2011 Sustainability Reporting of the World's Largest General

advertisement
Belk, Dillards, Dollar
2011 Sustainability Reporting of the World’s
General,
Family
Dollar,
Largest General Merchandising Companies
Follett, Fry's Electronics,
JC Penney, Kohl's,
Macy's, Michael's Stores,
Neiman Marcus,
N e w e g g . c o m ,
Nordstrom, PPR, Sears
Holdings, Shopko Stores,
Target, and Walmart
Pacific Sustainability Index Scores: A benchmarking tool for online sustainability reporting
Jaclyn D’Arcy, CMC ‘11
Contents
Topics
Company Rankings
Executive Summary
PSI Overview
PSI Scoring in a Nutshell
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
Visual Cluster Analysis
Average Overall, Environmental, and Social PSI
Scores Performance by Country
Relationships Between Overall PSI Score and
Companies' Financial Indicators
Company Rankings Based on the Number of
Goals Reported
Company Rankings Based on the Better
Performance Reported
Analyst’s Comments, alphabetically listed by
company name
PSI Questionnaire
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.
Page
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Industrial Sector**
Aerospace & Defense
Airlines
Banks, Insurance
Chemicals
Largest Companies in China
Colleges/Universities
Computer, Office Equipment,
& Services
Consumer Food, Food
Production, & Beverages
Electronics &
Semiconductors
Energy
Entertainment
Federal Agencies
Food Services
Forest & Paper Products
General Merchandiser
Homebuilders
Industrial & Farm Equipment
Mail, Freight, & Shipping
Medical Products &
Equipment
Metals
Mining, Crude Oil
Motor Vehicle & Parts
Municipalities
Oil and Gas Equipment
Petroleum & Refining
Pharmaceuticals
Scientific, Photo, & Control
Equipment
Telecommunications,
Network, & Peripherals
Utilities, Gas, & Electric
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
28
29
31
49
Questions should be addressed to:
Dr. J. Emil Morhardt, Director
([email protected])
Roberts Environmental Center
Claremont McKenna College
925 N. Mills Ave. Claremont, CA 91711-5916, USA
Direct line: (909) 621-8190
2
0
0
4
2
0
0
5
2
0
0
6
2
0
0
7
2
0
0
8
2
0
0
9
X
2
0
1
0
2
0
1
1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
*
X
X
*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
*
X
*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
*
X
*
X
* Multiple-sector category was separated in later years.
**As of March 2011.
1
Top 50 Liberal Art Colleges.
Elgeritte Adidjaja, Research Fellow: (909) 621-8698
([email protected])
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 2011 ©
by J. Emil Morhardt. All rights reserved.
www.roberts.cmc.edu
2
General Merchandisers Sector
General Merchandisers Sector
Corporate Environmental and Sustainability Reporting
Company Rankings
W almart
Overall Grade
36.63
JC Penney
35.88
Nordstrom
33.85
Sears Holdings
33.09
Macy's
33.09
PPR
32.44
T arget
29.83
Kohl's
23.78
Dollar General
14.50
Belk
A+
Walmart (USA)
A+
JC Penney (USA)
A
Nordstrom (USA)
A
Sears Holdings (USA)
A
Macy's (USA)
A
PPR (France)
A-
Target (USA)
B
Kohl's (USA)
C
Dollar General (USA)
D+
Belk (USA)
D
Neiman Marcus (USA)
D
Shopko Stores (USA)
D-
Follett (USA)
D-
Family Dollar (USA)
D-
Dillards (USA)
D-
Newegg.com (USA)
F
Michael's Stores (USA)
F
Fry's Electronics (USA)
9.21
Neiman Marcus
6.87
Shopko Stores
4.88
Follett
3.57
Family Dollar
3.37
Dillards
1.75
Newegg.com
1.72
Michael's Stores
0.41
Fry's Electronics 0.00
0
25
50
75
100
This report is an analysis of voluntary environmental and social reporting of companies on the
General Merchandisers sector listed on the 2010 Fortune list. Unlike other sector reports we
publish, which are completed by a group of student analysts, this report is completed by one
student analyst --Jaclyn D'Arcy --as partial completion of her undergraduate degree majoring in
Environment, Economics, and Politics (EEP) from Claremont McKenna College. Companies' data
were collected from corporate websites during spring of 2011 (January-March 2011.) After a
draft sector report was made available online for companies' review, JC Penney's score
increased due to the company's sustainability update.
www.roberts.cmc.edu
3
General Merchandisers Sector
Executive Summary
Target, Kohl’s, Dollar General, Belk, Neiman
Marcus, Shopko Stores, Follett, Family Dollar,
Dillards, Newegg.com, Michael’s Stores, and
Fry’s Electronics. These companies represent
the most successful companies based on their
strategies to reduce their environmental
impact.
By Jaclyn D'Arcy, CMC ‘11
[[email protected]]
Climate change
affects the health
of people and the
environment. The
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
(EPA) has
published
research that explains the danger of
greenhouse gas emissions on humans, wildlife,
and the planet. Initiatives and policies are
enacted every day to counter the harm that is
done to the environment. Many companies
now publish environmental impact reports or
Corporate Sustainability Reports (CSR) to
promote industry transparency. Participating
in environmental and social initiatives is also a
competitive advantage for these Fortune 500
companies. Customers can support a
company based on their environmental
friendliness or social responsibility.
Companies are then encouraged to promote
social issues like workplace diversity, women
in management, and community development;
and environmental issues like habitat
conservation, green building, and energy
reduction.
Extended Producer Responsibility, green
building, and community initiatives are three
categories that are imperative to discuss when
addressing environmental and social reporting.
Consumers expect institutions like local
governments, manufacturers, and retailers to
protect and improve the state of the planet.
Because it is difficult to determine which party
should be held responsible for managing and
disposing waste, the burden has been placed
on consumers to throw away their products
and then the government to dispose of them.
Local governments rely on taxpayers and
federal grants for products and packaging
disposal.
Until recently, the disposal methods have
consisted only of landfills and incinerators.
Consequences of these disposal methods are
relevant through scientific studies, and
consumers are concerned that the products
they rely on have no place to go once they are
at the end of their life cycle. Extended
Producer Responsibility is a program that
offers solutions to the waste disposal system
currently in place. By making the brandowner, or producer of the product, responsible
for the disposal of the product at the end of its
life, the program incentivizes companies to
both design products with fewer
environmental impacts and create take-back
programs to assist consumers with the proper
disposal of their purchased products.
Claremont McKenna College’s Roberts
Environmental Center has created an
environmental and social grading system for
corporations in different industries. For the
general merchandising sector, the Pacific
Sustainability Index (PSI) is used to evaluate
each of the 18 companies. Companies are
graded on discussion, initiative, context, goals
to improve, current performance, past
performance improvement, and adoption of
policy. Based on these results, companies will
receive a score and be assigned a grade, A+
through F. The general merchandising sector
companies scored from highest to lowest in
the following order: Walmart, JC Penney,
Nordstrom, Sears Holdings, Macy’s, PPR,
www.roberts.cmc.edu
In addition to dealing with product content and
packaging, consumers along with
environmental analysts are also wary about
the manufacturing facilities themselves. Green
building is a progressive and innovative system
that ensures new buildings are built using
sustainable resources, and implementing
4
General Merchandisers Sector
standards. These retail companies have not
only embraced these certification systems, but
have implemented ways to cut their energy
and water usage, and deal with waste in an
environmentally responsible way. They have
led the way by demonstrating social
responsibility is their various community
initiatives. Every year, these companies find
new ways to support K-12 education and
emergency relief funds. By working with
communities, they understand the value of arts
and culture, and donate resources and money
to support festivals, libraries, and museums
every year.
energy and water saving, and applying waste
reducing operations. These operations can
include low flush toilets, movement light
sensors, and recycling programs.
Environmental impact reports are vital to
understanding a company’s operation. The
social reporting aspect of this PSI scoring
system, however, is also important.
Companies that have high scores have a clear
code of ethics, human rights reporting system,
and more importantly, social community
investments. These companies understand the
ethics of corporate giving and show their
support by donating resources or funds to the
communities in their demographics.
Community education and development are the
most common ways that corporations show
their support. Some organizations also partner
with organizations like United Way or donate
time, resources, or money, to natural disaster
relief funds like the American Red Cross.
Employee volunteering is another way for a
company to give back. Engaging employee
volunteers is another way for a company to
give back. In this way, the employee and the
company provide resources to a community
and put in the manpower and hours where
they are best needed.
While, these top Fortune 500 companies are
prospering, the exact economic,
environmental, or social benefits have not
been formally calculated. It is difficult to
assess what contributes to their success.
Scientists and environmental analysts can only
assume and suggest that these environmental
and social initiatives are creating benefits to
the consumers and their neighborhoods.
Further research must be done to directly
assess the impacts of these industry initiatives.
Until research results are determined, these
companies should continue reducing their
individual carbon footprint and contribute to
community sustainability and prosperity.
Walmart, Nordstrom, Sears Holdings, Macy’s,
PPR, Target, Kohl’s, and JC Penney represent
the most successful Fortune 500 companies
that were scored in this report. They are
leading the general merchandising sector in
both environmental and social reporting data.
While most of these companies have not
implemented EPR management programs, they
are making efforts to promote recycling and
reduce waste.
In addition, these companies also represent
how this industry is promoting innovative
programs like green building. National
certification organizations like Leadership in
Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) and
Energy Star have developed systems to
encourage companies to use energy saving
equipment that are suggested in green building
www.roberts.cmc.edu
5
General Merchandisers Sector
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
6
General Merchandisers Sector
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
7
General Merchandisers Sector
General Merchandiser
Environmental Intent Topics
Percent of possible points for all companies combined.
Two possible points for each topic:
Accountability
44.44
41.67
45
40
4
19
35.1936.11
Environmental Performance Indicators
35
266
* Percentage of products sold that is reclaimed
at the end of the products’ useful life by
product category
30
25.00
Management
25
16
20
21
22
20
14.81
15
5.56
23
1899
Environmental Performance Indicators
10
Policy
Vision
Urban Environmental Accords
Product Responsibility
Policy
Management
Accountability
5
0
* Report contact person
* Environmental management structure
9
10
11
12
13
14
259
* Environmental education
* Environmental management system
* Environmental accounting
* Environmental initiatives (voluntary) including
donations and grants
* Stakeholder consultation
* Environmental aspects and impacts of the
industry
* Environmental policy statement
* Climate change/global warming
* Habitat/ecosystem conservation
* Biodiversity
* Green purchasing
* Environmental goals
* Environmental labelling
Urban Environmental Accords
306
* Green building
Vision
5
6
10004
10005
* Environmental visionary statement
* Environmental impediments and challenges
* Commitment to minimize consumption
* Commitment to minimize environmental
impacts
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
8
General Merchandisers Sector
General Merchandiser
Environmental Reporting Topics
Seven possible points for each topic:
Emissions to Air
Percent of possible points for all companies combined.
112
124
30
* Carbon dioxide (CO2) or equivalents (i e GHG)
* Logistics emissions
Energy
28.15
26
27
28
25
23.33
22.78
103
21.67
* Energy used (total)
* Energy used (renewable)
* Electricity consumption
* Energy used: Logistics
Management
20.12
38
20
39
40
14.07
15
133
163
14.67
164
190
3499
3799
10
* Notices of violation (environmental)
* Environmental expenses and investments
* Fines (environmental)
* Green technologies research and development
* Green transportation initiatives
* Emulating best practices
* Financing ecologically friendly projects
* Geographic differences in environmental performance
* Raw material reduction
Materials Usage
146
147
4.07
5
148
* Green material used
* Life Cycle Analysis (LCA)
* Materials used: Non-returnable packaging
Products
139
140
144
Water
Waste
Recycling
Products
Materials Usage
Management
Energy
Emissions to Air
0
* Product stewardship or take-back
* Product environmental performance
* Eco-efficiency monitoring
Recycling
30
32
107
* Waste recycled: solid waste
* Waste (office) recycled
* Materials reused or recycled: Packaging materials
Waste
33
34
35
37
109
* Waste produced
* 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
9
General Merchandisers Sector
General Merchandiser
Social Intent Topics
Two possible points for each topic:
Percent of possible points for all companies combined.
Accountability
51
66.67
70
54
60
* Health and safety, or social organizational
*
structure
Third-party validation
Management
55.56
17
18
50
52
53
55
40
33.80
82
30.56
* Workforce profile: ethnicities/race
* Workforce profile: gender
* Workforce profile: age
* Emergency preparedness program
* Social initiatives, including donations and grants
* Employee training for career development
Policy
30
25.00
45
47
20
49
* Social policy statement
* Code of conduct or business ethics
* Supplier screening based on social or
environmental performance/ supplier
management
10
Social Demographic
* Employment for individuals with disabilities
Vision
Vision
Social Demographic
Policy
Management
0
Accountability
80
42
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
10
General Merchandisers Sector
General Merchandiser
Social Reporting Topics
Seven possible points for each topic:
GRI Social Performance Indicators
Percent of possible points for all companies combined.
278
* Strikes and lockouts
Human Rights
50
45.69
1
45
7
8
40
58
59
35
60
30
* Sexual harassment
* Political contributions
* Bribery
* Anti-corruption practices
* Degrading treatment or punishment of employees
* Elimination of discrimination in respect to
employment and occupation
61
25
* Free association and collective bargaining of
employees
20.56
62
20
63
14.65
* Fair compensation of employees
* Elimination of all forms of forced and compulsory
labor
15
64
7.78
10
65
* Reasonable working hours
* Effective abolition of child labor
Management
5
2
149
Quantitative Social
Qualitative Social
Management
GRI Social Performance
Indicators
0
Human Rights
0.00
* Women in management
* Customer Emergency Support
Qualitative Social
66
67
68
70
72
169
185
196
* Community development
* Employee satisfaction surveys
* Community education
* Occupational health and safety protection
* Employee volunteerism
* Customer health and safety
* Access to health care for employees
* Customer wellness and nutrition
Quantitative Social
3
71
74
75
* Employee turnover rate
* Customer satisfaction
* Recordable incident/accident rate
* Lost workday case rate
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
11
General Merchandisers Sector
General Merchandiser
Environmental Intent Elements of the PSI Scores
Environmental visionary statement
55.6%
55.6%
Environmental policy statement
55.6%
55.6%
Commitment to minimize environmental impacts
50.0%
50.0%
Green purchasing
50.0%
50.0%
Environmental labelling
44.4%
36.1%
Commitment to minimize consumption
44.4%
44.4%
Green building
44.4%
44.4%
Climate change/global warming
38.9%
36.1%
Environmental education
38.9%
33.3%
Environmental management structure
33.3%
30.6%
Environmental goals
27.8%
27.8%
Report contact person
27.8%
19.4%
Environmental initiatives (voluntary) including donations and
grants
27.8%
25.0%
Biodiversity
22.2%
19.4%
Habitat/ecosystem conservation
22.2%
22.2%
Stakeholder consultation
16.7%
11.1%
Environmental impediments and challenges
16.7%
16.7%
Environmental aspects and impacts of the industry 11.1%
8.3%
Environmental management system 5.6%
5.6%
Environmental accounting
5.6%
5.6%
Percentage of products sold that is reclaimed at the end of the
products’ useful life by product category
5.6%
5.6%
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
12
General Merchandisers Sector
General Merchandiser
Environmental Reporting Elements of the PSI Scores
50.0%
46.0%
Green transportation initiatives
Waste (office) recycled
Carbon dioxide (CO2) or equivalents (i e GHG)
50.0%
19 . 0 %
44.4%
33.3%
Green technologies research and development
Waste recycled: solid waste
19 . 0 %
Electricity consumption
19 . 0 %
44.4%
44.4%
38.9%
23.8%
Financing ecologically friendly projects
Waste: Packaging materials
38.9%
15 . 9 %
Waste produced
38.9%
11. 9 %
38.9%
11. 1%
Energy used (renewable)
13 . 5 %
Water used
16 . 7 %
Materials used: Non-returnable packaging
8.7%
Energy used: Logistics
7 . 1%
33.3%
33.3%
33.3%
27.8%
11. 1%
27.8%
27.8%
16 . 7 %
Raw material reduction
Waste (hazardous) produced
22.2%
8.7%
Logistics emissions
22.2%
7.9%
Product environmental performance
16 . 7 %
5.6%
Emulating best practices
16 . 7 %
7 . 1%
Life Cycle Analysis (LCA)
16 . 7 %
10 . 3 %
Waste (hazardous) released to the environment
11. 1%
4.8%
Product stewardship or take-back
11. 1%
3.2%
Environmental expenses and investments
50.0%
22.2%
Materials reused or recycled: Packaging materials
Waste (solid) disposed of
50.0%
24.6%
Energy used (total)
Green material used
50.0%
22.2%
5.6%
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
13
General Merchandisers Sector
General Merchandiser
Social Intent Elements of the PSI Scores
Social policy statement
83.3%
83.3%
Social visionary statement
83.3%
83.3%
66.7%
66.7%
Social initiatives, including donations and grants
Code of conduct or business ethics
61.1%
55.6%
Supplier screening based on social or environmental
performance/ supplier management
61.1%
61.1%
50.0%
47.2%
Employee training for career development
Workforce profile: ethnicities/race
44.4%
38.9%
Workforce profile: gender
44.4%
36.1%
38.9%
36.1%
Health and safety, or social organizational structure
Employment for individuals with disabilities
33.3%
25.0%
Third-party validation
33.3%
25.0%
27.8%
27.8%
Social impediments and challenges
Workforce profile: age
Emergency preparedness program
11.1%
8.3%
5.6%
5.6%
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
14
General Merchandisers Sector
General Merchandiser
Social Reporting Elements of the PSI Scores
Community development
52.4%
Social community investment
66.7%
29.4%
66.7%
54.8%
Community education
55.6%
43.7%
Employee volunteerism
50.0%
42.1%
Occupational health and safety protection
Elimination of discrimination in respect to employment and
occupation
Customer health and safety
50.0%
16.7%
21.4%
44.4%
44.4%
27.8%
Access to health care for employees
Bribery
38.9%
11.9%
38.9%
29.4%
Women in management
Elimination of all forms of forced and compulsory labor
12.7%
Reasonable working hours
11.9%
Effective abolition of child labor
11.9%
Political contributions
10.3%
38.9%
33.3%
33.3%
33.3%
33.3%
18.3%
Sexual harassment
Fair compensation of employees
27.8%
11.1%
Customer wellness and nutrition
22.2%
11.9%
Free association and collective bargaining of employees
77.8%
16.7%
7.1%
Employee satisfaction surveys
11.1%
7.1%
Customer satisfaction
11.1%
3.2%
Anti-corruption practices
11.1%
2.4%
Degrading treatment or punishment of employees
5.6%
0.8%
Recordable incident/accident rate
5.6%
3.2%
Employee turnover rate
5.6%
3.2%
Health and safety citations
0.0%
0.0%
Health and safety fines
0.0%
0.0%
Lost workday case rate
0.0%
0.0%
Customer Emergency Support
0.0%
0.0%
Strikes and lockouts
0.0%
0.0%
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
15
General Merchandisers Sector
EI Score Rankings
Environmental Intent Scores
71.4
W almart
66.7
Sears Holdings
61.9
JC Penney
59.5
PPR
57.1
Nordstrom
54.8
T arget
52.4
Macy's
47.6
Kohl's
31.0
Dollar General
11.9
Neiman Marcus
A+
Walmart
A
Sears Holdings
A-
JC Penney
AA-
PPR
Nordstrom
B+
Target
B+
B
Macy's
Kohl's
C
Dollar General
D
Neiman Marcus
F
F
Belk
Newegg.com
F
Shopko Stores
F
F
Fry's Electronics
Follett
F
Michael's Stores
F
Family Dollar
F
Dillards
Belk 2.4
Newegg.com 0.0
Shopko Stores 0.0
Fry's Electronics 0.0
Follett 0.0
Michael's Stores 0.0
Family Dollar 0.0
Dillards 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
16
General Merchandisers Sector
ER Score Rankings
Environmental Reporting Scores
38.00
JC Penney
Sears Holdings
31.56
PPR
30.89
30.67
W almart
Macy's
27.56
T arget
27.11
Kohl's
26.67
23.33
Nordstrom
15.11
Dollar General
Newegg.com 0.00
A+
A-
JC Penney
Sears Holdings
A-
PPR
AB+
Walmart
Macy's
B+
Target
B
Kohl's
BC
Nordstrom
Dollar General
F
Newegg.com
F
F
Shopko Stores
Fry's Electronics
F
Follett
F
Michael's Stores
F
F
Belk
Neiman Marcus
F
Family Dollar
F
Dillards
Shopko Stores 0.00
Fry's Electronics 0.00
Follett 0.00
Michael's Stores 0.00
Belk 0.00
Neiman Marcus 0.00
Family Dollar 0.00
Dillards 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
17
General Merchandisers Sector
EP Score Rankings
Environmental Performance Scores
A+
PPR
A
A
JC Penney
Walmart
26.67
B+
Nordstrom
26.67
B+
B+
Kohl's
Sears Holdings
B
Macy's
B-
Target
30.00
PPR
JC Penney
W almart
23.33
Nordstrom
Kohl's
21.67
CF
Dollar General
Newegg.com
Sears Holdings
21.67
F
Shopko Stores
20.00
F
F
Fry's Electronics
Follett
F
Michael's Stores
F
Belk
Dollar General 10.00
F
F
Neiman Marcus
Family Dollar
Newegg.com 0.00
F
Dillards
Macy's
16.67
T arget
Shopko Stores 0.00
Fry's Electronics 0.00
Follett 0.00
Michael's Stores 0.00
Belk 0.00
Neiman Marcus 0.00
Family Dollar 0.00
Dillards 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
18
General Merchandisers Sector
SI Score Rankings
Social Intent Scores
92.86
PPR
Nordstrom
75.00
Macy's
75.00
75.00
W almart
71.43
JC Penney
64.29
T arget
53.57
Belk
50.00
Sears Holdings
42.86
Dollar General
39.29
Neiman Marcus
A+
A-
PPR
Nordstrom
A-
Macy's
AB+
Walmart
JC Penney
B
Target
B-
Belk
C+
C+
Sears Holdings
Dollar General
C
Neiman Marcus
C
D+
Kohl's
Shopko Stores
D+
Family Dollar
D+
Dillards
D
D
Newegg.com
Follett
F
Michael's Stores
F
Fry's Electronics
35.71
Kohl's
Shopko Stores
21.43
Family Dollar
21.43
Dillards
21.43
Newegg.com
14.29
Follett
14.29
Michael's Stores 3.57
Fry's Electronics 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
19
General Merchandisers Sector
SR Score Rankings
Social Reporting Scores
35.29
Nordstrom
Macy's
32.53
Sears Holdings
31.15
30.34
JC Penney
29.42
W almart
22.76
T arget
20.00
PPR
17.47
Kohl's
17.01
Belk
Shopko Stores
9.42
Dollar General
9.42
Neiman Marcus
9.20
A+
A
Nordstrom
Macy's
A
Sears Holdings
AA-
JC Penney
Walmart
B
Target
B-
PPR
C+
C+
Kohl's
Belk
D+
Shopko Stores
D+
D+
Dollar General
Neiman Marcus
D
Follett
D
Family Dollar
DD-
Newegg.com
Dillards
F
Fry's Electronics
F
Michael's Stores
Follett 7.13
Family Dollar 5.75
Newegg.com 2.30
Dillards 1.72
Fry's Electronics 0.00
Michael's Stores 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
20
General Merchandisers Sector
SP Score Rankings
Social Performance Scores
37.93
W almart
T arget
34.48
Nordstrom
32.76
29.31
Macy's
22.41
PPR
22.41
Sears Holdings
18.97
JC Penney
12.07
Kohl's
Shopko Stores 6.90
Belk 6.90
A+
Walmart
A
Target
A-
Nordstrom
B+
B-
Macy's
PPR
B-
Sears Holdings
C+
C-
JC Penney
Kohl's
D
Shopko Stores
D
Belk
D
D
Neiman Marcus
Follett
D
Dollar General
DD-
Family Dollar
Newegg.com
D-
Michael's Stores
F
Fry's Electronics
F
Dillards
Neiman Marcus 6.90
Follett 5.17
Dollar General 5.17
Family Dollar 3.45
Newegg.com 1.72
Michael's Stores 1.72
Fry's Electronics 0.00
Dillards 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
21
General Merchandisers Sector
General Merchandiser
Human Rights Reporting Elements of the PSI Scores
Percent of companies reporting*
Human Rights Topics
adoption
reinforcement
monitoring
5.6%
5.6%
0.0%
0.0%
22.2%
27.8%
0.0%
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
0.0%
5.6%
0.0%
0.0%
16.7%
33.3%
0.0%
0.0%
16.7%
38.9%
0.0%
0.0%
22.2%
50.0%
0.0%
0.0%
16.7%
27.8%
0.0%
0.0%
11.1%
16.7%
0.0%
0.0%
16.7%
27.8%
0.0%
0.0%
16.7%
33.3%
0.0%
0.0%
27.8%
33.3%
5.6%
0.0%
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
22
General Merchandisers Sector
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
50
EP
EI
50
EP
EI
EP
50
EI
50
EP
EI
50
25
25
25
25
25
0
0
0
0
0
SP
SI
SR
SP
SI
SR
SP
SI
SR
JC Penney
ER
SI
SR
Nordstrom
ER
SP
SR
Sears Holdings
ER
Macy's
ER
ER
100
100
100
100
75
75
75
75
75
50
EP
EI
50
EP
EI
EP
50
EI
50
EP
EI
50
25
25
25
25
25
0
0
0
0
0
SP
SI
SR
SP
SI
SR
PPR
SI
SR
Target
ER
SP
ER
SP
SI
SR
Kohl's
SP
Belk
ER
ER
100
100
100
100
100
75
75
75
75
75
50
EP
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
Neiman Marcus
SR
Shopko Stores
ER
SP
100
100
75
75
75
EP
EI
25
EP
EI
25
0
SI
50
SR
Newegg.com
www.roberts.cmc.edu
SI
SP
SR
Dillards
EP
50
25
0
SP
Family Dollar
SI
EP
ER
100
50
SP
SR
Follett
ER
SI
EP
SR
Dollar General
ER
EP
SP
100
SI
EI
ER
100
75
Walmart
EI
ER
100
75
SI
EI
ER
100
0
SP
SR
Michael's Stores
SI
SP
SR
Fry's Electronics
23
General Merchandisers Sector
General Merchandiser
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
Overall
France
Country
N
France
1
USA
17
USA
Environmental
France
USA
Social
France
0
www.roberts.cmc.edu
5
10
15
20
25
24
30
35
40
General Merchandisers Sector
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
9.21
1.75
3500
0.54
6988
0.84
14.50
11460
1.06
330
-0.48
9130
0.96
8200
0.91
3.37
3.57
7470
0.87
300
-0.52
2760
0.44
4530
0.66
2660
0.42
Fry's Electronics
JC Penney
0.00
35.88
2400
0.38
17560
1.24
250
-0.60
12580
1.10
6590
0.82
Kohl's
23.78
17180
1.24
990
0.00
13160
1.12
16540
1.22
Macy's
Michael's Stores
33.09
0.41
23490
1.37
350
-0.46
21300
1.33
8330
0.92
3820
0.58
Neiman Marcus
6.87
3640
0.56
1.72
33.85
2100
0.32
8630
0.94
440
-0.36
6580
0.82
8180
0.91
PPR
32.44
23710
1.37
1410
0.15
34300
1.54
14670
1.17
Sears Holdings
Shopko Stores
33.09
4.88
44040
1.64
240
-0.62
24810
1.39
11010
1.04
2220
0.35
Target
Walmart
29.83
36.63
65360
1.82
2490
0.40
44530
1.65
38900
1.59
408210
2.61
14340
1.16
170710
2.23
205370
2.31
Belk
Dillards
Dollar General
Family Dollar
Follett
Newegg.com
Nordstrom
Source:
www.roberts.cmc.edu
25
2010 Forbes List
General Merchandisers Sector
60
Overall PSI Scores
50
40
3 6 .6 3
3 5 .8 8
3 3 .8 5
33 32 .0
.4 94
3 3 .0 9
30
2 9 .8 3
2 3 .7 8
20
2
R = 0.6679
14 .5 0
10
9 .2 1
6 .8 7
4 .8 8
3 .5 7
1.7 2
0 .0 0
0
0
0 .4 1
0.5
3 .3 7
1.7 5
1
1. 5
2
2.5
3
Revenue
Log10 $M
40
36.63
35.88
33.09
33.85
33.09
35
32.44
Overall PSI Scores
30
29.83
25
2
23.78
R = 0.1053
20
15
14 . 5 0
10
5
3.37
0
- 0.8
- 0.6
- 0.4
- 0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
Profits
Log10 $M
www.roberts.cmc.edu
26
General Merchandisers Sector
45
40
Overall PSI Scores
36.63
35.88
35
33.85
3 3 .30 39 . 0 9
30
32.44
29.83
25
2
R = 0.4524
23.78
20
15
14 . 5 0
10
5
3.37
0
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Asset
Log10 $M
45
40
35.88
33.85
3 3 . 0 93 3 . 0 9
Overall PSI Scores
35
36.63
32.44
30
29.83
2
25
R = 0.1881
23.78
20
15
14 . 5 0
10
5
3.37
0
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Market Value
Log10 $M
www.roberts.cmc.edu
27
General Merchandisers Sector
Number of Explicit numerical goals Reported
Macy's
4
Nordstrom
3
Walmart
2
JC Penney 1
Kohl's 1
PPR 1
0
5
10
15
20
25
Explicit Goals Most Frequently Reported
1
Waste: Packaging materials
2
2
Social community investment
2
3
Energy used (total)
2
4
Green material used
1
5
Carbon dioxide (CO2) or equivalents (i e GHG)
1
6
Materials reused or recycled: Packaging materials
1
7
Waste (office) recycled
1
www.roberts.cmc.edu
28
General Merchandisers Sector
Number of Topics Showing Performance Improvement over Previous Year Data
JC Penney
22
Walmart
20
PPR
18
Nordstrom
17
Target
15
Macy's
14
Kohl's
13
Sears Holdings
12
Dollar General
4
Belk
2
Shopko Stores
2
Family Dollar 1
Follett 1
Michael's Stores 1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
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
Energy used (total)
Community development
Employee volunteerism
Electricity consumption
Community education
Occupational health and safety protection
Social community investment
Carbon dioxide (CO2) or equivalents (i e GHG)
Green transportation initiatives
Waste (office) recycled
Water used
Waste: Packaging materials
Materials reused or recycled: Packaging materials
Green technologies research and development
Waste (solid) disposed of
Waste recycled: solid waste
www.roberts.cmc.edu
29
8
8
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
6
6
6
6
5
5
5
General Merchandisers Sector
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Energy used (renewable)
Access to health care for employees
Waste (hazardous) produced
Waste produced
Women in management
Raw material reduction
Materials used: Non-returnable packaging
Energy used: Logistics
Green material used
Financing ecologically friendly projects
Waste (hazardous) released to the environment
Logistics emissions
Customer wellness and nutrition
Employee turnover rate
Recordable incident/accident rate
Employee satisfaction surveys
Customer health and safety
Life Cycle Analysis (LCA)
Product stewardship or take-back
Environmental expenses and investments
www.roberts.cmc.edu
4
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
30
General Merchandisers Sector
D+
Belk 2011 Web pages
Belk
Belk has no environmental reporting on its 2011 web pages. Its social visionary statements regard the Women’s Leadership Network. Belk is committed to
career advancement for women and diversifying its workforce. Education and community involvement is an important part of Belk’s values. Belk supports
many neighborhood community initiatives through United Way and Good Neighbor. It also gives money to support education through Classroom Central.
There are no human rights reporting or environmental visionary statements.
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
2%
E
ES A
54
17
S
S
98%
SSA
0
25
50
75
2
0
0
EI
ER
EP
7
SI
SR
Belk
SP
Environmental Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
0
4
0
Needs substantial improvement
Environmental Performance Indicators
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Management
1
12
8
Needs substantial improvement
Policy
0
12
0
Needs substantial improvement
Product Responsibility
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Urban Environmental Accords
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Vision
0
8
0
Needs substantial improvement
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
0
14
0
Needs substantial improvement
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
0
28
0
Needs substantial improvement
Management
0
63
0
Needs substantial improvement
Materials Usage
0
21
0
Needs substantial improvement
Products
0
21
0
Needs substantial improvement
Recycling
0
21
0
Needs substantial improvement
Waste
0
35
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
8
12
67
Good
Policy
4
6
67
Good
Social Demographic
1
2
50
Good
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Social Reporting
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
GRI Social Performance Indicators
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Human Rights
1
77
1
Needs substantial improvement
Management
3
14
21
Needs substantial improvement
Qualitative Social
20
56
36
Needs improvement
Quantitative Social
4
49
8
Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
31
General Merchandisers Sector
D-
Dillards 2011 Web pages
Dillards
Dillards is committed to providing its employees with the basic rules of corporate governance. It did not report any environmental initiatives or socialcommunity investments.
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
0%
E
ES A
21
S
S
100%
SSA
0
25
50
75
0
0
0
EI
ER
EP
SI
2
0
SR
SP
Dillards
Environmental Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
0
4
0
Needs substantial improvement
Environmental Performance Indicators
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Management
0
12
0
Needs substantial improvement
Policy
0
12
0
Needs substantial improvement
Product Responsibility
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Urban Environmental Accords
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Vision
0
8
0
Needs substantial improvement
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
0
14
0
Needs substantial improvement
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
0
28
0
Needs substantial improvement
Management
0
63
0
Needs substantial improvement
Materials Usage
0
21
0
Needs substantial improvement
Products
0
21
0
Needs substantial improvement
Recycling
0
21
0
Needs substantial improvement
Waste
0
35
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
12
0
Needs substantial improvement
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
GRI Social Performance Indicators
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Human Rights
2
77
3
Needs substantial improvement
Management
0
14
0
Needs substantial improvement
Qualitative Social
0
56
0
Needs substantial improvement
Quantitative Social
0
49
0
Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
32
General Merchandisers Sector
C
Dollar General 2011 Web pages
Dollar General
Dollar General has implemented many changes to address the current environmental concerns. In 2008 and 2009, it installed energy management systems
in stores. Energy efficient lighting, heating, and air conditioning are currently used in the stores. These changes conserve energy and keep energy costs
low. Dollar General encourages its customers to make green choices; supplying reusable shopping bags and green household cleaning products educate
customers about options that are better for the environment. Recycling efforts prevent waste from going into landfills. Recycling cardboard at Dollar
General alone is expected to save the equivalent of 2.4 million trees per year. This new cardboard recycling program accepts collected cardboard from
post-customer used products. Greenhouse gas emissions have increased by 8% due to expansion in operations. However, efficiency has also increased
by 10%, avoiding 113,000 metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions. Green transportation initiatives have been created as well. Dollar General has reduced
the total miles through improved routing. By implementing operational and systemic improvements, the amount of cartons per load has been increased,
decreasing the amount of trips and trucks necessary for delivery. A more explicit portrayal of the emissions and energy usage is necessary. Furthermore,
despite reporting on policies against forced labor and child labor, there are no human rights reporting.
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
ES A
43
S
43%
E
57%
S
31
15
10
ER
EP
9
5
SR
SP
Dollar General
SSA
0
25
50
EI
75
SI
Environmental Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
2
4
50
Good
Environmental Performance Indicators
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Management
0
12
0
Needs substantial improvement
Policy
6
12
50
Good
Product Responsibility
1
2
50
Good
Urban Environmental Accords
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Vision
4
8
50
Good
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
3
14
21
Needs substantial improvement
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
4
28
14
Needs substantial improvement
Management
9
63
14
Needs substantial improvement
Materials Usage
2
21
10
Needs substantial improvement
Products
0
21
0
Needs substantial improvement
Recycling
8
21
38
Needs improvement
Waste
3
35
9
Needs substantial improvement
Water
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Social Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
1
4
25
Needs improvement
Management
2
12
17
Needs substantial improvement
Policy
5
6
83
Excellent
Social Demographic
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
Social Reporting
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
GRI Social Performance Indicators
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Human Rights
2
77
3
Needs substantial improvement
Management
0
14
0
Needs substantial improvement
Qualitative Social
13
56
23
Needs substantial improvement
Quantitative Social
2
49
4
Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
33
General Merchandisers Sector
D-
Family Dollar 2011 Web pages
Family Dollar
Family Dollar had no environmental or social responsibility reporting. There was no human rights reporting.
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
0%
E
ES A
21
S
S
100%
SSA
0
25
50
75
0
0
0
EI
ER
EP
SI
6
3
SR
SP
Family Dollar
Environmental Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
0
4
0
Needs substantial improvement
Environmental Performance Indicators
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Management
0
12
0
Needs substantial improvement
Policy
0
12
0
Needs substantial improvement
Product Responsibility
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Urban Environmental Accords
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Vision
0
8
0
Needs substantial improvement
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
0
14
0
Needs substantial improvement
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
0
28
0
Needs substantial improvement
Management
0
63
0
Needs substantial improvement
Materials Usage
0
21
0
Needs substantial improvement
Products
0
21
0
Needs substantial improvement
Recycling
0
21
0
Needs substantial improvement
Waste
0
35
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
2
12
17
Needs substantial improvement
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
GRI Social Performance Indicators
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Human Rights
0
77
0
Needs substantial improvement
Management
0
14
0
Needs substantial improvement
Qualitative Social
10
56
18
Needs substantial improvement
Quantitative Social
0
49
0
Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
34
General Merchandisers Sector
D-
Follett 2011 Web pages
Follett
Follett has no environmental responsibility reporting. Its social visionary statement outlines its support and contributions for community involvement and
workforce diversity. It has instituted a Reading is Fundamental program for underprivileged youth. Follett has a gift matching program with their associates
to encourage social community investment. There are no human rights reporting.
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
0%
E
ES A
14
7
S
S
100%
SSA
0
25
50
75
0
0
0
EI
ER
EP
5
Follett
SI
SR
SP
Environmental Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
0
4
0
Needs substantial improvement
Environmental Performance Indicators
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Management
0
12
0
Needs substantial improvement
Policy
0
12
0
Needs substantial improvement
Product Responsibility
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Urban Environmental Accords
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Vision
0
8
0
Needs substantial improvement
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
0
14
0
Needs substantial improvement
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
0
28
0
Needs substantial improvement
Management
0
63
0
Needs substantial improvement
Materials Usage
0
21
0
Needs substantial improvement
Products
0
21
0
Needs substantial improvement
Recycling
0
21
0
Needs substantial improvement
Waste
0
35
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
12
0
Needs substantial improvement
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
GRI Social Performance Indicators
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Human Rights
1
77
1
Needs substantial improvement
Management
0
14
0
Needs substantial improvement
Qualitative Social
11
56
20
Needs substantial improvement
Quantitative Social
2
49
4
Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
35
General Merchandisers Sector
F
Fry's Electronics 2011 Web pages
Fry's Electronics
Fry’s Electronics has no environmental or social responsibility reporting on its 2011 web pages. Furthermore, there is no information regarding community
investment or human rights reporting.
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
S
1%
E
1%
ES A
S
0
0
0
0
0
0
EI
ER
EP
SI
SR
SP
Fry's Electronics
SSA
0
25
50
75
Environmental Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
0
4
0
Needs substantial improvement
Environmental Performance Indicators
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Management
0
12
0
Needs substantial improvement
Policy
0
12
0
Needs substantial improvement
Product Responsibility
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Urban Environmental Accords
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Vision
0
8
0
Needs substantial improvement
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
0
14
0
Needs substantial improvement
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
0
28
0
Needs substantial improvement
Management
0
63
0
Needs substantial improvement
Materials Usage
0
21
0
Needs substantial improvement
Products
0
21
0
Needs substantial improvement
Recycling
0
21
0
Needs substantial improvement
Waste
0
35
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
12
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
GRI Social Performance Indicators
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Human Rights
0
77
0
Needs substantial improvement
Management
0
14
0
Needs substantial improvement
Qualitative Social
0
56
0
Needs substantial improvement
Quantitative Social
0
49
0
Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
36
General Merchandisers Sector
A+
JC Penney 2011 Web pages
JC Penney
JC Penney is exemplary in its environmental education and recycling initiatives. JC Penney has installed solar panels and wind turbines to increase its
renewable energy usage at stores nationwide. Recycling initiatives have increased the amount of cardboard and plastic hangers JC Penney recycles,
decreasing its overall waste produced. Simply Green is JC Penney’s designation to assist customers in making environmentally conscious purchases.
Through its green products suppliers, JC Penney educates its consumers and associates by choosing the best products that have the least negative
environmental impacts. Reusable shopping bags are offered as an alternative to paper and plastic bags at JC Penney stores. It focuses its corporate
responsibility on its community and associates. Its social investment activities include an after-school fund, associate giving, corporate giving, and aligning
with community advocates. JC Penney has endorsed the United Nation Global Compact, but none of the principles are discussed in the sustainability
report, which is reflected in the missing PSI scores on human rights topics. The company is also a signatory company to Carbon Disclosure Project, partner
of Energy Start program, and founding member of the Sustainable Apparel Coalition, and participation in such highly esteemed environmental programs are
indicative of the company's commitment to sustainability. It would be helpful if the reports cover the type of involvements and issues that are being worked
on in the report in specifics.
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
ES A
S
SSA
0
25
50
71
62
S
45%
E
55%
38
EI
75
ER
30
27
EP
SI
SR
19
JC Penney
SP
Environmental Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
2
4
50
Good
Environmental Performance Indicators
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Management
6
12
50
Good
Policy
6
12
50
Good
Product Responsibility
2
2
100
Excellent
Urban Environmental Accords
2
2
100
Excellent
Vision
8
8
100
Excellent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
7
14
50
Good
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
10
28
36
Needs improvement
Management
18
63
29
Needs improvement
Materials Usage
7
21
33
Needs improvement
Products
0
21
0
Needs substantial improvement
Recycling
10
21
48
Needs improvement
Waste
16
35
46
Needs improvement
Water
4
7
57
Good
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
2
4
50
Good
Management
8
12
67
Good
Policy
6
6
100
Social Demographic
0
2
0
Vision
4
4
100
Social Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Excellent
Needs substantial improvement
Excellent
Social Reporting
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
GRI Social Performance Indicators
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Needs substantial improvement
Human Rights
10
77
13
Management
4
14
29
Needs improvement
Qualitative Social
34
56
61
Good
Quantitative Social
5
49
10
Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
37
General Merchandisers Sector
B
Kohl's 2011 Web pages
Kohl's
Kohl’s dedication to environmental conservation is evident through its recycling initiatives and conservation efforts. Gift boxes and restroom tissues are
made from 100% recycled paper, and carpet recycling and high efficiency lighting has been installed at Kohl’s. It has asked vendor partners to eliminate or
reduce packaging on merchandise shipped to its stores. Solar panels and other renewable energy sources have been purchased to increase energy
efficiency and Kohl’s is a member of the ENERGY STAR Program. Green building materials and green power are at the forefront of Kohl’s green initiatives.
These green building requirements include green materials, recycled building materials, and air quality and ventilation that enhance the environment.
Alternative transportation initiatives and construction activity pollution prevention demonstrate Kohl’s dedication to environmental protection. Kohl’s social
responsibility is evident through its Kids Who Care scholarship program to encourage community education. Its fundraising gift card program allows youthserving non profits or schools to keep the profits from selling Kohl’s gift cards. Kohl’s did a great job reporting its emissions, waste, and energy use.
Although its community involvement and environmental initiatives are exemplar, it didn’t provide information on human rights or a code of ethics.
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
E
6 1%
S
SSA
0
25
50
48
S
39%
ES A
27
36
22
17
12
Kohl's
EI
75
ER
EP
SI
SR
SP
Environmental Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
4
4
100
Excellent
Environmental Performance Indicators
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Management
2
12
17
Needs substantial improvement
Policy
6
12
50
Good
Product Responsibility
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Urban Environmental Accords
2
2
100
Excellent
Vision
6
8
75
Excellent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
4
14
29
Needs improvement
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
10
28
36
Needs improvement
Management
14
63
22
Needs substantial improvement
Materials Usage
3
21
14
Needs substantial improvement
Products
0
21
0
Needs substantial improvement
Recycling
10
21
48
Needs improvement
Waste
9
35
26
Needs improvement
Water
3
7
43
Needs improvement
Social Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
0
4
0
Needs substantial improvement
Management
4
12
33
Needs improvement
Policy
4
6
67
Good
Social Demographic
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Social Reporting
Question Category
GRI Social Performance Indicators
Human Rights
0
77
0
Needs substantial improvement
Management
6
14
43
Needs improvement
Qualitative Social
23
56
41
Needs improvement
Quantitative Social
3
49
6
Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
38
General Merchandisers Sector
A
Macy's 2011 Web Pages
Macy's
Macy’s has made significant progress in the past two years to reduce its impact on the environment. It has installed solar power systems and implemented
energy projects to reduce overall energy use. Office paper use has decreased by 34% and credit card statements can now be checked online instead of
sent using paper in the mail. Waste programs have diverted up to 60% of the waste from landfills and biodegradable packaging materials have replaced
Styrofoam peanuts. Macy’s has launched its Green Living website so that associates can interact with the company about sustainability-related topics at
work and home. It also accepts and recycles fluorescent bulbs, cell phones, and batteries. To contribute to neighborhood communities where retail stores
are located, Macy’s also encourages its employees to volunteer, and partnered with United Way. Macy’s created a gift matching program and an earning
for living program. Although Macy’s has made progress on its social and environmental initiatives, the company needs to report more information about its
direct emissions.
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
E
45%
ES A
S
52
S
55%
SSA
0
25
50
28
20
ER
EP
33
29
SR
SP
Macy's
EI
75
SI
Environmental Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
1
4
25
Needs improvement
Environmental Performance Indicators
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Management
2
12
17
Needs substantial improvement
Policy
10
12
83
Excellent
Product Responsibility
1
2
50
Good
Urban Environmental Accords
2
2
100
Excellent
Vision
6
8
75
Excellent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
1
14
7
Needs substantial improvement
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
11
28
39
Needs improvement
Management
22
63
35
Needs improvement
Materials Usage
6
21
29
Needs improvement
Products
0
21
0
Needs substantial improvement
Recycling
7
21
33
Needs improvement
Waste
6
35
17
Needs substantial improvement
Water
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
2
4
50
Good
Management
9
12
75
Excellent
Policy
6
6
100
Excellent
Social Demographic
2
2
100
Excellent
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Social Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Social Reporting
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
GRI Social Performance Indicators
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Human Rights
27
77
35
Needs improvement
Management
6
14
43
Needs improvement
Qualitative Social
30
56
54
Good
Quantitative Social
4
49
8
Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
39
General Merchandisers Sector
F
Michael's Stores 2011 Web pages
Michael's Stores
Michael’s Stores has no environmental or social responsibility reporting. It briefly discusses its code of conduct on the 2011 web pages.
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
0%
E
ES A
4
2
S
S
100%
SSA
0
25
50
75
0
0
0
EI
ER
EP
Michael's Stores
0
SI
SR
SP
Environmental Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
0
4
0
Needs substantial improvement
Environmental Performance Indicators
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Management
0
12
0
Needs substantial improvement
Policy
0
12
0
Needs substantial improvement
Product Responsibility
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Urban Environmental Accords
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Vision
0
8
0
Needs substantial improvement
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
0
14
0
Needs substantial improvement
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
0
28
0
Needs substantial improvement
Management
0
63
0
Needs substantial improvement
Materials Usage
0
21
0
Needs substantial improvement
Products
0
21
0
Needs substantial improvement
Recycling
0
21
0
Needs substantial improvement
Waste
0
35
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
12
0
Needs substantial improvement
Policy
1
6
17
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
GRI Social Performance Indicators
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Human Rights
0
77
0
Needs substantial improvement
Management
0
14
0
Needs substantial improvement
Qualitative Social
1
56
2
Needs substantial improvement
Quantitative Social
0
49
0
Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
40
General Merchandisers Sector
D
Neimen Marcus 2011 Web pages
Neiman Marcus
Neimen Marcus has no environmental or social reporting. In its 2011 web pages, it states that employees are expected to comply with all environmental
laws and regulations and that a compliance committee will regulate its commitment to social responsibility as well. More information about the company’s
community involvement, environmental initiatives, and human rights reporting is necessary.
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
14 %
E
ES A
39
12
S
S
86%
SSA
0
25
50
EI
75
9
0
0
ER
EP
SI
SR
7
Neiman Marcus
SP
Environmental Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
1
4
25
Needs improvement
Environmental Performance Indicators
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Management
0
12
0
Needs substantial improvement
Policy
2
12
17
Needs substantial improvement
Product Responsibility
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Urban Environmental Accords
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Vision
2
8
25
Needs improvement
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
0
14
0
Needs substantial improvement
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
0
28
0
Needs substantial improvement
Management
0
63
0
Needs substantial improvement
Materials Usage
0
21
0
Needs substantial improvement
Products
0
21
0
Needs substantial improvement
Recycling
0
21
0
Needs substantial improvement
Waste
0
35
0
Needs substantial improvement
Water
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Social Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
2
4
50
Good
Needs substantial improvement
Management
0
12
0
Policy
6
6
100
Excellent
Social Demographic
1
2
50
Good
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Social Reporting
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
GRI Social Performance Indicators
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Human Rights
16
77
21
Needs substantial improvement
Management
0
14
0
Needs substantial improvement
Qualitative Social
4
56
7
Needs substantial improvement
Quantitative Social
0
49
0
Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
41
General Merchandisers Sector
D-
Newegg.com 2011 Web pages
Newegg.com
There is no information on environmental and social responsibility or human rights reporting.
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
0%
E
ES A
14
S
S
100%
SSA
0
25
50
75
0
0
0
EI
ER
EP
SI
2
2
SR
SP
Newegg.com
Environmental Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
0
4
0
Needs substantial improvement
Environmental Performance Indicators
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Management
0
12
0
Needs substantial improvement
Policy
0
12
0
Needs substantial improvement
Product Responsibility
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Urban Environmental Accords
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Vision
0
8
0
Needs substantial improvement
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
0
14
0
Needs substantial improvement
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
0
28
0
Needs substantial improvement
Management
0
63
0
Needs substantial improvement
Materials Usage
0
21
0
Needs substantial improvement
Products
0
21
0
Needs substantial improvement
Recycling
0
21
0
Needs substantial improvement
Waste
0
35
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
12
0
Needs substantial improvement
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
GRI Social Performance Indicators
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Human Rights
0
77
0
Needs substantial improvement
Management
0
14
0
Needs substantial improvement
Qualitative Social
4
56
7
Needs substantial improvement
Quantitative Social
0
49
0
Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
42
General Merchandisers Sector
A
Nordstrom 2011 Web pages
Nordstrom
Nordstrom values environmental protection, workforce diversity, supplier diversity, and community investment. It has invested in organic farmers who limit
the amount of pesticides and fertilizer to make organic cotton. By installing efficient spotlight technology and heating and cooling systems, Nordstrom has
reduced its energy usage and increased lighting efficiency. To save forests and educate customers about its environmental initiatives, Nordstrom uses
paper that conserves natural forests for its mailings and catalogs. It also uses recycled materials to package products and reduce waste. Nordstrom has
implemented a water-saving initiative in its landscapes and protects water source quality by installing regulated water flow toilets and urinals. It
participates in the Carbon Disclosure Project to track and share information about greenhouse-gas emissions. Besides its environmental initiatives,
Nordstrom also takes care of its employees and customers. It has created a wellness program designed to offer employees the information and resources
to live healthy and happy lives. Through this program, employees can learn to build better living habits and behaviors every year. To help fellow citizens,
employees volunteer in this wellness program and with a partner of Nordstrom: United Way. Although Nordstrom is a leader in environmental initiatives,
the company would benefit from disclosing more information on its human rights reporting.
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
E
42%
ES A
S
57
S
58%
SSA
0
25
50
23
23
ER
EP
35
33
SR
SP
Nordstrom
EI
75
SI
Environmental Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
1
4
25
Needs improvement
Needs substantial improvement
Environmental Performance Indicators
0
2
0
Management
3
12
25
Needs improvement
Policy
8
12
67
Good
Product Responsibility
2
2
100
Excellent
Urban Environmental Accords
2
2
100
Excellent
Vision
8
8
100
Excellent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
3
14
21
Needs substantial improvement
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
7
28
25
Needs improvement
Management
21
63
33
Needs improvement
Materials Usage
3
21
14
Needs substantial improvement
Products
1
21
5
Needs substantial improvement
Needs improvement
Recycling
10
21
48
Waste
0
35
0
Needs substantial improvement
Water
4
7
57
Good
Social Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
3
4
75
Excellent
Management
8
12
67
Good
Policy
6
6
100
Social Demographic
0
2
0
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
Needs substantial improvement
Excellent
Social Reporting
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
GRI Social Performance Indicators
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Human Rights
28
77
36
Needs improvement
Management
4
14
29
Needs improvement
Qualitative Social
38
56
68
Good
Quantitative Social
3
49
6
Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
43
General Merchandisers Sector
A
PPR 2011 Web pages
PPR
PPR has a corporate sustainability report, which outlines its commitment to environmental labeling, environmental education, community partnerships, and
diversity. Their supplier selection is based on the company’s environmental concern and explicit report of its greenhouse gas emissions, waste produced,
electricity consumed, energy used and water used. PPR implemented programs to decrease paper usage and purchase recycled paper. It also created
The Green Toolbox, which is a program that integrates environmental criteria for equipping, operating and maintaining its buildings. This Green Toolbox
reduces the overall environmental impacts of each store and has a positive economic impact. It recently started initiatives to support women’s rights and
development in the workforce, and has recorded information regarding its workforce turnover and recordable incident rates. PPR’s human rights reporting
is affirmatively represented by its support for the United Nations Global Compact.
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
93
ES A
S
45%
E
55%
S
SSA
0
25
50
60
31
30
20
22
PPR
EI
75
ER
EP
SI
SR
SP
Environmental Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
4
4
100
Excellent
Environmental Performance Indicators
0
2
0
Management
5
12
42
Needs substantial improvement
Needs improvement
Policy
6
12
50
Good
Product Responsibility
2
2
100
Excellent
Urban Environmental Accords
2
2
100
Excellent
Vision
6
8
75
Excellent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
8
14
57
Good
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
10
28
36
Needs improvement
Management
23
63
37
Needs improvement
Materials Usage
0
21
0
Needs substantial improvement
Products
2
21
10
Needs substantial improvement
Needs improvement
Recycling
7
21
33
Waste
11
35
31
Needs improvement
Water
4
7
57
Good
Social Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
4
4
100
Excellent
Management
10
12
83
Excellent
Policy
6
6
100
Excellent
Social Demographic
2
2
100
Excellent
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Social Reporting
Question Category
GRI Social Performance Indicators
Human Rights
7
77
9
Needs substantial improvement
Management
7
14
50
Good
Qualitative Social
16
56
29
Needs improvement
Quantitative Social
11
49
22
Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
44
General Merchandisers Sector
A
Sears Holdings 2011 Web pages
Sears Holdings
Sears Holdings has implemented many environmental initiatives to address the growing emissions and habitat issues. In 2010, Sears earned the Energy
Star Retail Partner of the Year award. It created the Responsible Appliance Disposal Program, which makes it easy for customers to properly dispose of old
refrigerators, freezers, and air conditioners at the end of the product life cycle. It also has established the Sustainable Paper Procurement Policy ensuring
that the paper used by Sears is made from a sustainable combination of resources and processes. It now offers reusable bags to its customers and offers
green home-improvement products that are well labeled to educate its customers. In 2008, Sears recycled 2,250 tons of hangers and 2,058 tons of plastic.
It has installed energy efficient lighting and reclaims and recycles precious metals, antifreeze, and batteries. Sears sells green products and encourages
customers to purchase those items that can be recycled; it carries energy-efficient televisions and recyclable electronics. Sears has also implemented oil
recycling initiatives to conserve oil; 8.8 million gallons of oil were recycled in 2004. In an effort to remove tires from waste streams, Sears created a group
to do just that. The Sears Logistic Team promotes clean air through its Smartway Transport Partner initiative. Partnered with the EPA, this team works to
reduce carbon emissions and environmental impacts caused by the trucking industry. While Sears has initiated several environmental programs, social
responsibility was lightly discussed in the Sears report; it only mentioned that flexible hours and telecommuting were viable work options for employees to
reduce transportation emissions and create a better work environment. Although Sears’ human rights reporting is sufficient, more information about
workforce diversity and women in management would be beneficial.
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
67
ES A
E
53%
S
SSA
0
25
50
50
S
47%
32
31
22
22
Sears Holdings
EI
75
ER
EP
SI
SR
SP
Environmental Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
2
4
50
Good
Excellent
Environmental Performance Indicators
2
2
100
Management
4
12
33
Needs improvement
Policy
10
12
83
Excellent
Product Responsibility
2
2
100
Excellent
Urban Environmental Accords
2
2
100
Excellent
Vision
6
8
75
Excellent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
5
14
36
Needs improvement
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
8
28
29
Needs improvement
Management
17
63
27
Needs improvement
Materials Usage
4
21
19
Needs substantial improvement
Products
5
21
24
Needs substantial improvement
Recycling
9
21
43
Needs improvement
Waste
9
35
26
Needs improvement
Water
3
7
43
Needs improvement
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
3
4
75
Excellent
Social Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Management
4
12
33
Needs improvement
Policy
6
6
100
Excellent
Social Demographic
1
2
50
Good
Vision
0
4
0
Needs substantial improvement
Social Reporting
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
GRI Social Performance Indicators
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Human Rights
36
77
47
Needs improvement
Management
0
14
0
Needs substantial improvement
Qualitative Social
25
56
45
Needs improvement
Quantitative Social
1
49
2
Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
45
General Merchandisers Sector
D
Shopko Stores 2011 Web pages
Shopko Stores
Shopko has a community giving program. The Shopko Foundations sponsors charitable causes and created a gift matching program for its employees.
There is no environmental or social responsibility reporting, nor is there information on human rights.
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
0%
E
ES A
21
9
S
S
100%
SSA
0
25
50
75
0
0
0
EI
ER
EP
7
Shopko Stores
SI
SR
SP
Environmental Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
0
4
0
Needs substantial improvement
Environmental Performance Indicators
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Management
0
12
0
Needs substantial improvement
Policy
0
12
0
Needs substantial improvement
Product Responsibility
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Urban Environmental Accords
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Vision
0
8
0
Needs substantial improvement
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
0
14
0
Needs substantial improvement
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
0
28
0
Needs substantial improvement
Management
0
63
0
Needs substantial improvement
Materials Usage
0
21
0
Needs substantial improvement
Products
0
21
0
Needs substantial improvement
Recycling
0
21
0
Needs substantial improvement
Waste
0
35
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
4
12
33
Needs improvement
Policy
0
6
0
Needs substantial improvement
Social Demographic
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Social Reporting
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
GRI Social Performance Indicators
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Human Rights
0
77
0
Needs substantial improvement
Management
0
14
0
Needs substantial improvement
Qualitative Social
16
56
29
Needs improvement
Quantitative Social
2
49
4
Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
46
General Merchandisers Sector
A-
Target 2011 Web pages
Target
Target has honorable environmental visions and has implemented many of its goals into everyday routines at stores around the world. It has implemented a
recycling program that specializes in recycling shopping carts; 90 percent of hangers are also now recycled and reused. To decrease transportation
emissions, Target employees use Segways. LED lights installed in Target stores have decreased the amount of energy used in retail stores. To cope with
the growing destruction of environmental habitats and ecosystems, Target has begun redeveloping brownfield sites. Target reports a vast variety of social
community initiatives around the world. Their philanthropic initiatives include reading and education, arts and culture, and social services. In 2009 alone,
employees volunteered 450,000 hours of community service to work towards community goals. Target gives $3 million weekly for community development
and education; it gives five percent of its income to the communities in which it operates. It also donates overstocked groceries to communities in need.
Target’s environmental reporting, however, is flawed. More emission reporting is necessary to assess the actual carbon footprint of the whole company.
Target also needs to report human rights issues: sexual harassment, bribery, and free association.
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
ES A
E
49%
S
SSA
0
25
50
64
55
S
51%
27
EI
75
ER
23
17
EP
34
Target
SI
SR
SP
Environmental Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
0
4
0
Needs substantial improvement
Needs substantial improvement
Environmental Performance Indicators
0
2
0
Management
4
12
33
Needs improvement
Policy
10
12
83
Excellent
Product Responsibility
1
2
50
Good
Urban Environmental Accords
2
2
100
Excellent
Vision
6
8
75
Excellent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
4
14
29
Needs improvement
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
10
28
36
Needs improvement
Management
19
63
30
Needs improvement
Materials Usage
3
21
14
Needs substantial improvement
Products
3
21
14
Needs substantial improvement
Recycling
8
21
38
Needs improvement
Waste
3
35
9
Needs substantial improvement
Water
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
2
4
50
Good
Management
6
12
50
Good
Policy
6
6
100
Excellent
Social Demographic
2
2
100
Excellent
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Social Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Social Reporting
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
GRI Social Performance Indicators
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Human Rights
7
77
9
Needs substantial improvement
Management
0
14
0
Needs substantial improvement
Qualitative Social
42
56
75
Excellent
Quantitative Social
4
49
8
Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
47
General Merchandisers Sector
A+
Walmart 2011 Webpages
Walmart
Walmart Corporate exemplifies how a major corporation can take action towards improving environmental sustainability around the world. Its
environmental management team has developed the Sustainability 360 approach, which gives Walmart a more comprehensive view of its company and
engage suppliers and customers around the world to join them in improving the environment. In 2009, Walmart decreased plastic bag waste by 6.5 million
pounds. To cope with its industrial carbon footprint, it has eliminated 20 million metric tons of greenhouse gases from its global supply chain.
GreenWERCS, a Walmart organization, focuses on improving chemical-based products so that they are less environmentally harmful than existing
products. Walmart Corporate also believes in social responsibility and human rights reporting. Through social community investments, Walmart supports
fighting hunger, veteran communities, environmental education, and children’s hospitals. For example, Walmart stores donate excess food to the Feeding
America Program and has joined with the government to work towards reforming the health care system in America. Walmart also offers employees a
benefit and support program. Its workplace development program supports upward career development and eliminates discrimination in the workplace.
Walmart has set the highest standard for corporate environmental responsibility and continues to be a national leader in reducing greenhouse gases,
supplier responsibility and diversity, and human rights.
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
71
ES A
E
50%
S
S
50%
SSA
0
25
50
31
29
27
38
W almart
EI
75
ER
EP
SI
SR
SP
Environmental Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
1
4
25
Needs improvement
Needs substantial improvement
Environmental Performance Indicators
0
2
0
Management
5
12
42
Needs improvement
Policy
12
12
100
Excellent
Product Responsibility
2
2
100
Excellent
Urban Environmental Accords
2
2
100
Excellent
Vision
8
8
100
Excellent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
6
14
43
Needs improvement
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
8
28
29
Needs improvement
Management
20
63
32
Needs improvement
Materials Usage
10
21
48
Needs improvement
Products
0
21
0
Needs substantial improvement
Recycling
7
21
33
Needs improvement
Waste
9
35
26
Needs improvement
Water
3
7
43
Needs improvement
Social Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
3
4
75
Excellent
Management
8
12
67
Good
Policy
6
6
100
Social Demographic
0
2
0
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
Needs substantial improvement
Excellent
Social Reporting
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
GRI Social Performance Indicators
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Human Rights
8
77
10
Needs substantial improvement
Management
7
14
50
Good
Qualitative Social
42
56
75
Excellent
Quantitative Social
8
49
16
Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
48
General Merchandisers Sector
General Merchandisers
Environmental visionary statement
Report contact person
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
14
Initiatives/actions
Specific targets and goals for improved environmental performance.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
Initiatives/actions
42
Initiatives/actions
43
Initiatives/actions
10004
Initiatives/actions
10005
Initiatives/actions
Initiatives Pg#
Environmental policy statement
Initiatives/actions
Initiatives Pg#
Environmental accounting
21
-Discussion: of environmental expenditures.
-Initiatives/actions: include detailed accounting of such expenditures.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
45
-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
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
Initiatives Pg#
Social policy statement
Initiatives Pg#
Environmental education
9
-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/actions
Initiatives Pg#
Initiatives Pg#
www.roberts.cmc.edu
1899
Does the report describe the environmental aspects and impacts characteristic
of its industry?
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
Pledge to minimize general environmental impacts.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
Initiatives/actions
Initiatives Pg#
Environmental aspects and impacts of the industry
Initiatives Pg#
Commitment to minimize environmental impacts
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
Pledge to minimize consumption of resources. May include commitments to
minimize energy, water, and materials consumption, to use recycled materials,
and to recycle internally.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
Initiatives/actions
Initiatives Pg#
Stakeholder consultation
Initiatives Pg#
Commitment to minimize consumption
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
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
Initiatives Pg#
Health and safety, or social organizational structure
Initiatives Pg#
Social impediments and challenges
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
-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
Initiatives Pg#
Environmental management system
Initiatives Pg#
Social visionary statement
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
Initiatives Pg#
Environmental goals
Initiatives Pg#
Environmental management structure
-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
4
-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
49
General Merchandisers Sector
General Merchandisers
Third-party validation
Percentage of products sold that is reclaimed at the end of
the products’ useful life by product category
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
259
Initiatives/actions
11
Initiatives/actions
Initiatives/actions
Initiatives/actions
49
Initiatives/actions
55
Corporate giving and social initiatives. Commonly includes community
programs, donations, grants, and scholarships.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
Initiatives/actions
306
Initiatives Pg#
Code of conduct or business ethics
-Discussion: includes a formal organizational code of conduct or of ethical
behavior.
-Initiatives/actions: include measures to assure that the code of conduct is
followed.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
Initiatives Pg#
Initiatives/actions
www.roberts.cmc.edu
Initiatives Pg#
Social initiatives, including donations and grants
Adopt a policy that mandates a green building rating system standard that
applies to all new buildings.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
Initiatives/actions
82
-Discussion: of training, skills and learning programs appropriate to support
employees' upward mobility.
-Initiatives/actions: taken to implement such training.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
Initiatives Pg#
Green building
Initiatives Pg#
Employee training for career development
Initiatives Pg#
-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
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
13
Supplier screening based on social or environmental
performance/ supplier management
Initiatives Pg#
Emergency preparedness program
Initiatives Pg#
-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
80
-Discussion: of appropriate actions to accommodate employees with disabilities.
-Initiatives/actions: taken to implement such accommodations.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
12
Green purchasing
Initiatives Pg#
Employment for individuals with disabilities
-Discussion: of the organization's position on biodiversity.
-Initiatives/actions: taken by to the organization to foster biodiversity.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
Initiatives/actions
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 Pg#
Biodiversity
Initiatives Pg#
Workforce profile: age
-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
18
-Discussion: of gender distribution of workforce.
-Initiatives/actions: taken to avoid gender discrimination and achieve
appropriate balance
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
Initiatives Pg#
Habitat/ecosystem conservation
17
Initiatives Pg#
Workforce profile: gender
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 Pg#
Initiatives/actions
Initiatives Pg#
Climate change/global warming
Initiatives/actions
-Discussion: of racial or ethnic distribution of workforce.
-Initiatives/actions: taken to avoid racial or ethnic discrimination.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
Efforts to label products that are environmentally-friendly.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
Initiatives/actions
Discussion Pg#
Workforce profile: ethnicities/race
Initiatives Pg#
Environmental labelling
Discussion
266
50
Initiatives Pg#
General Merchandisers Sector
47
General Merchandisers
Environmental initiatives (voluntary) including donations
and grants
Energy used: Logistics
22
Any unrequired activity beneficial to the environment by the company or by its
employees.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
Initiatives/actions
Discussion
Context
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
Initiatives Pg#
Energy used (total)
26
Sum of the energy used by the organization in all different forms, including
electricity, fuel, natural gas and others.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Context Pg#:
Context
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
Year
Data Values
Year
Improve Pg#
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Units
Waste recycled: solid waste
30
Sum of all solid waste recycled, including hazardous waste.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Context
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
27
Year
Energy used from renewable sources such as wind, solar, hydroelectric, or
other renewable sources.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Data Values
Context Pg#:
Goal Pg#:
Goal Pg#:
Energy used (renewable)
Year
Data Values
Discussion Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Units
Context
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
103
Amount of fuel consumed for logistics purposes
Data Values
Context Pg#:
Goal Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Units
Context Pg#:
Goal Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Waste (office) recycled
Improve Pg#
32
Office recycling of paper, cardboard, metal, or plastic.
Units
Discussion
Context
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
Electricity consumption
28
Year
Data Values
Discussion Pg#:
Context Pg#:
Goal Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Units
Total amount of electricity consumed by a company during operations.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Context
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
Year
Data Values
Context Pg#:
Goal Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Units
www.roberts.cmc.edu
51
General Merchandisers Sector
General Merchandisers
Waste produced
Waste (hazardous) released to the environment
33
Sum of all waste produced from company operations.
Discussion
Context
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
Year
Data Values
Discussion Pg#:
Context Pg#:
Goal Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Context
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
Improve Pg#
Units
Year
Waste (solid) disposed of
Context
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
Data Values
Units
107
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
Goal Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Context
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
Improve Pg#
Units
Waste (hazardous) produced
Data Values
Context Pg#:
Goal Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
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
Context Pg#:
Context
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
Data Values
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Materials reused or recycled: Packaging materials
Context Pg#:
Year
Year
Data Values
Context Pg#:
Goal Pg#:
34
Includes solid hazardous and non-hazardous waste landfilled, incinerated, or
transferred.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Year
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
Waste: Packaging materials
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
Goal Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Units
www.roberts.cmc.edu
109
Year
52
Data Values
Context Pg#:
Goal Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Units
General Merchandisers Sector
General Merchandisers
Green material used
Greenhouse gases (or CO2 equivalents), total
146
Materials used in production generated from recycled materials or easily
recyclable or reusable after product life.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Context
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
Year
Data Values
Context Pg#:
Goal Pg#:
Context
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Units
Year
Materials used: Non-returnable packaging
Year
Data Values
Goal Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Units
Logistics emissions
Context Pg#:
Goal Pg#:
Context
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Units
Water used
124
Emissions as a result of input and output transport of materials. Some
companies report their CO2 logistics emissions while some only report
logistics emission in general terms.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Year
Data Values
Context Pg#:
Goal Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Units
29
Sum of all water used during operations.
Discussion
Context
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
Year
Data Values
Context Pg#:
148
Materials such as cardboard, plastics, or wood, used to package any goods
sold or delivered to a disributor or an end user. Likely to be specifically
referred to as "packaging materials".
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Context
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
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
Data Values
Employee turnover rate
Discussion Pg#:
Annual employee turnover rate.
Context Pg#:
Goal Pg#:
Discussion
Context
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Units
Year
www.roberts.cmc.edu
3
53
Data Values
Discussion Pg#:
Context Pg#:
Goal Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Units
General Merchandisers Sector
General Merchandisers
Recordable incident/accident rate
Customer satisfaction
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
Year
Data Values
Context
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
Context Pg#:
Goal Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Year
Context
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
Units
81
Context
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Year
Data Values
Context Pg#:
Goal Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Units
Units
Notices of violation (environmental)
278
Context
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
38
Notices of violation (NOVs) for environmental infractions.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Number of strikes and lockouts exceeding one week's duration, by country
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Data Values
Improve Pg#
Amount of money spent on community outreach, including education grants,
donations, and relief effort funds.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Context Pg#:
Goal Pg#:
Strikes and lockouts
Year
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Social community investment
75
Number of employee injuries or illnesses that resulted in one or more lost
workdays.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Data Values
Data Values
Context Pg#:
Goal Pg#:
Units
Lost workday case rate
Year
71
Efforts to compile, validate, track, and analyze customer complaints.
Discussion Pg#:
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
Data Values
Context Pg#:
Goal Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Units
Units
www.roberts.cmc.edu
54
General Merchandisers Sector
General Merchandisers
Environmental expenses and investments
Health and safety fines
39
An accounting of money spent or invested specifically to decrease
environmental damage or to benefit the environment.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Context
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
Year
Data Values
Context
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
Context Pg#:
Goal Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Year
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
Goal Pg#:
Units
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Units
Health and safety citations
76
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
139
Data Values
Goal Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Units
Emulating best practices
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
Context Pg#:
Context
Data Values
Improve Pg#
Inclusion of maintenance, recycling or disposal services in the sales price of a
product. The car battery industry, for example, recycles nearly 100% of
returned batteries.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Context Pg#:
Context
Year
Year
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Product stewardship or take-back
40
Government imposed fines for environmental infractions.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Context Pg#:
Context
Data Values
Data Values
Context Pg#:
Goal Pg#:
Units
Fines (environmental)
Year
77
Fines levied against a company for health and safety violations.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
164
Organization looks for industry "best practices" or performance of peer organizations
as a guide to its reporting.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Initiative Pg#:
Initiatives/Action
Goal Pg#:
Context Pg#:
Context
Improvement Over Previous Improve Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Geographic differences in environmental performance
Units
3499
Does the report describe the company’s comparative environmental performance
based on geographic location?
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Initiative Pg#:
Initiatives/Action
Context Pg#:
Context
Improvement Over Previous Improve Pg#:
Financing ecologically friendly projects
190
To finance environmentally benefical project such as reforestation or renewable
energy generation.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Initiative Pg#:
Initiatives/Action
Context Pg#:
Context
Improvement Over Previous Improve Pg#:
www.roberts.cmc.edu
55
General Merchandisers Sector
General Merchandisers
Life Cycle Analysis (LCA)
Community development
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
Context Pg#:
Context
Improvement Over Previous Improve Pg#:
Initiative Pg#:
Initiatives/Action
Context Pg#:
Context
Improvement Over Previous Improve Pg#:
Raw material reduction
Community education
3799
Initiative Pg#:
Initiatives/Action
Context Pg#:
Context
Improvement Over Previous Improve Pg#:
Context Pg#:
Context
Improvement Over Previous Improve Pg#:
Customer health and safety
2
Discussion Pg#:
Initiative Pg#:
Initiative Pg#:
Initiatives/Action
Context Pg#:
Context
Improvement Over Previous Improve Pg#:
Context Pg#:
Improve Pg#:
Employee satisfaction surveys
67
Customer wellness and nutrition
Surveys to monitor employee satisfaction.
Discussion
Initiatives/Action
Context
Improvement Over Previous
Initiative Pg#:
Context Pg#:
Context Pg#:
Context
Improvement Over Previous Improve Pg#:
Improve Pg#:
70
Green technologies research and development
Efforts to provide a safe and healthy working environment at all sites.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Context Pg#:
Context
Improvement Over Previous Improve Pg#:
72
Product environmental performance
Efforts to promote employee volunteerism in social or environmental projects.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Initiative Pg#:
Initiatives/Action
Context Pg#:
Context
Improvement Over Previous Improve Pg#:
163
Eco-efficiency monitoring
Programs to encourage carpooling, mass transit or other reductions in total
commuting.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Initiative Pg#:
Initiatives/Action
Initiative Pg#:
Initiatives/Action
Context Pg#:
Context
Improvement Over Previous Improve Pg#:
185
Customer Emergency Support
Efforts to provide access to employees, especially those who are working off-shores
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
149
Effort to help customers with medical emergencies involving the company's product.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Initiative Pg#:
Initiatives/Action
Initiative Pg#:
Initiatives/Action
Context Pg#:
Context
Improvement Over Previous Improve Pg#:
www.roberts.cmc.edu
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
Context Pg#:
Context
Improvement Over Previous Improve Pg#:
Access to health care for employees
140
Analysis of the environmental impacts and aspects of the organization's products.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Initiative Pg#:
Initiatives/Action
Context Pg#:
Context
Improvement Over Previous Improve Pg#:
Green transportation initiatives
133
Research and development on green technologies
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Initiative Pg#:
Initiatives/Action
Initiative Pg#:
Initiatives/Action
Context Pg#:
Context
Improvement Over Previous Improve Pg#:
Employee volunteerism
196
Efforts to help improve the user's wellness and nutrition, including food safety.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Initiative Pg#:
Initiatives/Action
Discussion Pg#:
Occupational health and safety protection
169
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
Relative numbers of women in management.
Discussion
Initiatives/Action
Context
Improvement Over Previous
68
Efforts to support education in the communities where the company is located.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Does the report describe effort to reduce the company’s usage of raw materials?
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Initiative Pg#:
Initiatives/Action
Women in management
66
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
Context Pg#:
Context
Improvement Over Previous Improve Pg#:
56
General Merchandisers Sector
General Merchandisers
Sexual harassment
Elimination of discrimination in respect to employment and
occupation
1
Rejection of any form of sexual harassment.
Adoption of Policy
Action to Reinforce Policy
Monitoring
Quant. Indication of Compliance
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.
Policy Adopt Pg#:
Initiative Pg#:
Monitoring Pg#:
Adoption of Policy
Action to Reinforce Policy
Monitoring
Quant. Indication of Compliance
Qty Perf Pg#:
Political contributions
7
Policy about political contributions.
Adoption of Policy
Action to Reinforce Policy
Monitoring
Quant. Indication of Compliance
Qty Perf Pg#:
Free association and collective bargaining of employees
Efforts to respect the right of employees to form and join trade unions of their choice
and to bargain collectively.
Monitoring Pg#:
Qty Perf Pg#:
Adoption of Policy
Action to Reinforce Policy
Monitoring
Quant. Indication of Compliance
Rejection of bribery
Policy Adopt Pg#:
Initiative Pg#:
Monitoring Pg#:
Qty Perf Pg#:
Qty Perf Pg#:
Adoption of Policy
Action to Reinforce Policy
Monitoring
Quant. Indication of Compliance
58
Efforts to uphold the highest standards of business ethics and integrity. May be found
under a Code of Conduct.
Policy Adopt Pg#:
Policy Adopt Pg#:
Initiative Pg#:
Monitoring Pg#:
Qty Perf Pg#:
Effective abolition of child labor
Initiative Pg#:
Monitoring Pg#:
65
Rejection of illegal child labor by the company or its affiliates.
Adoption of Policy
Action to Reinforce Policy
Monitoring
Quant. Indication of Compliance
Qty Perf Pg#:
62
Assurance that wages paid meet or exceed legal or industry minimum standard.
Policy Adopt Pg#:
Initiative Pg#:
Monitoring Pg#:
Qty Perf Pg#:
Policy Adopt Pg#:
Initiative Pg#:
Monitoring Pg#:
Qty Perf Pg#:
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
www.roberts.cmc.edu
63
Assurance that all employees enter employment with the company of their own free
will, not by compulsion.
Monitoring Pg#:
Fair compensation of employees
61
Policy Adopt Pg#:
Elimination of all forms of forced and compulsory labor
Initiative Pg#:
Anti-corruption practices
Adoption of Policy
Action to Reinforce Policy
Monitoring
Quant. Indication of Compliance
Monitoring Pg#:
Initiative Pg#:
8
Adoption of Policy
Action to Reinforce Policy
Monitoring
Quant. Indication of Compliance
Policy Adopt Pg#:
Initiative Pg#:
Policy Adopt Pg#:
Bribery
Adoption of Policy
Action to Reinforce Policy
Monitoring
Quant. Indication of Compliance
60
Policy Adopt Pg#:
Initiative Pg#:
Monitoring Pg#:
Qty Perf Pg#:
57
General Merchandisers Sector
Belk, Dillards, Dollar
General, Family Dollar,
Follett, Fry's Electronics,
JC Penney, Kohl's,
Macy's, Michael's Stores,
Neiman Marcus,
N e w e g g . c o m ,
Nordstrom, PPR, Sears
Holdings, Shopko Stores,
Target, and Walmart
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: [email protected]
Elgeritte Adidjaja, Research Fellow, Phone: 909-621-8698, email: [email protected]
Roberts Environmental Center, Claremont McKenna College, 925 N. Mills Avenue, Claremont, CA 91711-5916, USA.
Download