition of child labor
Elimination of all forms of forced and compulsory labor
Elimination of discrimination in respect to employment
and occupation
Fair compensation of employees
Free association and collective bargaining of
employees
Political contributions
Reasonable working hours
Sexual harassment
compliance
Basis of Scores
Adoption
We assign one point for adoption of a policy standard or for an explicit discussion of an organization’s stance on each of
11 human rights principles.
Reinforcement
We assign one point for a description of reinforcement actions to make a policy stronger, such as providing educational
programs, training, or other activities to promote awareness.
Monitoring
We assign one point for a description of monitoring measures including mechanisms to detect violations at an early
stage, providing systematic reporting, or establishment of committee structure to oversee risky activities.
Compliance
We assign one point for a quantitative indication of compliance, such as a description of incidences of failure of
compliance, or a statement that there were no such incidences.
www.roberts.cmc.edu
27
Household, Apparel, & Personal Products Sectors 2012
Household, Apparel, and Personal Product
Average Overall, Environmental, and Social PSI Scores Performance
by Country
This graph illustrates the average
PSI in three categories--overall,
environmental, and social-breakdown by countries. Since
our sample size follows the
world's largest companies from
the Fortune list, several countries
have only one company score to
represent the whole country's
sustainability reporting in the
sector.
USA
Switzerland
Sweden
Japan
Overall
Italy
Germany
France
England
Brazil
USA
Switzerland
Sweden
Japan
Environmental
Italy
Country
N
Brazil
1
England
1
France
3
Germany
Italy
3
1
Japan
4
Sweden
Switzerland
1
1
USA
15
Germany
France
England
Brazil
USA
Switzerland
Sweden
Japan
Social
Italy
Germany
France
England
Brazil
0
www.roberts.cmc.edu
10
20
30
40
28
50
60
Household, Apparel, & Personal Products Sectors 2012
Visual Cluster Analysis
Visual cluster analysis multivariate data of the sort produced by the PSI are difficult to summarize. Here we have created radar diagrams
of the performance of each company analyzed in the sector by its environmental and social intent, reporting, and performance sorted by
company ranking. Maximum scores will match the outer sides of the hexagon, which total up to 100 percent.
EI = Environmental Intent, ER = Environmental Reporting, EP = Environmental Performance
SI = Social Intent, SR = Social Reporting, SP = Social Performance
ER
EI
ER
100
100
75
75
75
EP
50
EI
EI
EP
50
EI
EP
50
EI
50
25
25
25
0
0
0
0
SP
SI
SP
SI
SR
SP
SI
SR
Nike
SI
SR
Kimberly-Clark
ER
SP
SR
Toray Industries
ER
Clorox
ER
ER
100
100
100
100
75
75
75
75
75
EP
50
EI
50
EP
EI
EP
50
EI
EP
50
EI
50
25
25
25
25
25
0
0
0
0
0
SP
SI
SR
SP
SI
SR
Kao
SI
SR
Adidas
ER
SP
ER
SP
SI
SR
Avon Products
SP
FUJIFILM Holdings
Corporation
ER
ER
100
100
100
100
100
75
75
75
75
75
EP
50
EI
50
EP
EI
EP
50
EI
EP
50
EI
50
25
25
25
25
25
0
0
0
0
0
SI
SP
SI
SR
SP
SI
SR
SCA-Svenska
Cellulosa
SI
SR
Estée Lauder
ER
SP
ER
SP
SI
SR
Henkel KGaA
SP
Reckitt Benckiser
ER
ER
100
100
100
100
100
75
75
75
75
75
EP
50
EI
50
EP
EI
EP
50
EI
EP
50
EI
50
25
25
25
25
25
0
0
0
0
0
SI
SP
SI
SR
SP
SI
SR
Newell Rubbermaid
SI
SR
Beiersdorf
ER
SP
ER
SP
SI
SR
Hasbro
SP
Colgate-Palmolive
ER
ER
100
100
100
100
100
75
75
75
75
75
EP
50
EI
50
EP
EI
EP
50
EI
50
EP
EI
50
25
25
25
25
25
0
0
0
0
0
SI
SP
SI
SR
SP
SI
SR
VF
SI
SR
Energizer Holdings
ER
SP
ER
SP
SI
SR
Luxottica
SP
L'Oréal Group
ER
ER
100
100
100
100
100
75
75
75
75
75
50
EP
EI
25
EP
EI
25
0
SI
50
SR
Mead Johnson
www.roberts.cmc.edu
SI
SR
50
EP
EI
25
0
SP
Coach, Inc.
EI
25
0
SP
EP
50
SP
SR
Swatch Group
29
SI
50
EP
25
0
SI
EP
SR
Polo Ralph Lauren
ER
EP
SR
Mattel
ER
EP
SR
Shiseido
ER
EP
SR
Procter and Gamble
ER
EP
SP
100
SI
EI
EP
25
0
ER
EI
50
25
SR
EI
ER
100
75
Natura Cosmeticos
EI
ER
100
75
SI
EI
ER
100
0
SP
SR
SI
SP
SR
Christian Dior
Hermès International
Household, Apparel, & Personal Products Sectors 2012
Relationships Between Overall PSI Score and Companies' Revenue and Profit
Company Name
Overall
Score
Revenue
($million)
Revenue
Log10 $M
Profits
Profits
($million) Log $M
10
Assets Assets
($million) Log $M
10
Market
Value
($million)
Market
Value
Log10 $M
Adidas
Avon Products
34.53
34.31
14870
1.17
350
-0.46
12140
1.08
10830
1.03
10380
1.02
630
-0.20
6830
0.83
13240
1.12
Beiersdorf
25.24
8230
0.92
540
-0.27
6510
0.81
15640
1.19
Christian Dior
Clorox
0.00
37.62
24980
1.40
1110
0.05
48530
1.69
18220
1.26
5500
0.74
590
-0.23
4490
0.65
8630
0.94
Coach, Inc.
Colgate-Palmolive
4.38
22.99
3340
0.52
640
-0.19
2870
0.46
11630
1.07
15330
1.19
2290
0.36
11130
1.05
41370
1.62
Energizer Holdings
14.81
4130
0.62
310
-0.51
6200
0.79
4100
0.61
Estée Lauder
FUJIFILM Holdings C
29.97
32.18
7480
0.87
410
-0.39
5710
0.76
12240
1.09
25000
1.40
110
-0.96
28050
1.45
16270
1.21
Hasbro
23.96
4070
0.61
370
-0.43
3900
0.59
4920
0.69
Henkel KGaA
Hermès International
28.16
0.00
18930
1.28
840
-0.08
22670
1.36
21030
1.32
2460
0.39
400
-0.40
3040
0.48
14180
1.15
Kao
35.01
13110
1.12
660
-0.18
10700
1.03
13790
1.14
Kimberly-Clark
L'Oréal Group
41.20
7.43
19120
1.28
1880
0.27
19210
1.28
25290
1.40
24360
1.39
2500
0.40
33380
1.52
63050
1.80
Luxottica
Mattel
8.22
23.34
7100
0.85
440
-0.36
10360
1.02
12150
1.08
5430
0.73
530
-0.28
4780
0.68
8030
0.90
7.25
2830
0.45
400
-0.40
2070
0.32
9780
0.99
51.59
26.92
2150
0.33
350
-0.46
1570
0.20
8220
0.91
5580
0.75
290
-0.54
6420
0.81
3840
0.58
Nike
44.21
18360
1.26
1470
0.17
13360
1.13
33630
1.53
Polo Ralph Lauren
Procter and Gamble
8.13
33.51
4870
0.69
410
-0.39
4650
0.67
7970
0.90
76780
1.89
13050
1.12
135290
2.13
184470
2.27
Reckitt Benckiser
27.23
12530
1.10
2290
0.36
13790
1.14
37640
1.58
31.56
27.81
15480
1.19
670
-0.17
20990
1.32
10520
1.02
7090
0.85
200
-0.70
6020
0.78
9030
0.96
0.00
4960
0.70
730
-0.14
7450
0.87
15430
1.19
40.36
17.77
15110
1.18
-170
7220
0.86
460
Mead Johnson
Natura Cosmeticos
Newell Rubbermaid
SCA-Svenska Cellulo
Shiseido
Swatch Group
Toray Industries
VF
-0.34
14940
1.17
7620
0.88
6490
0.81
8650
0.94
Source:
www.roberts.cmc.edu
30
2010 Forbes List
Household, Apparel, & Personal Products Sectors 2012
60
5 1.5 9
50
Overall PSI Scores
4 4 .2 1
4 0 .3 6 4 1.2 0
40
3 7 .6 2
3 4 .3 1 3 5 .0314 .5 3
2 6 .9 2
2 9 .9 7
2 7 .8 1
3 3 .5 1
3 2 .18
3 1.5 6
30
2 8 .16
2 7 .2 3
2 5 .2 4
2 3 .9 6
2 3 .3 4
2 2 .9 9
20
17 .7 7
14 .8 1
10
8 .13
7 .2 5
8 .2 2
7 .4 3
4 .3 8
2
0
0 .0 0
0
0.2
0.4
0 .0 0
0.6
R = 0.0855
0 .0 0
0.8
1
1. 2
1. 4
1. 6
1. 8
2
Revenue
Log10 $M
60
5 1. 5 9
50
44.21
4 1. 2 0
Overall PSI Scores
40
34.53
37.62
3345. 3. 011
3 2 . 18
29.97
33.51
3 1. 5 6
30
2 8 . 16
27.81 26.92
25.24
23.96 23.34
27.23
22.99
20
17 . 7 7
14 . 8 1
.22
8 8. 13
7.25
10
2
7.43
R = 0.0038
4.38
0.00
- 1.5
-1
- 0.5
00. 0 0
0.00
0
0.5
1
1.5
Profits
Log10 $M
www.roberts.cmc.edu
31
Household, Apparel, & Personal Products Sectors 2012
60
5 1. 5 9
50
Overall PSI Scores
44.21
4 1. 2 0
40.36
40
37.62
3 5 .3041. 5 3
34.31
30
33.51
3 1. 5 6 3 2 . 18
29.97
22
76
. 8. 9
12
25.24
2 3 . 9263 . 3 4
27.23
2 8 . 16
22.99
20
17 . 7 7
14 . 8 1
2
10
R = 0.0126
8.22
8 . 13
7.25
7.43
4.38
0
0.00
0
0.00
0.5
0.00
1
1.5
2
2.5
Asset
Log10 $M
60
5 1. 5 9
50
Overall PSI Scores
44.21
4 1. 2 0
40.36
40
37.62
30
26.92
23.96
3 4 . 533345. 3. 011
3 2 . 18
3 1. 5 6
29.97
2 8 . 16
27.81
25.24
23.34
33.51
27.23
22.99
20
17 . 7 7
14 . 8 1
10
8 . 13
7.25
2
R = 0.0023
8.22
7.43
4.38
0
0 .00.00 0 . 0 0
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Market Value
Log10 $M
www.roberts.cmc.edu
32
Household, Apparel, & Personal Products Sectors 2012
Number of Explicit numerical goals Reported
Kimberly-Clark
11
Avon Products
9
Clorox
6
Toray Industries
5
Shiseido
5
Nike
5
Adidas
5
Natura Cosmeticos
4
Hasbro
4
FUJIFILM Holdings Corporation
3
Newell Rubbermaid
2
SCA-Svenska Cellulosa
2
Colgate-Palmolive
2
Kao
2
VF 1
Estée Lauder 1
Reckitt Benckiser 1
Beiersdorf 1
0
5
10
15
20
25
Explicit Goals Most Frequently Reported
1
Greenhouse gases (or CO2 equivalents), total
2
Recordable incident/accident rate
7
3
Water used
7
4
Energy used (total)
7
5
Lost workday case rate
6
6
Waste (solid) disposed of
5
7
Materials reused or recycled: Packaging materials
4
www.roberts.cmc.edu
10
33
Household, Apparel, & Personal Products Sectors 2012
Number of Topics Showing Performance Improvement over Previous Year Data
Natura Cosmeticos
16
Kao
8
Avon Products
6
Nike
6
Toray Industries
6
Estée Lauder
6
Reckitt Benckiser
5
Henkel KGaA
5
Colgate-Palmolive
5
Kimberly-Clark
5
Beiersdorf
4
Hasbro
3
Adidas
3
FUJIFILM Holdings Corporation
3
Energizer Holdings
3
Clorox
3
Procter and Gamble
3
SCA-Svenska Cellulosa
3
Mattel 2
Newell Rubbermaid
2
Shiseido
2
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Topics Most Frequently Reported as Having Improvements over previous year data
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Greenhouse gases (or CO2 equivalents), total
Energy used (total)
Water used
Occupational health and safety protection
Women in management
Recordable incident/accident rate
Lost workday case rate
Waste recycled: solid waste
Employee turnover rate
Waste (solid) disposed of
Environmental expenses and investments
Fines (environmental)
Community development
Employee satisfaction surveys
Employee volunteerism
Social community investment
www.roberts.cmc.edu
14
12
9
8
8
6
5
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
34
Household, Apparel, & Personal Products Sectors 2012
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Energy used: Logistics
Waste: Packaging materials
Ozone depleting substances from refrigerant
Renewable materials used
Life Cycle Analysis (LCA)
Customer health and safety
Materials recycled: Wastewater
Materials reused or recycled: Packaging materials
Notices of violation (environmental)
Waste (hazardous) produced
Green transportation initiatives
Community education
www.roberts.cmc.edu
35
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Household, Apparel, & Personal Products Sectors 2012
Number of Topics in which Performance was Better than Sector Average*
Adidas
1
Avon Products
1
Kao
1
Kimberly-Clark
1
Toray Industries
1
0
1
2
*Sector averages are calculated from the materials scored for this report.
www.roberts.cmc.edu
36
Household, Apparel, & Personal Products Sectors 2012
B
Adidas Group 2009 Sustainability Report, Guide to
Hazardous Material, Workplace Standard, SEA Team
Structure
Adidas
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.
Analyst(s): Karun Kiani
Carolyn Campbell
E=Total Environmental Score, ESA=Environmental Sector Average Score, EI=Environmental Intent, ER=Environmental Reporting, EP=Environmental Performance, S=Total Social
Score, SSA=Social Sector Average Score, SI=Social Intent, SR=Social Reporting, SP=Social Performance
Comparison with sector averages
Distribution of points
Source of points
E
71
E
46%
ES A
S
50
S
54%
SSA
0
25
50
32
43
14
5
EI
75
ER
EP
SI
SR
Adidas
SP
Environmental Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
2
4
50
Good
Management
6
8
75
Excellent
Policy
6
10
60
Good
Product Responsibility
2
2
100
Excellent
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
6
14
43
Needs improvement
Needs substantial improvement
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
4
21
19
Management
10
35
29
Needs improvement
Materials Usage
4
14
29
Needs improvement
Products
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Recycling
0
28
0
Needs substantial improvement
Waste
8
28
29
Needs improvement
Water
4
7
57
Good
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
2
4
50
Good
Needs substantial improvement
Social Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Management
1
10
10
Policy
6
6
100
Social Demographic
0
2
0
Vision
4
4
100
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
28
77
36
Needs improvement
Needs substantial improvement
Excellent
Needs substantial improvement
Excellent
Social Reporting
Question Category
Human Rights
Management
3
14
21
Qualitative Social
18
42
43
Needs improvement
Quantitative Social
10
42
24
Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
37
Household, Apparel, & Personal Products Sectors 2012
B
Avon Products 2011 Sustainability Report and 2011
Web Pages
Avon Products
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.
Analyst(s): Ashley Scott
Karen de Wolski
E=Total Environmental Score, ESA=Environmental Sector Average Score, EI=Environmental Intent, ER=Environmental Reporting, EP=Environmental Performance, S=Total Social
Score, SSA=Social Sector Average Score, SI=Social Intent, SR=Social Reporting, SP=Social Performance
Comparison with sector averages
Source of points
Distribution of points
E
75
ES A
S
46%
E
54%
S
SSA
0
25
50
50
37
34
16
9
EI
75
ER
EP
SI
SR
Avon Products
SP
Environmental Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
3
4
75
Excellent
Excellent
Management
7
8
88
Policy
9
10
90
Excellent
Product Responsibility
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
5
14
36
Needs improvement
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
8
21
38
Needs improvement
Management
12
35
34
Needs improvement
Materials Usage
2
14
14
Needs substantial improvement
Products
2
7
29
Needs improvement
Recycling
7
28
25
Needs improvement
Waste
5
28
18
Needs substantial improvement
Water
5
7
71
Good
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
3
4
75
Excellent
Good
Social Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Management
5
10
50
Policy
4
6
67
Good
Social Demographic
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Vision
1
4
25
Needs improvement
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
17
77
22
Needs substantial improvement
Management
4
14
29
Needs improvement
Qualitative Social
16
42
38
Needs improvement
Quantitative Social
11
42
26
Needs improvement
Social Reporting
Question Category
Human Rights
www.roberts.cmc.edu
38
Household, Apparel, & Personal Products Sectors 2012
C+
Beiersdorf 2011 Web Pages
Beiersdorf
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.
Analyst(s): Alan Hu
Carolyn Campbell
E=Total Environmental Score, ESA=Environmental Sector Average Score, EI=Environmental Intent, ER=Environmental Reporting, EP=Environmental Performance, S=Total Social
Score, SSA=Social Sector Average Score, SI=Social Intent, SR=Social Reporting, SP=Social Performance
Comparison with sector averages
Source of points
Distribution of points
E
57
E
40%
ES A
S
34
S
60%
SSA
0
25
50
50
15
8
7
EI
75
ER
EP
SI
SR
Beiersdorf
SP
Environmental Intent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
Question Category
4
4
100
Excellent
Management
5
8
63
Good
Policy
5
10
50
Good
Product Responsibility
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
6
14
43
Needs improvement
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
4
21
19
Needs substantial improvement
Management
2
35
6
Needs substantial improvement
Materials Usage
1
14
7
Needs substantial improvement
Products
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Recycling
0
28
0
Needs substantial improvement
Waste
3
28
11
Needs substantial improvement
Water
4
7
57
Good
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
2
4
50
Good
Management
3
10
30
Needs improvement
Policy
5
6
83
Excellent
Social Demographic
1
2
50
Good
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
18
77
23
Needs substantial improvement
Needs substantial improvement
Social Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Social Reporting
Question Category
Human Rights
Management
0
14
0
Qualitative Social
15
42
36
Needs improvement
Quantitative Social
11
42
26
Needs improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
39
Household, Apparel, & Personal Products Sectors 2012
F
Christian Dior 2011 Web Pages
Christian Dior
Christian Dior 2011 website does not contain any sustainability information.
Analyst(s): Hilary Haskell
Carolyn Campbell
E=Total Environmental Score, ESA=Environmental Sector Average Score, EI=Environmental Intent, ER=Environmental Reporting, EP=Environmental Performance, S=Total Social
Score, SSA=Social Sector Average Score, SI=Social Intent, SR=Social Reporting, SP=Social Performance
Comparison with sector averages
Distribution of points
Source of points
E
S
1%
E
1%
ES A
S
0
0
0
0
0
0
EI
ER
EP
SI
SR
SP
Christian Dior
SSA
0
25
50
75
Environmental Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
0
4
0
Needs substantial improvement
Management
0
8
0
Needs substantial improvement
Policy
0
10
0
Needs substantial improvement
Product Responsibility
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Vision
0
4
0
Needs substantial improvement
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
0
14
0
Needs substantial improvement
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
0
21
0
Needs substantial improvement
Management
0
35
0
Needs substantial improvement
Materials Usage
0
14
0
Needs substantial improvement
Products
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Recycling
0
28
0
Needs substantial improvement
Waste
0
28
0
Needs substantial improvement
Water
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Social Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
0
4
0
Needs substantial improvement
Management
0
10
0
Needs substantial improvement
Policy
0
6
0
Needs substantial improvement
Social Demographic
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Vision
0
4
0
Needs substantial improvement
Social Reporting
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Human Rights
0
77
0
Needs substantial improvement
Management
0
14
0
Needs substantial improvement
Qualitative Social
0
42
0
Needs substantial improvement
Quantitative Social
0
42
0
Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
40
Household, Apparel, & Personal Products Sectors 2012
B+
Clorox 2010 Corporate Responsibility Report, Code
of Conduct, and 2011 Web Pages
Clorox
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.
Analyst(s): Eric Robert King
Bukola Jimoh
E=Total Environmental Score, ESA=Environmental Sector Average Score, EI=Environmental Intent, ER=Environmental Reporting, EP=Environmental Performance, S=Total Social
Score, SSA=Social Sector Average Score, SI=Social Intent, SR=Social Reporting, SP=Social Performance
Comparison with sector averages
Distribution of points
Source of points
E
E
4 1%
ES A
S
68
49
SSA
0
25
50
69
30
S
59%
16
7
EI
75
ER
EP
SI
SR
Clorox
SP
Environmental Intent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
Question Category
2
4
50
Good
Management
4
8
50
Good
Policy
8
10
80
Excellent
Product Responsibility
2
2
100
Excellent
Vision
3
4
75
Excellent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
6
14
43
Needs improvement
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
5
21
24
Needs substantial improvement
Management
2
35
6
Needs substantial improvement
Materials Usage
3
14
21
Needs substantial improvement
Products
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Recycling
7
28
25
Needs improvement
Waste
7
28
25
Needs improvement
Water
6
7
86
Excellent
Social Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
1
4
25
Needs improvement
Management
8
10
80
Excellent
Policy
6
6
100
Excellent
Social Demographic
1
2
50
Good
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
34
77
44
Needs improvement
Social Reporting
Question Category
Human Rights
Management
3
14
21
Needs substantial improvement
Qualitative Social
21
42
50
Good
Quantitative Social
10
42
24
Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
41
Household, Apparel, & Personal Products Sectors 2012
D-
Coach 2011 Corporate Governance Principles,
Global Business Integrity Program, and 2011 Web
Pages
Coach, Inc.
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.
Analyst(s): Sachi Singh
Karen de Wolski
E=Total Environmental Score, ESA=Environmental Sector Average Score, EI=Environmental Intent, ER=Environmental Reporting, EP=Environmental Performance, S=Total Social
Score, SSA=Social Sector Average Score, SI=Social Intent, SR=Social Reporting, SP=Social Performance
Comparison with sector averages
Distribution of points
Source of points
E
0%
E
ES A
23
S
S
100%
SSA
0
25
50
75
0
0
0
EI
ER
EP
SI
6
6
SR
SP
Coach, Inc.
Environmental Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
0
4
0
Needs substantial improvement
Management
0
8
0
Needs substantial improvement
Policy
0
10
0
Needs substantial improvement
Product Responsibility
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Vision
0
4
0
Needs substantial improvement
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
0
14
0
Needs substantial improvement
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
0
21
0
Needs substantial improvement
Management
0
35
0
Needs substantial improvement
Materials Usage
0
14
0
Needs substantial improvement
Products
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Recycling
0
28
0
Needs substantial improvement
Waste
0
28
0
Needs substantial improvement
Water
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
0
4
0
Needs substantial improvement
Needs substantial improvement
Social Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Management
0
10
0
Policy
4
6
67
Good
Social Demographic
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Social Reporting
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Human Rights
12
77
16
Needs substantial improvement
Management
0
14
0
Needs substantial improvement
Qualitative Social
0
42
0
Needs substantial improvement
Quantitative Social
0
42
0
Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
42
Household, Apparel, & Personal Products Sectors 2012
C
Colgate Palmolive 2008 Sustainability Report, Code
of Conduct, 2009 Annual Report and 2011 Web Pages
Colgate-Palmolive
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.
Analyst(s): Jordan Lieberman
Bukola Jimoh
E=Total Environmental Score, ESA=Environmental Sector Average Score, EI=Environmental Intent, ER=Environmental Reporting, EP=Environmental Performance, S=Total Social
Score, SSA=Social Sector Average Score, SI=Social Intent, SR=Social Reporting, SP=Social Performance
Comparison with sector averages
Distribution of points
Source of points
E
E
40%
ES A
S
25
50
34
20
S
60%
SSA
0
31
29
7
EI
75
ER
6
EP
SI
SR
Colgate-Palmolive
SP
Environmental Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
0
4
0
Needs substantial improvement
Needs improvement
Management
2
8
25
Policy
4
10
40
Needs improvement
Product Responsibility
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
4
14
29
Needs improvement
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
5
21
24
Needs substantial improvement
Management
6
35
17
Needs substantial improvement
Materials Usage
1
14
7
Needs substantial improvement
Products
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Recycling
3
28
11
Needs substantial improvement
Waste
1
28
4
Needs substantial improvement
Water
5
7
71
Good
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
0
4
0
Needs substantial improvement
Needs substantial improvement
Social Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Management
2
10
20
Policy
4
6
67
Good
Social Demographic
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
18
77
23
Needs substantial improvement
Needs substantial improvement
Social Reporting
Question Category
Human Rights
Management
3
14
21
Qualitative Social
11
42
26
Needs improvement
Quantitative Social
11
42
26
Needs improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
43
Household, Apparel, & Personal Products Sectors 2012
D+
Energizer Holdings 2011 Web Pages
Energizer Holdings
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.
Analyst(s): Jaclyn T. D'Arcy
Carolyn Campbell
E=Total Environmental Score, ESA=Environmental Sector Average Score, EI=Environmental Intent, ER=Environmental Reporting, EP=Environmental Performance, S=Total Social
Score, SSA=Social Sector Average Score, SI=Social Intent, SR=Social Reporting, SP=Social Performance
Comparison with sector averages
Distribution of points
Source of points
E
57
ES A
38
E
48%
S
S
52%
SSA
EI
0
25
50
14
8
2
ER
EP
SI
SR
6
Energizer Holdings
SP
75
Environmental Intent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
Question Category
2
4
50
Good
Management
4
8
50
Good
Policy
7
10
70
Good
Product Responsibility
1
2
50
Good
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
3
14
21
Needs substantial improvement
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
0
21
0
Needs substantial improvement
Management
2
35
6
Needs substantial improvement
Materials Usage
1
14
7
Needs substantial improvement
Products
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Recycling
1
28
4
Needs substantial improvement
Waste
3
28
11
Needs substantial improvement
Water
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
2
4
50
Good
Needs substantial improvement
Social Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Management
0
10
0
Policy
6
6
100
Social Demographic
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
2
77
3
Needs substantial improvement
Needs substantial improvement
Excellent
Social Reporting
Question Category
Human Rights
Management
0
14
0
Qualitative Social
14
42
33
Needs improvement
Quantitative Social
4
42
10
Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
44
Household, Apparel, & Personal Products Sectors 2012
B-
Estee Lauder 2010 Annual Report, Code of Conduct,
and 2011 Web Pages
Estée Lauder
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.
Analyst(s): Hilary Haskell
Bukola Jimoh
E=Total Environmental Score, ESA=Environmental Sector Average Score, EI=Environmental Intent, ER=Environmental Reporting, EP=Environmental Performance, S=Total Social
Score, SSA=Social Sector Average Score, SI=Social Intent, SR=Social Reporting, SP=Social Performance
Comparison with sector averages
Distribution of points
Source of points
E
68
E
44%
ES A
S
S
56%
SSA
0
25
50
58
34
23
16
7
EI
75
ER
EP
SI
SR
Estée Lauder
SP
Environmental Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
2
4
50
Good
Good
Management
5
8
63
Policy
10
10
100
Product Responsibility
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
3
14
21
Needs substantial improvement
Needs substantial improvement
Excellent
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
5
21
24
Management
9
35
26
Needs improvement
Materials Usage
3
14
21
Needs substantial improvement
Products
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Recycling
2
28
7
Needs substantial improvement
Waste
5
28
18
Needs substantial improvement
Water
1
7
14
Needs substantial improvement
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
1
4
25
Needs improvement
Management
6
10
60
Good
Policy
6
6
100
Social Demographic
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
18
77
23
Needs substantial improvement
Needs substantial improvement
Social Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Excellent
Social Reporting
Question Category
Human Rights
Management
3
14
21
Qualitative Social
19
42
45
Needs improvement
Quantitative Social
10
42
24
Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
45
Household, Apparel, & Personal Products Sectors 2012
B-
Fujifilm Holdings 2010 Sustainability Report and
2011 Web Pages
FUJIFILM Holdings
Corporation
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.
Analyst(s): Daniel Olmsted
Carolyn Campbell
E=Total Environmental Score, ESA=Environmental Sector Average Score, EI=Environmental Intent, ER=Environmental Reporting, EP=Environmental Performance, S=Total Social
Score, SSA=Social Sector Average Score, SI=Social Intent, SR=Social Reporting, SP=Social Performance
Comparison with sector averages
Source of points
Distribution of points
E
82
ES A
S
44%
E
56%
S
42
35
35
7
4
SSA
EI
0
25
50
ER
EP
SI
SR
FUJIFILM Holdings
Corporation
SP
75
Environmental Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
2
4
50
Good
Management
8
8
100
Excellent
Policy
8
10
80
Excellent
Product Responsibility
1
2
50
Good
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
6
14
43
Needs improvement
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
4
21
19
Needs substantial improvement
Management
7
35
20
Needs substantial improvement
Materials Usage
3
14
21
Needs substantial improvement
Products
2
7
29
Needs improvement
Recycling
7
28
25
Needs improvement
Waste
8
28
29
Needs improvement
Water
5
7
71
Good
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
0
4
0
Needs substantial improvement
Management
3
10
30
Needs improvement
Policy
5
6
83
Excellent
Social Demographic
1
2
50
Good
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
20
77
26
Needs improvement
Needs substantial improvement
Social Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Social Reporting
Question Category
Human Rights
Management
3
14
21
Qualitative Social
13
42
31
Needs improvement
Quantitative Social
7
42
17
Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
46
Household, Apparel, & Personal Products Sectors 2012
C+
Hasbro 2009 Corporate Philanthropy Report, Code
of Conduct, and 2011 Web Pages
Hasbro
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.
Analyst(s): Hilary Haskell
Karen de Wolski
E=Total Environmental Score, ESA=Environmental Sector Average Score, EI=Environmental Intent, ER=Environmental Reporting, EP=Environmental Performance, S=Total Social
Score, SSA=Social Sector Average Score, SI=Social Intent, SR=Social Reporting, SP=Social Performance
Comparison with sector averages
Distribution of points
Source of points
E
54
E
30%
ES A
S
39
S
70%
SSA
0
25
50
EI
75
36
10
7
ER
EP
12
Hasbro
SI
SR
SP
Environmental Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
1
4
25
Needs improvement
Good
Management
4
8
50
Policy
4
10
40
Needs improvement
Product Responsibility
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
2
14
14
Needs substantial improvement
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
3
21
14
Needs substantial improvement
Management
0
35
0
Needs substantial improvement
Materials Usage
2
14
14
Needs substantial improvement
Products
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Recycling
4
28
14
Needs substantial improvement
Waste
3
28
11
Needs substantial improvement
Water
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
3
4
75
Excellent
Social Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Management
3
10
30
Needs improvement
Policy
6
6
100
Excellent
Social Demographic
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
26
77
34
Needs improvement
Needs substantial improvement
Social Reporting
Question Category
Human Rights
Management
0
14
0
Qualitative Social
18
42
43
Needs improvement
Quantitative Social
7
42
17
Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
47
Household, Apparel, & Personal Products Sectors 2012
B-
Henkel Group, 2009 Sustainability Report, 2009 Code
of Conduct, 2009 Corporate Code of Sustainability,
2009 Vision and Vaules, and 2011 Web Pages
Henkel KGaA
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.
Analyst(s): Simone Berkovitz
Karen de Wolski
E=Total Environmental Score, ESA=Environmental Sector Average Score, EI=Environmental Intent, ER=Environmental Reporting, EP=Environmental Performance, S=Total Social
Score, SSA=Social Sector Average Score, SI=Social Intent, SR=Social Reporting, SP=Social Performance
Comparison with sector averages
Distribution of points
Source of points
E
82
ES A
E
48%
S
S
52%
SSA
0
25
50
69
28
21
EI
75
ER
7
EP
8
SI
SR
Henkel KGaA
SP
Environmental Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
4
4
100
Excellent
Management
6
8
75
Excellent
Policy
7
10
70
Good
Product Responsibility
2
2
100
Excellent
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
4
14
29
Needs improvement
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
5
21
24
Needs substantial improvement
Management
3
35
9
Needs substantial improvement
Materials Usage
4
14
29
Needs improvement
Products
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Needs substantial improvement
Recycling
0
28
0
Waste
5
28
18
Needs substantial improvement
Water
4
7
57
Good
Social Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
0
4
0
Needs substantial improvement
Management
10
10
100
Policy
5
6
83
Excellent
Social Demographic
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Vision
3
4
75
Excellent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
12
77
16
Needs substantial improvement
Management
7
14
50
Good
Qualitative Social
15
42
36
Needs improvement
Quantitative Social
3
42
7
Needs substantial improvement
Excellent
Social Reporting
Question Category
Human Rights
www.roberts.cmc.edu
48
Household, Apparel, & Personal Products Sectors 2012
F
Hermès International 2011 Web Pages
Hermès
International
No sustainability information for the corporation was available. Hermès' website only showcases products and financial reports.
Analyst(s): Ashley Scott
Karen de Wolski
E=Total Environmental Score, ESA=Environmental Sector Average Score, EI=Environmental Intent, ER=Environmental Reporting, EP=Environmental Performance, S=Total Social
Score, SSA=Social Sector Average Score, SI=Social Intent, SR=Social Reporting, SP=Social Performance
Comparison with sector averages
Distribution of points
Source of points
E
S
1%
E
1%
ES A
S
0
0
0
0
0
0
EI
ER
EP
SI
SR
SP
Hermès International
SSA
0
25
50
75
Environmental Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
0
4
0
Needs substantial improvement
Management
0
8
0
Needs substantial improvement
Policy
0
10
0
Needs substantial improvement
Product Responsibility
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Vision
0
4
0
Needs substantial improvement
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
0
14
0
Needs substantial improvement
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
0
21
0
Needs substantial improvement
Management
0
35
0
Needs substantial improvement
Materials Usage
0
14
0
Needs substantial improvement
Products
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Recycling
0
28
0
Needs substantial improvement
Waste
0
28
0
Needs substantial improvement
Water
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Social Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
0
4
0
Needs substantial improvement
Management
0
10
0
Needs substantial improvement
Policy
0
6
0
Needs substantial improvement
Social Demographic
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Vision
0
4
0
Needs substantial improvement
Social Reporting
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Human Rights
0
77
0
Needs substantial improvement
Management
0
14
0
Needs substantial improvement
Qualitative Social
0
42
0
Needs substantial improvement
Quantitative Social
0
42
0
Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
49
Household, Apparel, & Personal Products Sectors 2012
B
Kao 2010 Kao CSR/Sustainability Report and 2011
Web Pages
Kao
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.
Analyst(s): Hilary Haskell
Bukola Jimoh
E=Total Environmental Score, ESA=Environmental Sector Average Score, EI=Environmental Intent, ER=Environmental Reporting, EP=Environmental Performance, S=Total Social
Score, SSA=Social Sector Average Score, SI=Social Intent, SR=Social Reporting, SP=Social Performance
Comparison with sector averages
Distribution of points
Source of points
E
86
E
46%
ES A
S
S
54%
SSA
0
25
50
69
35
25
EI
75
26
11
ER
EP
Kao
SI
SR
SP
Environmental Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
2
4
50
Good
Management
8
8
100
Excellent
Policy
8
10
80
Excellent
Product Responsibility
2
2
100
Excellent
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
4
14
29
Needs improvement
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
7
21
33
Needs improvement
Management
3
35
9
Needs substantial improvement
Materials Usage
0
14
0
Needs substantial improvement
Products
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Recycling
4
28
14
Needs substantial improvement
Waste
11
28
39
Needs improvement
Water
4
7
57
Good
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
2
4
50
Good
Management
6
10
60
Good
Policy
6
6
100
Excellent
Social Demographic
2
2
100
Excellent
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
30
77
39
Needs improvement
Needs substantial improvement
Social Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Social Reporting
Question Category
Human Rights
Management
3
14
21
Qualitative Social
19
42
45
Needs improvement
Quantitative Social
6
42
14
Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
50
Household, Apparel, & Personal Products Sectors 2012
A-
Kimberly-Clark 2009 Sustainability Report, Life
Cycle Assessment of Tissue Products, and 2011 Web
Pages
Kimberly-Clark
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.
Analyst(s): Quentin Jones
Stephanie Oehler
E=Total Environmental Score, ESA=Environmental Sector Average Score, EI=Environmental Intent, ER=Environmental Reporting, EP=Environmental Performance, S=Total Social
Score, SSA=Social Sector Average Score, SI=Social Intent, SR=Social Reporting, SP=Social Performance
Comparison with sector averages
Source of points
Distribution of points
E
75
ES A
S
47%
E
53%
S
SSA
0
25
50
62
48
43
14
11
EI
75
ER
EP
SI
SR
Kimberly-Clark
SP
Environmental Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
2
4
50
Good
Management
7
8
88
Excellent
Policy
6
10
60
Good
Product Responsibility
2
2
100
Excellent
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
7
14
50
Good
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
9
21
43
Needs improvement
Management
15
35
43
Needs improvement
Materials Usage
7
14
50
Good
Products
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Recycling
10
28
36
Needs improvement
Waste
5
28
18
Needs substantial improvement
Water
4
7
57
Good
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
2
4
50
Good
Management
6
10
60
Good
Policy
6
6
100
Social Demographic
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
15
77
19
Needs substantial improvement
Social Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Excellent
Social Reporting
Question Category
Human Rights
Management
3
14
21
Needs substantial improvement
Qualitative Social
24
42
57
Good
Quantitative Social
18
42
43
Needs improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
51
Household, Apparel, & Personal Products Sectors 2012
D
L'Oreal Group 2011 Web Pages
L'Oréal Group
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.
Analyst(s): Eric Robert King
Bukola Jimoh
E=Total Environmental Score, ESA=Environmental Sector Average Score, EI=Environmental Intent, ER=Environmental Reporting, EP=Environmental Performance, S=Total Social
Score, SSA=Social Sector Average Score, SI=Social Intent, SR=Social Reporting, SP=Social Performance
Comparison with sector averages
Distribution of points
Source of points
E
0%
E
ES A
16
12
8
S
S
100%
SSA
0
25
50
75
0
0
0
EI
ER
EP
L'Oréal Group
SI
SR
SP
Environmental Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
0
4
0
Needs substantial improvement
Management
0
8
0
Needs substantial improvement
Policy
0
10
0
Needs substantial improvement
Product Responsibility
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Vision
0
4
0
Needs substantial improvement
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
0
14
0
Needs substantial improvement
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
0
21
0
Needs substantial improvement
Management
0
35
0
Needs substantial improvement
Materials Usage
0
14
0
Needs substantial improvement
Products
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Recycling
0
28
0
Needs substantial improvement
Waste
0
28
0
Needs substantial improvement
Water
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
0
4
0
Needs substantial improvement
Needs substantial improvement
Social Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Management
0
10
0
Policy
2
6
33
Needs improvement
Social Demographic
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Vision
0
4
0
Needs substantial improvement
Social Reporting
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Human Rights
28
77
36
Needs improvement
Management
0
14
0
Needs substantial improvement
Qualitative Social
0
42
0
Needs substantial improvement
Quantitative Social
0
42
0
Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
52
Household, Apparel, & Personal Products Sectors 2012
D
Luxottica Group Corporate Goverance Report and
2011 Web Pages
Luxottica
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.
Analyst(s): Eric Robert King
Bukola Jimoh
E=Total Environmental Score, ESA=Environmental Sector Average Score, EI=Environmental Intent, ER=Environmental Reporting, EP=Environmental Performance, S=Total Social
Score, SSA=Social Sector Average Score, SI=Social Intent, SR=Social Reporting, SP=Social Performance
Comparison with sector averages
Distribution of points
Source of points
E
23
E
40%
ES A
S
18
11
S
60%
SSA
0
25
50
6
0
EI
75
ER
EP
0
SI
SR
Luxottica
SP
Environmental Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
0
4
0
Needs substantial improvement
Management
1
8
13
Needs substantial improvement
Policy
1
10
10
Needs substantial improvement
Product Responsibility
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Vision
3
4
75
Excellent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
0
14
0
Needs substantial improvement
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
0
21
0
Needs substantial improvement
Management
2
35
6
Needs substantial improvement
Materials Usage
0
14
0
Needs substantial improvement
Products
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Recycling
2
28
7
Needs substantial improvement
Waste
3
28
11
Needs substantial improvement
Water
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
1
4
25
Needs improvement
Needs substantial improvement
Social Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Management
2
10
20
Policy
2
6
33
Needs improvement
Social Demographic
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Vision
1
4
25
Needs improvement
Social Reporting
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Human Rights
4
77
5
Needs substantial improvement
Management
0
14
0
Needs substantial improvement
Qualitative Social
9
42
21
Needs substantial improvement
Quantitative Social
0
42
0
Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
53
Household, Apparel, & Personal Products Sectors 2012
C
Mattel 2009 global citizenship report and 2009
annual report
Mattel
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.
Analyst(s): Jordan Lieberman
Carolyn Campbell
E=Total Environmental Score, ESA=Environmental Sector Average Score, EI=Environmental Intent, ER=Environmental Reporting, EP=Environmental Performance, S=Total Social
Score, SSA=Social Sector Average Score, SI=Social Intent, SR=Social Reporting, SP=Social Performance
Comparison with sector averages
Distribution of points
Source of points
E
50
E
32%
ES A
S
37
11
S
68%
SSA
0
25
50
46
8
0
EI
75
ER
EP
SI
SR
Mattel
SP
Environmental Intent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
Question Category
2
4
50
Good
Management
3
8
38
Needs improvement
Policy
6
10
60
Good
Product Responsibility
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Vision
3
4
75
Excellent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
0
14
0
Needs substantial improvement
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
2
21
10
Needs substantial improvement
Management
3
35
9
Needs substantial improvement
Materials Usage
1
14
7
Needs substantial improvement
Products
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Recycling
3
28
11
Needs substantial improvement
Waste
2
28
7
Needs substantial improvement
Water
1
7
14
Needs substantial improvement
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
0
4
0
Needs substantial improvement
Management
5
10
50
Good
Policy
5
6
83
Excellent
Social Demographic
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
18
77
23
Needs substantial improvement
Needs substantial improvement
Social Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Social Reporting
Question Category
Human Rights
Management
3
14
21
Qualitative Social
19
42
45
Needs improvement
Quantitative Social
5
42
12
Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
54
Household, Apparel, & Personal Products Sectors 2012
D
Mead Johnson 2011 Web Pages
Mead Johnson
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.
Analyst(s): Gracie Beck
Michael Handler Shoemaker
E=Total Environmental Score, ESA=Environmental Sector Average Score, EI=Environmental Intent, ER=Environmental Reporting, EP=Environmental Performance, S=Total Social
Score, SSA=Social Sector Average Score, SI=Social Intent, SR=Social Reporting, SP=Social Performance
Comparison with sector averages
Distribution of points
Source of points
E
12 %
E
ES A
38
S
11
7
S
88%
SSA
0
25
50
75
EI
1
0
ER
EP
0
SI
SR
Mead Johnson
SP
Environmental Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
0
4
0
Needs substantial improvement
Management
0
8
0
Needs substantial improvement
Policy
0
10
0
Needs substantial improvement
Product Responsibility
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
0
14
0
Needs substantial improvement
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
1
21
5
Needs substantial improvement
Management
0
35
0
Needs substantial improvement
Materials Usage
0
14
0
Needs substantial improvement
Products
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Recycling
0
28
0
Needs substantial improvement
Waste
0
28
0
Needs substantial improvement
Water
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
1
4
25
Needs improvement
Needs substantial improvement
Social Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Management
2
10
20
Policy
3
6
50
Good
Social Demographic
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Vision
4
4
100
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
0
77
0
Needs substantial improvement
Needs substantial improvement
Excellent
Social Reporting
Question Category
Human Rights
Management
0
14
0
Qualitative Social
12
42
29
Needs improvement
Quantitative Social
1
42
2
Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
55
Household, Apparel, & Personal Products Sectors 2012
A+
Natura Cosmeticos 2009 Annual Report, 2010
Biodiversity Policy, and 2011 Web Pages
Natura Cosmeticos
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.
Analyst(s): Leah Bross
Carolyn Campbell
E=Total Environmental Score, ESA=Environmental Sector Average Score, EI=Environmental Intent, ER=Environmental Reporting, EP=Environmental Performance, S=Total Social
Score, SSA=Social Sector Average Score, SI=Social Intent, SR=Social Reporting, SP=Social Performance
Comparison with sector averages
Distribution of points
Source of points
E
93
73
E
45%
ES A
S
45
S
55%
SSA
EI
0
25
50
56
46
14
ER
Natura Cosmeticos
EP
SI
SR
SP
75
Environmental Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
4
4
100
Excellent
Management
6
8
75
Excellent
Policy
10
10
100
Excellent
Product Responsibility
2
2
100
Excellent
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
7
14
50
Good
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
9
21
43
Needs improvement
Management
7
35
20
Needs substantial improvement
Materials Usage
8
14
57
Good
Products
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Recycling
14
28
50
Good
Waste
7
28
25
Needs improvement
Water
4
7
57
Good
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
4
4
100
Excellent
Social Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Management
6
10
60
Good
Policy
3
6
50
Good
Social Demographic
2
2
100
Excellent
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
31
77
40
Needs improvement
Management
5
14
36
Needs improvement
Qualitative Social
35
42
83
Excellent
Quantitative Social
22
42
52
Good
Social Reporting
Question Category
Human Rights
www.roberts.cmc.edu
56
Household, Apparel, & Personal Products Sectors 2012
C+
Newell Rubbermaid 2009 Environmental
Sustainability Report, Code of Business Ethics, and
2011 Web Pages
Newell Rubbermaid
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.
Analyst(s): Hilary Haskell
Bukola Jimoh
E=Total Environmental Score, ESA=Environmental Sector Average Score, EI=Environmental Intent, ER=Environmental Reporting, EP=Environmental Performance, S=Total Social
Score, SSA=Social Sector Average Score, SI=Social Intent, SR=Social Reporting, SP=Social Performance
Comparison with sector averages
Distribution of points
Source of points
E
43
E
45%
ES A
S
SSA
25
50
31
16
Newell Rubbermaid
0
EI
0
42
28
S
55%
ER
EP
SI
SR
SP
75
Environmental Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
0
4
0
Needs substantial improvement
Good
Management
4
8
50
Policy
4
10
40
Needs improvement
Product Responsibility
2
2
100
Excellent
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
3
14
21
Needs substantial improvement
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
3
21
14
Needs substantial improvement
Management
7
35
20
Needs substantial improvement
Materials Usage
4
14
29
Needs improvement
Products
2
7
29
Needs improvement
Recycling
3
28
11
Needs substantial improvement
Waste
7
28
25
Needs improvement
Water
2
7
29
Needs improvement
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
2
4
50
Good
Social Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Management
2
10
20
Needs substantial improvement
Policy
4
6
67
Good
Social Demographic
1
2
50
Good
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
30
77
39
Needs improvement
Needs substantial improvement
Social Reporting
Question Category
Human Rights
Management
0
14
0
Qualitative Social
12
42
29
Needs improvement
Quantitative Social
6
42
14
Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
57
Household, Apparel, & Personal Products Sectors 2012
A-
Nike, Inc. 2007-2009 Corporate Responsibility
Report, Code Leadership Standard, Code of Conduct,
and 2011 Web Pages
Nike
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.
Analyst(s): Elizabeth Duckworth
Bukola Jimoh
E=Total Environmental Score, ESA=Environmental Sector Average Score, EI=Environmental Intent, ER=Environmental Reporting, EP=Environmental Performance, S=Total Social
Score, SSA=Social Sector Average Score, SI=Social Intent, SR=Social Reporting, SP=Social Performance
Comparison with sector averages
Distribution of points
Source of points
E
E
36%
ES A
SSA
25
50
64
32
S
64%
0
69
61
S
26
9
EI
75
ER
EP
Nike
SI
SR
SP
Environmental Intent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
Question Category
2
4
50
Good
Management
4
8
50
Good
Policy
6
10
60
Good
Product Responsibility
2
2
100
Excellent
Vision
3
4
75
Excellent
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Emissions to Air
5
14
36
Needs improvement
Energy
10
21
48
Needs improvement
Management
3
35
9
Needs substantial improvement
Materials Usage
9
14
64
Good
Products
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Recycling
4
28
14
Needs substantial improvement
Waste
6
28
21
Needs substantial improvement
Water
1
7
14
Needs substantial improvement
Social Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
1
4
25
Needs improvement
Management
8
10
80
Excellent
Policy
5
6
83
Excellent
Social Demographic
2
2
100
Excellent
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
58
77
75
Excellent
Social Reporting
Question Category
Human Rights
Management
2
14
14
Needs substantial improvement
Qualitative Social
25
42
60
Good
Quantitative Social
6
42
14
Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
58
Household, Apparel, & Personal Products Sectors 2012
D
Polo Ralph Lauren Code of Conduct and 2011 Web
Pages
Polo Ralph Lauren
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.
Analyst(s): Hilary Haskell
Bukola Jimoh
E=Total Environmental Score, ESA=Environmental Sector Average Score, EI=Environmental Intent, ER=Environmental Reporting, EP=Environmental Performance, S=Total Social
Score, SSA=Social Sector Average Score, SI=Social Intent, SR=Social Reporting, SP=Social Performance
Comparison with sector averages
Distribution of points
Source of points
E
15 %
E
ES A
15
15
8
S
4
S
85%
SSA
0
25
50
EI
75
3
ER
Polo Ralph Lauren
0
EP
SI
SR
SP
Environmental Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
0
4
0
Needs substantial improvement
Management
0
8
0
Needs substantial improvement
Policy
0
10
0
Needs substantial improvement
Product Responsibility
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Vision
1
4
25
Needs improvement
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
0
14
0
Needs substantial improvement
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
0
21
0
Needs substantial improvement
Management
3
35
9
Needs substantial improvement
Materials Usage
0
14
0
Needs substantial improvement
Products
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Recycling
0
28
0
Needs substantial improvement
Waste
0
28
0
Needs substantial improvement
Water
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
0
4
0
Needs substantial improvement
Needs substantial improvement
Social Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Management
0
10
0
Policy
2
6
33
Needs improvement
Social Demographic
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Social Reporting
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Human Rights
16
77
21
Needs substantial improvement
Management
0
14
0
Needs substantial improvement
Qualitative Social
8
42
19
Needs substantial improvement
Quantitative Social
0
42
0
Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
59
Household, Apparel, & Personal Products Sectors 2012
B
Proctor & Gamble 2010 Sustainability Report,
Business Conduct Manual, and 2011 Web Pages
Procter and Gamble
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.
Analyst(s): Alan Hu
Karen de Wolski
E=Total Environmental Score, ESA=Environmental Sector Average Score, EI=Environmental Intent, ER=Environmental Reporting, EP=Environmental Performance, S=Total Social
Score, SSA=Social Sector Average Score, SI=Social Intent, SR=Social Reporting, SP=Social Performance
Comparison with sector averages
Distribution of points
Source of points
E
S
50
8
2
EI
25
41
30
S
56%
SSA
0
73
68
E
44%
ES A
ER
EP
SI
SR
Procter and Gamble
SP
75
Environmental Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
2
4
50
Good
Excellent
Management
6
8
75
Policy
8
10
80
Excellent
Product Responsibility
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Vision
3
4
75
Excellent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
7
14
50
Good
Needs substantial improvement
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
4
21
19
Management
10
35
29
Needs improvement
Materials Usage
0
14
0
Needs substantial improvement
Products
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Recycling
2
28
7
Needs substantial improvement
Waste
7
28
25
Needs improvement
Water
4
7
57
Good
Social Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
2
4
50
Good
Management
8
10
80
Excellent
Policy
5
6
83
Excellent
Social Demographic
2
2
100
Excellent
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
20
77
26
Needs improvement
Management
7
14
50
Good
Qualitative Social
13
42
31
Needs improvement
Quantitative Social
9
42
21
Needs substantial improvement
Social Reporting
Question Category
Human Rights
www.roberts.cmc.edu
60
Household, Apparel, & Personal Products Sectors 2012
C+
Reckitt Benckiser 2008 Corporate Sustainability
Report, Occupational Health and Safety Policy
Document, Environmental Policy Document, Code of
Business Conduct, 2011
Reckitt Benckiser
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.
Analyst(s): Alan Hu
Carolyn Campbell
E=Total Environmental Score, ESA=Environmental Sector Average Score, EI=Environmental Intent, ER=Environmental Reporting, EP=Environmental Performance, S=Total Social
Score, SSA=Social Sector Average Score, SI=Social Intent, SR=Social Reporting, SP=Social Performance
Comparison with sector averages
Source of points
Distribution of points
E
54
ES A
E
52%
S
S
48%
SSA
0
25
50
54
28
30
9
EI
75
ER
2
EP
SI
SR
Reckitt Benckiser
SP
Environmental Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
3
4
75
Excellent
Good
Management
4
8
50
Policy
4
10
40
Needs improvement
Product Responsibility
2
2
100
Excellent
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
4
14
29
Needs improvement
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
5
21
24
Needs substantial improvement
Management
6
35
17
Needs substantial improvement
Materials Usage
3
14
21
Needs substantial improvement
Products
3
7
43
Needs improvement
Recycling
0
28
0
Needs substantial improvement
Waste
9
28
32
Needs improvement
Water
5
7
71
Good
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
4
4
100
Excellent
Social Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Management
3
10
30
Needs improvement
Policy
5
6
83
Excellent
Social Demographic
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
16
77
21
Needs substantial improvement
Needs substantial improvement
Social Reporting
Question Category
Human Rights
Management
2
14
14
Qualitative Social
11
42
26
Needs improvement
Quantitative Social
5
42
12
Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
61
Household, Apparel, & Personal Products Sectors 2012
B-
SCA-Svenska Cellulosa 2009 Sustainability Report,
Code of Conduct, and 2010 Web Pages
SCA-Svenska
Cellulosa
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.
Analyst(s): Sam Kahr
Karen de Wolski
E=Total Environmental Score, ESA=Environmental Sector Average Score, EI=Environmental Intent, ER=Environmental Reporting, EP=Environmental Performance, S=Total Social
Score, SSA=Social Sector Average Score, SI=Social Intent, SR=Social Reporting, SP=Social Performance
Comparison with sector averages
Distribution of points
Source of points
E
75
ES A
E
5 1%
S
S
49%
SSA
0
25
50
42
31
39
7
EI
75
ER
EP
4
SI
SR
SCA-Svenska
Cellulosa
SP
Environmental Intent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
Question Category
4
4
100
Excellent
Management
4
8
50
Good
Policy
8
10
80
Excellent
Product Responsibility
2
2
100
Excellent
Vision
3
4
75
Excellent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
5
14
36
Needs improvement
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
6
21
29
Needs improvement
Management
3
35
9
Needs substantial improvement
Materials Usage
7
14
50
Good
Products
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Recycling
3
28
11
Needs substantial improvement
Waste
9
28
32
Needs improvement
Water
3
7
43
Needs improvement
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
2
4
50
Good
Management
4
10
40
Needs improvement
Policy
5
6
83
Excellent
Social Demographic
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Vision
0
4
0
Needs substantial improvement
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
21
77
27
Needs improvement
Needs substantial improvement
Social Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Social Reporting
Question Category
Human Rights
Management
3
14
21
Qualitative Social
15
42
36
Needs improvement
Quantitative Social
10
42
24
Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
62
Household, Apparel, & Personal Products Sectors 2012
C+
Shiseido 2011 Annual Report and 2011 Web Pages
Shiseido
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.
Analyst(s): Sachi Singh
Karen de Wolski
E=Total Environmental Score, ESA=Environmental Sector Average Score, EI=Environmental Intent, ER=Environmental Reporting, EP=Environmental Performance, S=Total Social
Score, SSA=Social Sector Average Score, SI=Social Intent, SR=Social Reporting, SP=Social Performance
Comparison with sector averages
Distribution of points
Source of points
E
71
E
44%
ES A
S
S
56%
SSA
0
25
50
62
34
21
4
2
EI
75
ER
EP
SI
SR
Shiseido
SP
Environmental Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
0
4
0
Needs substantial improvement
Management
6
8
75
Excellent
Policy
10
10
100
Excellent
Product Responsibility
2
2
100
Excellent
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
6
14
43
Needs improvement
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
5
21
24
Needs substantial improvement
Management
2
35
6
Needs substantial improvement
Materials Usage
0
14
0
Needs substantial improvement
Products
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Recycling
7
28
25
Needs improvement
Waste
3
28
11
Needs substantial improvement
Water
1
7
14
Needs substantial improvement
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
2
4
50
Good
Management
6
10
60
Good
Policy
6
6
100
Social Demographic
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
16
77
21
Needs substantial improvement
Management
7
14
50
Good
Qualitative Social
15
42
36
Needs improvement
Quantitative Social
2
42
5
Needs substantial improvement
Social Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Excellent
Social Reporting
Question Category
Human Rights
www.roberts.cmc.edu
63
Household, Apparel, & Personal Products Sectors 2012
F
Swatch Group 2011 Web Pages
Swatch Group
Swatch Group does not at this time have any explicit information on their web pages about the social or environmental commitment of the company.
Analyst(s): Danielle L. Manning
Karen de Wolski
E=Total Environmental Score, ESA=Environmental Sector Average Score, EI=Environmental Intent, ER=Environmental Reporting, EP=Environmental Performance, S=Total Social
Score, SSA=Social Sector Average Score, SI=Social Intent, SR=Social Reporting, SP=Social Performance
Comparison with sector averages
Distribution of points
Source of points
E
S
1%
E
1%
ES A
S
0
0
0
0
0
0
EI
ER
EP
SI
SR
SP
Swatch Group
SSA
0
25
50
75
Environmental Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
0
4
0
Needs substantial improvement
Management
0
8
0
Needs substantial improvement
Policy
0
10
0
Needs substantial improvement
Product Responsibility
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Vision
0
4
0
Needs substantial improvement
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
0
14
0
Needs substantial improvement
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
0
21
0
Needs substantial improvement
Management
0
35
0
Needs substantial improvement
Materials Usage
0
14
0
Needs substantial improvement
Products
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Recycling
0
28
0
Needs substantial improvement
Waste
0
28
0
Needs substantial improvement
Water
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Social Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
0
4
0
Needs substantial improvement
Management
0
10
0
Needs substantial improvement
Policy
0
6
0
Needs substantial improvement
Social Demographic
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Vision
0
4
0
Needs substantial improvement
Social Reporting
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Human Rights
0
77
0
Needs substantial improvement
Management
0
14
0
Needs substantial improvement
Qualitative Social
0
42
0
Needs substantial improvement
Quantitative Social
0
42
0
Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
64
Household, Apparel, & Personal Products Sectors 2012
B+
Toray Industries Sustainability Report and 2011 Web
Pages
Toray Industries
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.
Analyst(s): Danielle L. Manning
Carolyn Campbell
E=Total Environmental Score, ESA=Environmental Sector Average Score, EI=Environmental Intent, ER=Environmental Reporting, EP=Environmental Performance, S=Total Social
Score, SSA=Social Sector Average Score, SI=Social Intent, SR=Social Reporting, SP=Social Performance
Comparison with sector averages
Distribution of points
Source of points
E
S
48
27
S
62%
SSA
0
25
50
88
75
E
38%
ES A
28
9
EI
75
ER
Toray Industries
EP
SI
SR
SP
Environmental Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
2
4
50
Good
Management
7
8
88
Excellent
Policy
7
10
70
Good
Product Responsibility
1
2
50
Good
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
6
14
43
Needs improvement
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
5
21
24
Needs substantial improvement
Management
6
35
17
Needs substantial improvement
Materials Usage
3
14
21
Needs substantial improvement
Products
3
7
43
Needs improvement
Recycling
4
28
14
Needs substantial improvement
Waste
4
28
14
Needs substantial improvement
Water
2
7
29
Needs improvement
Social Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
3
4
75
Excellent
Management
8
10
80
Excellent
Policy
6
6
100
Excellent
Social Demographic
2
2
100
Excellent
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
34
77
44
Needs improvement
Management
6
14
43
Needs improvement
Qualitative Social
27
42
64
Good
Quantitative Social
10
42
24
Needs substantial improvement
Social Reporting
Question Category
Human Rights
www.roberts.cmc.edu
65
Household, Apparel, & Personal Products Sectors 2012
C-
VF Corporation Code of Business Conduct, Global
Compliance Principles, Environmental Compliance
Guidelines, and 2011 Web Pages
VF
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.
Analyst(s): Daniel Olmsted
Karen de Wolski
E=Total Environmental Score, ESA=Environmental Sector Average Score, EI=Environmental Intent, ER=Environmental Reporting, EP=Environmental Performance, S=Total Social
Score, SSA=Social Sector Average Score, SI=Social Intent, SR=Social Reporting, SP=Social Performance
Comparison with sector averages
Distribution of points
Source of points
E
E
27%
ES A
S
50
35
S
73%
SSA
0
25
50
EI
75
3
0
ER
EP
33
0
SI
SR
VF
SP
Environmental Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
1
4
25
Needs improvement
Good
Management
4
8
50
Policy
4
10
40
Needs improvement
Product Responsibility
1
2
50
Good
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
3
14
21
Needs substantial improvement
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
0
21
0
Needs substantial improvement
Management
0
35
0
Needs substantial improvement
Materials Usage
0
14
0
Needs substantial improvement
Products
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Recycling
0
28
0
Needs substantial improvement
Waste
0
28
0
Needs substantial improvement
Water
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
2
4
50
Good
Needs substantial improvement
Social Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Management
2
10
20
Policy
3
6
50
Good
Social Demographic
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
20
77
26
Needs improvement
Needs substantial improvement
Social Reporting
Question Category
Human Rights
Management
0
14
0
Qualitative Social
14
42
33
Needs improvement
Quantitative Social
1
42
2
Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
66
Household, Apparel, & Personal Products Sectors 2012
Household, Apparel, and Personal Products
Environmental visionary statement
Environmental management structure
5
-Discussion: includes a clear visionary statement expressing an organizational
commitment to good environmental performance.
-Initiatives/actions: include measures to fulfill that commitment.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
Initiatives/actions
Initiatives Pg#
Environmental impediments and challenges
Initiatives/actions
6
Initiatives/actions
42
43
Initiatives/actions
Discussion: of impediments and challenges faced by the organization in
attempting to realize its social vision and commitments.
Initiatives/actions: include measures taken to overcome them.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
Initiatives/actions
9
Initiatives/actions
Initiatives/actions
45
21
-Discussion: of environmental expenditures.
-Initiatives/actions: include detailed accounting of such expenditures.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
Initiatives/actions
4
Initiatives Pg#
Third-party validation
-Discussion: identifies the person specifically designated to answer questions
about the report or sustainability issues. Investor relations or public relations
contact representatives are not valid contacts for this question.
-Initiatives/actions: to facilitate such contact, i.e. providing email address,
phone number, or a link for feedback and questions.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
Initiatives/actions
Initiatives Pg#
Environmental accounting
Initiatives Pg#
Report contact person
16
-Discussion: of efforts to promote environmental education and awareness of
employees, the general public, or children.
-Initiatives/actions: taken to provide such education.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
-Discussion: includes a formal statement of the company's social policy or plan.
-Initiatives/actions: include a description of how the policy is being
implemented.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
Initiatives/actions
Initiatives Pg#
Environmental education
Initiatives Pg#
Social policy statement
23
-Discussion: of consultation and dialogue with stakeholders about the
organization's environmental aspects or impacts.
-Initiatives/actions: include identification of specific consultation activities.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
-Discussion: includes a formal statement of the organization's environmental
policy or plan.
-Initiatives/actions: include a description of how the policy is being
implemented.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
Initiatives/actions
Initiatives Pg#
Stakeholder consultation
Initiatives Pg#
Environmental policy statement
51
-Discussion: of organizational structure or staffing for ensuring health and
safety or social responsibility.
-Initiatives/actions: include identification of the individuals currently holding
the staff positions.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
Initiatives Pg#
Social impediments and challenges
Initiatives Pg#
Health and safety, or social organizational structure
-Discussion: includes a clear visionary statement expressing an organizational
commitment to good social performance.
-Initiatives/actions: include measures taken to fulfill that commitment.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
Initiatives/actions
20
-Discussion: includes a statement of adoption of ISO 14001 or other formal
environmental management system.
-Initiatives/actions: include information on the extent to which the system has
been implemented.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
Initiatives Pg#
Social visionary statement
Initiatives Pg#
Environmental management system
-Discussion: of impediments and challenges faced by the organization in
attempting to realize its environmental vision and commitments.
-Initiatives/actions: include measures to overcome them.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
Initiatives/actions
19
-Discussion: of the organization's environmental management structure or
staffing.
-Initiatives/actions: include identification of individuals currently holding the
staff positions.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
54
-Discussion: of the value (or lack thereof) of third-party auditing or validation.
-Initiatives/actions: include formal auditing or validation by a qualified
external third-party source.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
Initiatives/actions
Initiatives Pg#
Initiatives Pg#
Environmental labelling
259
Efforts to label products that are environmentally-friendly.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
Initiatives/actions
www.roberts.cmc.edu
67
Initiatives Pg#
Household, Apparel, & Personal Products Sectors 2012
Household, Apparel, and Personal Products
Climate change/global warming
Employment for individuals with disabilities
10
-Discussion: of the organization's position on climate change and/or global
warming.
-Initiatives/actions: include measures taken by the organization to decrease its
contribution to climate change.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
Initiatives/actions
Initiatives/actions
11
Initiatives/actions
-Discussion: of the organization's position on biodiversity.
-Initiatives/actions: taken by to the organization to foster biodiversity.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
Initiatives/actions
13
Initiatives/actions
Initiatives Pg#
Supplier screening based on social or environmental
performance/ supplier management
26
Sum of the energy used by the organization in all different forms, including
electricity, fuel, natural gas and others.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Context
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
Initiatives Pg#
Workforce profile: ethnicities/race
Initiatives Pg#
Energy used (total)
49
-Discussion: or description of procedures to evaluate and select suppliers on
their ability to meet the requirements of the company's social or environmental
policy and principles.
-Initiatives/actions: include measures to implement or assure such screening or
selection.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
Initiatives/actions
47
-Discussion: includes a formal organizational code of conduct or of ethical
behavior.
-Initiatives/actions: include measures to assure that the code of conduct is
followed.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
-Discussion: about preferential purchasing of eco-friendly (non-polluting,
recycled, recyclable, etc.) products.
-Initiatives/actions: taken to implement such purchasing.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
Initiatives/actions
Initiatives Pg#
Code of conduct or business ethics
Initiatives Pg#
Green purchasing
82
-Discussion: of training, skills and learning programs appropriate to support
employees' upward mobility.
-Initiatives/actions: taken to implement such training.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
12
Initiatives/actions
Initiatives Pg#
Employee training for career development
Initiatives Pg#
Biodiversity
53
-Discussion: of emergency preparedness programs to prepare employees or the
public to cope with potential emergencies at the organization's facilities.
-Initiatives/actions: include measures taken to implement such programs.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
-Discussion: of the organization's position on conserving natural ecosystems
and habitat.
-Initiatives/actions: taken to increase conservation of natural ecosystems either
associated with or separate from the organization's business activities.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
Initiatives/actions
Initiatives Pg#
Emergency preparedness program
Initiatives Pg#
Habitat/ecosystem conservation
80
-Discussion: of appropriate actions to accommodate employees with disabilities.
-Initiatives/actions: taken to implement such accommodations.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
Year
17
Data Values
Context Pg#:
Goal Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Units
-Discussion: of racial or ethnic distribution of workforce.
-Initiatives/actions: taken to avoid racial or ethnic discrimination.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
Initiatives/actions
Initiatives Pg#
Workforce profile: gender
18
-Discussion: of gender distribution of workforce.
-Initiatives/actions: taken to avoid gender discrimination and achieve
appropriate balance
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
Initiatives/actions
Initiatives Pg#
Workforce profile: age
52
-Discussion: of age distribution of workforce.
-Initiatives/actions: include measures taken to avoid age discrimination or to
encourage a balanced age structure.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
Initiatives/actions
Initiatives Pg#
www.roberts.cmc.edu
68
Household, Apparel, & Personal Products Sectors 2012
Household, Apparel, and Personal Products
Energy used (renewable)
Waste (office) recycled
27
Energy used from renewable sources such as wind, solar, hydroelectric, or
other renewable sources.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Context
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
Year
Data Values
Discussion
Context
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
Context Pg#:
Goal Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Year
Discussion
Context
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
Context Pg#:
Goal Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Units
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Units
Year
Improve Pg#
Units
35
Sum of all hazardous materials remaining after production, irrespective of
final disposition. Hazardous wastes include items identified as TRI, PRTR,
HAP (Hazardous Air Pollutants), and similar indices, and may include
mercury or lead. Depending on the nationality of the organization, this could
be labeled "TRI" (Toxic Release Inventory,) "substance releases" , or
something else.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Goal Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Context
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
Units
Year
www.roberts.cmc.edu
Data Values
Goal Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Waste (hazardous) produced
30
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
34
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
Quant Pg#:
Sum of all solid waste recycled, including hazardous waste.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Context Pg#:
Context
Data Values
Goal Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Includes solid hazardous and non-hazardous waste landfilled, incinerated, or
transferred.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Context Pg#:
Context
Discussion Pg#:
Waste recycled: solid waste
Year
Context Pg#:
Waste (solid) disposed of
103
Amount of fuel consumed for logistics purposes
Data Values
Data Values
Discussion Pg#:
Units
Energy used: Logistics
Year
32
Office recycling of paper, cardboard, metal, or plastic.
69
Data Values
Context Pg#:
Goal Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Units
Household, Apparel, & Personal Products Sectors 2012
Household, Apparel, and Personal Products
Waste (hazardous) released to the environment
Waste: Packaging materials
37
Amounts of hazardous materials released into the environment, total (TRI,
PRTR, HAP (Hazardous Air Pollutants), and similar indices), may include
mercury or lead. Depending on the nationality of the organization, this could
be labeled "TRI" (Toxic Release Inventory), "substance releases," or
something else.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Context
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
Year
Data Values
109
The amount of waste materials specified as packaging materials by the
organization, and not reused or recycled.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Context
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
Context Pg#:
Goal Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Year
Prev Quan Pg#:
Data Values
Context Pg#:
Goal Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Units
Improve Pg#
Units
Green material used
Materials recycled: Wastewater
Materials used in production generated from recycled materials or easily
recyclable or reusable after product life.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
106
Wastewater that is reused in a manufacturing process or otherwise recycled.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Context
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
Year
Data Values
146
Context
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
Context Pg#:
Goal Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Year
Improve Pg#
Data Values
Context Pg#:
Goal Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Units
Units
Water used
Materials reused or recycled: Packaging materials
Sum of all water used during operations.
107
Discussion
Context
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
The recycling of materials such as cardboard, plastics, or wood, used to
package any goods received from a supplier or delivered to a distributor.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Context
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
Year
Data Values
29
Context Pg#:
Goal Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Year
Data Values
Discussion Pg#:
Context Pg#:
Goal Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Units
Improve Pg#
Units
www.roberts.cmc.edu
70
Household, Apparel, & Personal Products Sectors 2012
Household, Apparel, and Personal Products
Greenhouse gases (or CO2 equivalents), total
Recordable incident/accident rate
83
The sum of all greenhouse gases released, which could include CO2, CH4
(methane), N2O (nitrous oxide), SF6 (Sulphur hexafluoride), PFCs
(Perfluorocarbons) and HFCs (hydrofluorocarbons). The report should label
this indicator as "greenhouse gases released", "CO2 Equivalents", or similar.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Context Pg#:
Context
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
Year
Data Values
74
Number of employee incidents or accidents, such as: “total case incident
rate,” “incident rate,” or "accident rate."
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Context
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
Goal Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Year
Data Values
Context Pg#:
Goal Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Units
Units
Lost workday case rate
Ozone depleting substances from refrigerant
Number of employee injuries or illnesses that resulted in one or more lost
workdays.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
119
Total ozone-depleting substances include CFCs (Class I); and halons, carbon
tetrachloride, methyl chloroform, and HCFCs (Class II), not a CO2 emission.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Context
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
Year
Data Values
75
Context
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
Context Pg#:
Goal Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Year
Data Values
Context Pg#:
Goal Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Units
Units
Social community investment
Employee turnover rate
Amount of money spent on community outreach, including education grants,
donations, and relief effort funds.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
3
Annual employee turnover rate.
Discussion
Context
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
Year
Data Values
81
Discussion Pg#:
Context
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
Context Pg#:
Goal Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Year
Data Values
Context Pg#:
Goal Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Units
Units
www.roberts.cmc.edu
71
Household, Apparel, & Personal Products Sectors 2012
Household, Apparel, and Personal Products
Notices of violation (environmental)
Health and safety citations
38
Notices of violation (NOVs) for environmental infractions.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Context
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
Year
Data Values
Context Pg#:
Context
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
Goal Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Units
Year
Environmental expenses and investments
39
Year
Data Values
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Year
Data Values
77
Data Values
Context Pg#:
Goal Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Units
Life Cycle Analysis (LCA)
40
Government imposed fines for environmental infractions.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Context Pg#:
Context
Year
Units
Context
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
Units
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Fines levied against a company for health and safety violations.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Goal Pg#:
Fines (environmental)
Data Values
Context Pg#:
Goal Pg#:
Health and safety fines
An accounting of money spent or invested specifically to decrease
environmental damage or to benefit the environment.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Context Pg#:
Context
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
76
Number of health and safety citations or notices of violation. If it is stated that
there were none, check lines 1,2,3, 4, and 6.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
147
Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) is a formal procedure that examines the environmental
aspects and impacts of a process or product from "cradle to grave". To get credit
here, it must be referred to as life cycle analyses or planning.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Initiative Pg#:
Initiatives/Action
Goal Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Context Pg#:
Context
Improvement Over Previous Improve Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Raw material reduction
Units
3799
Does the report describe effort to reduce the company’s usage of raw materials?
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Initiative Pg#:
Initiatives/Action
Context Pg#:
Context
Improvement Over Previous Improve Pg#:
Women in management
2
Relative numbers of women in management.
Discussion
Initiatives/Action
Context
Improvement Over Previous
www.roberts.cmc.edu
72
Discussion Pg#:
Initiative Pg#:
Context Pg#:
Improve Pg#:
Household, Apparel, & Personal Products Sectors 2012
Household, Apparel, and Personal Products
Employee satisfaction surveys
Eco-efficiency monitoring
67
Surveys to monitor employee satisfaction.
Discussion
Initiatives/Action
Context
Improvement Over Previous
Discussion Pg#:
Initiative Pg#:
Initiative Pg#:
Initiatives/Action
Context Pg#:
Context
Improvement Over Previous Improve Pg#:
Context Pg#:
Improve Pg#:
Occupational health and safety protection
70
Customer Emergency Support
Efforts to provide a safe and healthy working environment at all sites.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Initiative Pg#:
Initiatives/Action
Context Pg#:
Context
Improvement Over Previous Improve Pg#:
72
Sexual harassment
Efforts to promote employee volunteerism in social or environmental projects.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Initiative Pg#:
Initiatives/Action
Adoption of Policy
Action to Reinforce Policy
Monitoring
Quant. Indication of Compliance
163
Adoption of Policy
Action to Reinforce Policy
Monitoring
Quant. Indication of Compliance
66
7
Policy Adopt Pg#:
Initiative Pg#:
Monitoring Pg#:
Qty Perf Pg#:
8
Rejection of bribery
Adoption of Policy
Action to Reinforce Policy
Monitoring
Quant. Indication of Compliance
Initiative Pg#:
Initiatives/Action
Context Pg#:
Context
Improvement Over Previous Improve Pg#:
Policy Adopt Pg#:
Initiative Pg#:
Monitoring Pg#:
Qty Perf Pg#:
Anti-corruption practices
68
Efforts to support education in the communities where the company is located.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
58
Efforts to uphold the highest standards of business ethics and integrity. May be found
under a Code of Conduct.
Adoption of Policy
Action to Reinforce Policy
Monitoring
Quant. Indication of Compliance
Initiative Pg#:
Initiatives/Action
Context Pg#:
Context
Improvement Over Previous Improve Pg#:
Customer health and safety
Qty Perf Pg#:
Bribery
Efforts to participate in social activities that improve the quality of life of
communities including that of indigenous people, where the organization operates.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Community education
Initiative Pg#:
Monitoring Pg#:
Policy about political contributions.
Initiative Pg#:
Initiatives/Action
Context Pg#:
Context
Improvement Over Previous Improve Pg#:
Community development
Policy Adopt Pg#:
Political contributions
Programs to encourage carpooling, mass transit or other reductions in total
commuting.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
169
Policy Adopt Pg#:
Initiative Pg#:
Monitoring Pg#:
Qty Perf Pg#:
Fair compensation of employees
Efforts to help improve the user's health and safety in using the products or service
provided by the company. Some companies provide Material Safety Data Sheets
(MSDS) with health and safety information about each product.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
62
Assurance that wages paid meet or exceed legal or industry minimum standard.
Adoption of Policy
Action to Reinforce Policy
Monitoring
Quant. Indication of Compliance
Initiative Pg#:
Initiatives/Action
Context Pg#:
Context
Improvement Over Previous Improve Pg#:
www.roberts.cmc.edu
1
Rejection of any form of sexual harassment.
Context Pg#:
Context
Improvement Over Previous Improve Pg#:
Green transportation initiatives
149
Effort to help customers with medical emergencies involving the company's product.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Initiative Pg#:
Initiatives/Action
Context Pg#:
Context
Improvement Over Previous Improve Pg#:
Employee volunteerism
144
Eco-efficiency is a numerical indicator to measure the degree of environmental
impact caused relative to the scale of business activities. Many such indicators exist.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
73
Policy Adopt Pg#:
Initiative Pg#:
Monitoring Pg#:
Qty Perf Pg#:
Household, Apparel, & Personal Products Sectors 2012
Household, Apparel, and Personal Products
Reasonable working hours
64
Compliance with applicable laws and industry standards on working hours, including
overtime.
Adoption of Policy
Action to Reinforce Policy
Monitoring
Quant. Indication of Compliance
Policy Adopt Pg#:
Initiative Pg#:
Monitoring Pg#:
Qty Perf Pg#:
Degrading treatment or punishment of employees
59
Commitment to oppose any corporal/hard labor punishment, mental/physical
coercion, or verbal abuse.
Adoption of Policy
Action to Reinforce Policy
Monitoring
Quant. Indication of Compliance
Policy Adopt Pg#:
Initiative Pg#:
Monitoring Pg#:
Qty Perf Pg#:
Elimination of discrimination in respect to employment and
occupation
60
Commitment not to engage in any kind of discrimination based on ethnicity, caste,
religion, disability, sex, age, sexual orientation, union membership, or political
affiliation in hiring practices or employee treatment.
Adoption of Policy
Action to Reinforce Policy
Monitoring
Quant. Indication of Compliance
Policy Adopt Pg#:
Initiative Pg#:
Monitoring Pg#:
Qty Perf Pg#:
Free association and collective bargaining of employees
61
Efforts to respect the right of employees to form and join trade unions of their choice
and to bargain collectively.
Adoption of Policy
Action to Reinforce Policy
Monitoring
Quant. Indication of Compliance
Policy Adopt Pg#:
Initiative Pg#:
Monitoring Pg#:
Qty Perf Pg#:
Elimination of all forms of forced and compulsory labor
63
Assurance that all employees enter employment with the company of their own free
will, not by compulsion.
Adoption of Policy
Action to Reinforce Policy
Monitoring
Quant. Indication of Compliance
Policy Adopt Pg#:
Initiative Pg#:
Monitoring Pg#:
Qty Perf Pg#:
Effective abolition of child labor
65
Rejection of illegal child labor by the company or its affiliates.
Adoption of Policy
Action to Reinforce Policy
Monitoring
Quant. Indication of Compliance
www.roberts.cmc.edu
Policy Adopt Pg#:
Initiative Pg#:
Monitoring Pg#:
Qty Perf Pg#:
74
Household, Apparel, & Personal Products Sectors 2012
Adidas, Avon Products, Beiersdorf,
Christian Dior, Clorox, Coach, Inc.,
Colgate-Palmolive, Energizer
Holdings, Estée Lauder, FUJIFILM
Holdings Corporation, Hasbro,
Henkel KGaA, Hermès
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,
Toray Industries, and VF.
Roberts Environmental Center
The Roberts Environmental Center is a research institute at Claremont McKenna College, endowed by George R.
Roberts, Founding Partner, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. The Center is managed by faculty and staff, and its research,
including the material in this report, is done by students at the Claremont Colleges.
Claremont McKenna College
Claremont McKenna College, a member of the Claremont Colleges, is a highly selective, independent, coeducational,
residential, undergraduate liberal arts college with a curricular emphasis on economics, government, and public
affairs.
The Claremont Colleges
The Claremont Colleges form a consortium of five undergraduate liberal arts colleges and two graduate institutions
based on the Oxford/Cambridge model. The consortium offers students diverse opportunities and resources typically
found only at much larger universities. The consortium members include Claremont McKenna College, Harvey Mudd
College, Pitzer College, Pomona College, Scripps College, Keck Graduate Institute of Applied Life Sciences, and the
Clremont Graduate University which—includes the Peter F. Drucker and Masatoshi Ito Graduate School of
Management.
Contact Information
Dr. J. Emil Morhardt, Director, Phone: 909-621-8190, email: emorhardt@cmc.edu
Elgeritte Adidjaja, Research Fellow, Phone: 909-621-8698, email: eadidjaja@cmc.edu
Roberts Environmental Center, Claremont McKenna College, 925 N. Mills Avenue, Claremont, CA 91711-5916, USA.