Aisin Seiki, BMW Group, Bridgestone, Continental AG, Daimler
AG, Denso, Dongfeng Motor
2012 Sustainability Reporting of the World’s
Consumer
Durables
Group,
Electrolux,
Largest Motor Vehicle and Consumer Durables Companies
Fiat, Ford Motor, Fortune Brands,
Honda Motor, Hyundai Mobis,
Hyundai Motor, Johnson Controls, Magna International, Mazda
Motor, Michelin, Mitsubishi,
Nissan Motor, Peugeot, Porsche,
Renault, SAIC Motor, Suzuki
Motor, Tata Motors, Toyota Industries, Toyota Motor, Volvo
Group,
and
Whirlpool
Pacific Sustainability Index Scores: A benchmarking tool for online sustainability reporting
J. Emil Morhardt, Elgeritte Adidjaja, Simone Berkovitz, Carolyn Campbell, Jaclyn T. D'Arcy, Whitney Ellen Dawson,
Karen de Wolski, Han Dinh,Elizabeth Duckworth, Erin Franks, Karina Gomez, Hilary Haskell, Alan Hu, Bukola Jimoh,
Sam Kahr, Karun Kiani, Eric Robert King, Jordan Lieberman, Danielle L. Manning, Daniel Olmsted, Ashley Scott, and
Sachi Singh.
Contents
Topics
Company Rankings
PSI Overview
PSI Scoring in a Nutshell
Lead Analyst’s Commentary
Environmental Intent Topics
Environmental Reporting Topics
Social Intent Topics
Social Reporting Topics
Environmental Intent Element of the PSI Scores
Environmental Reporting Element of the PSI
Scores
Social Intent Element of the PSI Scores
Social Reporting Element of the PSI Scores
Environmental Intent Scores Ranking
Environmental Reporting Scores Ranking
Environmental Performance Scores Ranking
Social Intent Scores Ranking
Social Reporting Scores Ranking
Social Performance Scores Ranking
Human Rights Reporting Element
Performance by Country
Visual Cluster Analysis
Relationship Between PSI Scores and Financial
Variables
Number of Explicit numerical goals Reported
Number of Topics Showing Performance
Improvement over Previous Year Data
Number of Topics in which Performance was
Better than Sector Average
Analyst’s Comments, alphabetically listed by
company name
Appendix: PSI Questionnaire
Page
3
4
6
7
12
13
14
15
16
17
The Roberts Environmental Center has been the foremost
analyst of corporate sustainability reporting for over a
decade. We analyze corporate online disclosure using our
Pacific Sustainability Index (PSI) and publish the results
online.
Industrial Sector**
2
0
0
4
2
0
0
5
Electronics & Semiconductors
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Entertainment
X
Federal Agencies
Food Services
X
X
X
X
X
General Merchandiser
X
Homebuilders
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X*
X*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Municipalities
Oil and Gas Equipment
X
Petroleum & Refining
X
Pharmaceuticals
X
Scientific, Photo, & Control
Equipment
Telecommunications, Network, &
Peripherals
Transportation
Elgeritte Adidjaja, Research Fellow
(909) 621-8698
(eadidjaja@cmc.edu)
X
X
X
Motor Vehicle & Parts
Dr. J. Emil Morhardt, Director
(emorhardt@cmc.edu)
Roberts Environmental Center
Claremont McKenna College
925 N. Mills Ave. Claremont, CA 91711-5916, USA
Direct line: (909) 621-8190
2
0
1
2
X
X
X
Household, Apparel, & Personal
Products
Industrial & Farm Equipment
Mail, Freight, & Shipping
Medical Products & Equipment
Metals
Mining, Crude Oil
Questions should be addressed to:
2
0
1
1
X
Forest & Paper Products
66
2
0
1
0
X
Energy & Utilities
36
2
0
0
9
X
X
Colleges/Universities
Computer, Office Equipment, &
Services
Conglomerates
Food & Beverages
35
2
0
0
8
X
Banks, Insurance
Chemicals
32
33
2
0
0
7
X
Aerospace & Defense
Airlines
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
2
0
0
6
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
* Multiple-sector category was separated in later years.
Departmental Secretaries: (909) 621-8298
The goal of corporate report analysis conducted by the Roberts Environmental Center is to acquaint students with environmental and
social issues facing the world’s industries, and the ways in which industry approaches and resolves these issues.
The data presented in this report were collected by student research assistants and a research fellow at the Roberts Environmental
Center. Copyright 2012 © by J. Emil Morhardt. All rights reserved.
www.roberts.cmc.edu
2
Motor Vehicle and Consumer Durables Sectors 2012
Sustainability Reporting of World's Largest Motor
Vehicle and Consumer Durables Companies
Corporate Environmental and Sustainability Reporting
Company Rankings
Overall Grade
A+
BMW Group (Germany)
A
Electrolux (Sweden)
A-
Whirlpool (USA)
B+
Denso (Japan)
B+
Daimler AG (Germany)
B+
Peugeot (France)
B+
Hyundai Motor (South Korea)
B+
Ford Motor (USA)
B
Johnson Controls (USA)
38.57
B
Mazda Motor (Japan)
38.49
B
Toyota Industries (Japan)
B
Fiat (Italy)
B-
Toyota Motor (Japan)
36.15
B-
Nissan Motor (Japan)
35.51
C+
Michelin (France)
C+
Suzuki Motor (Japan)
C+
Aisin Seiki (Japan)
C+
Renault (France)
C+
Volvo Group (Sweden)
C+
Tata Motors (India)
C+
Bridgestone (Japan)
53.72
BMW Group
49.89
Elec trolux
45.13
Whirlpool
41.31
Denso
41.00
Daimler AG
40.67
Peugeot
Hyundai Motor
Ford Motor
37.65
Johnson Controls
Mazda Motor
Toyota Industries
35.48
Fiat
32.60
Toyota Motor
29.76
Nissan Motor
Mic helin
28.72
Suzuki Motor
28.56
C
Continental AG (Germany)
28.44
C
Honda Motor (Japan)
C-
Porsche (Germany)
C-
Hyundai Mobis (South Korea)
Aisin Seiki
28.18
Renault
Volvo Group
26.34
C-
Fortune Brands (USA)
Tata Motors
26.15
D+
Mitsubishi (Japan)
D+
Magna International (Canada)
F
SAIC Motor (China)
F
Dongfeng Motor Group (China)
25.59
Bridgestone
23.75
Continental AG
22.64
Honda Motor
17.66
Porsc he
16.67
Hyundai Mobis
15.71
Fortune Brands
13.35
Mitsubishi
12.19
Magna International
SAIC Motor
0.66
Dongfeng Motor Group
0.23
0
25
50
75
100
This report is an analysis of the voluntary environmental and social reporting of companies on the 2010 Forbes List Consumer Durables
and Motor Vehicles sector lists. Data were collected from corporate websites during the initial analysis period (dates shown below). A
draft sector report was then made available online and letters were sent to all companies inviting them to review the analysis, to identify
anything missed by our analysts, and to post additional material on their websites if they wished to improve their scores.
Analysis Period:
Draft sector report available for review:
www.roberts.cmc.edu
8/1/2010 through 1/15/2011
1/25/2012 through 3/25/2012
3
Motor Vehicle and Consumer Durables Sectors 2012
The Pacific Sustainability Index (PSI) Overview
the PSI Scoring System
The Pacific Sustainability Index (PSI) uses two systematic questionnaires to analyze the quality of the
sustainability reporting—a base questionnaire for reports across sectors and a sector-specific
questionnaire for companies within the same sector. The selection of questions is based on, and
periodically adjusted to, the most frequently-mentioned topics in over 1,900 corporate sustainability reports
analyzed from 2002 through 2009 at the Roberts Environmental Center.
The Roberts Environmental Center
The Roberts Environmental Center is an environmental research institute at Claremont McKenna College
(CMC). Its mission is to provide students of all the Claremont Colleges with a comprehensive and realistic
understanding of today’s environmental issues and the ways in which they are being and can be resolved-beyond the confines of traditional academic disciplines and curriculum--and to identify, publicize, and
encourage policies and practices that achieve economic and social goals in the most environmentally
benign and protective manner. The Center is partially funded by an endowment from George R. Roberts
(Founding Partner of Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. and CMC alumnus),
other grants and gifts, and is staffed by faculty and students from the
Claremont Colleges.
Methodology
Student analysts download relevant English language web pages from
the main corporate website for analysis. Our scoring excludes data
independently stored outside the main corporate website or available
only in hard copy. When a corporate subsidiary has its own
sustainability reporting, partial credit is given to the parent company
when a direct link is provided in the main corporate website. We archive these web pages as PDF files for
future reference. Our analysts use a keyword search function to search reporting of specific topics, they 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
4
Motor Vehicle and Consumer Durables Sectors 2012
PSI Scoring in a Nutshell
Our analysis of sustainability reporting has a set of basic topics applied to all organizations as well as a series of
sector-specific topics. The topics are divided into environmental and social categories—the latter including human
rights—and into three types of information: 1) intent, 2) reporting, and 3) performance.
1. Intent
The “Intent” topics are each worth two points; one point for a discussion of intentions, vision, or plans, and one point
for evidence of specific actions taken to implement them.
2. Reporting
The “Reporting” topics are each worth five points and are either quantitative (for which we expect numerical data)
or qualitative (for which we don’t).
For quantitative topics, one point is available for a discussion, one point for putting the information into perspective
(i.e. awards, industry standards, competitor performance, etc., or if the raw data are normalized by dividing by
revenue, number of employees, number of widgets produced, etc.), one point for the presence of an explicit
numerical goal, one point for numerical data from a single year, and one point for similar data from a previous year.
For qualitative topics, there are three criteria summed up to five points: 1.67 points for discussion, 1.67 points for
initiatives or actions, and 1.67 points for perspective.
3. Performance
For each “Reporting” topic, two performance points are available.
For quantitative topics, one point is given for improvement from the previous reporting period, and one point for
better performance than the sector average (based on the data used for this sector report normalized by revenue).
For qualitative topics, we give one point for any indication of improvement from previous reporting periods, and one
point for perspective.
The 11 “human rights” topics are scored differently, with five “reporting” points; 2.5 points for formally adopting a
policy or standard and 2.5 points for a description of monitoring measures. In addition, there are two “performance”
points; one point for evidence of actions to reinforce policy and one point for a quantitative indication of compliance.
Distribution of Scores by topics
www.roberts.cmc.edu
5
Motor Vehicle and Consumer Durables Sectors 2012
Lead Analyst’s
Commentary
Environmental Reporting Topics) of companies
analyzed provided information on this topic. The lack
of reporting on this topic is also concerning due to its
direct implications to greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions that result from the consumers’ usage of
the Sector’s products. Concerning the Social
Reporting Element of the PSI score, only 23.3% and
6.7% of companies report their Health and Safety
Citations and/or Fines, respectively. In the
manufacture of vehicles and consumer durables, this
is disquieting in that it indicates a lack of
transparency of companies’ initiatives and actions to
protect their employees.
Perhaps the most critical considerations in
the sector, include product performance and end-oflife-cycle implications. Not only are these areas of
corporate sustainability widely and well-reported, but
they also represent some of the biggest and most
unique challenges to the Sector as a whole. It is
therefore important to consider these areas of
corporate sustainability most thoroughly when
evaluating the current status of the Sector’s
corporate sustainability reporting, as well as recent
developments in this constantly evolving field. In
addition to discussing Climate Change/ GHG
Emissions, Recyclability and Remanufacturing, and
LCA, the Sector’s weakness in reporting Energy Used
by Products must also be addressed.
The rather sweeping range of environmental
issues that are incorporated within the Consumer
Durables and Motor Vehicle sector are mostly well
reported and highly discussed in the majority of the
companies’ sustainability reports. Climate Change/
Global Warming, Product Performance: Recyclability,
Product Performance, Emissions; and Life Cycle
Analysis are all heavily incorporated into the Sector’s
corporate environmental sustainability reports. There
is a definite need for improvement, concerning the
Energy Used by Products, especially for consumer
durable companies, for which the energy efficiency of
its products are of both environmental and economic
concern to consumers, as seen by the widely
successful Energy Star program. Also, considering
the current lack of federal legislation regulating
climate change and GHG emissions directly, the need
for the Consumer Durables and Motor Vehicle sector
to be a leader in implementing stringent standards is
only augmented further.
By Hilary Haskel, CMC ‘14
T
he Consumer Durables and
Motor Vehicle sector faces a
diverse array of sustainability
issues, due not only to the nature of
the Sector’s products and
operations, but also due to the wide definition of
products that “consumer durables and motor
vehicles” encompasses. The Sector’s strength is in
reporting on Climate Change/Global Warming, due to
the Sector’s significant challenges associated with
this area of environmental sustainability. Along the
same lines, 70% or more of the companies analyzed
reported Energy Used (Total); Product Performance,
Recyclability; Greenhouse Gas or CO2 Equivalent
(Total); Product Performance, Emissions; Nitrogen
Oxides (NOx); and Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) for the
Environmental Reporting Elements of their PSI
Scores. This trend in reporting further reflects the
Sector’s appropriate emphasis on the sustainability of
the products they produce: in their emissions,
recyclability, and LCA.
Concerning the social sustainability of this
Sector, it is interesting to note the relative
prominence of community building activities within
the companies analyzed for the Social Reporting
Element of their PSI Scores. 86.7% of companies
analyzed reported Community Development and
Community Education activities. Eighty percent
reported their companies’ Employee Volunteerism
efforts. Furthermore, 76.7% of companies reported
Product Performance, Safety, which is especially
important to this Sector, because this industry deals
with important safety concerns such as crash-test
ratings.
For the Sector as a whole, an area of
environmental sustainability reporting that is
considerably under emphasized for most companies
is Energy Used by Products. This area is pertinent to
the environmental sustainability of the Sector,
because it is such an important consideration when it
comes to efficiency of consumer durables relative to
one another, and thus the decisions consumers face
in choosing which products to purchase, especially
when attempting to choose more sustainable or
economical options. Only 11.8% (the lowest rate of all
www.roberts.cmc.edu
6
Motor Vehicle and Consumer Durables Sectors 2012
monitoring; and vi) a limit curve for light
ibid.
commercial vehicles.
Greenhouse Gas (GHG)
Emissions and Fuel
Economy Standards
The E.U., unlike the U.S., has also implemented fiscal
incentives, such as high fuel taxes and differential
vehicle and fee taxes, to further curb greenhouse
based emissions as well as increase fuel economy
standards for vehicles.ibid. Electrolux, a consumer
durables company, received the next highest overall
PSI score with a grade of “A,” further reflecting a
general emphasis on sustainability in the E.U.
The United States is also a global leader in
fuel economy and GHG emissions standards.
However, the current overall GHG emissions and fuel
economy standards in the U.S. lag behind the E.U.,
and in some respects, Japan and China. However, the
U.S. may not trail other nations for long. Recently, the
merge of Federal with California (propagated by the
California Air Resources Board) fuel economy and
GHG emissions standards initiated a wave of
developments in these standards by the Department
of Transportation (DOT) and Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), for light duty vehicles. These new
standards reflect a “vehicle footprint” approach with
fleet-average targets of “250 gCO2e/mile or 34.1 miles
per gallon under the US CAFE combined driving test
cycle (equivalent to 172 gCO2/km under NEDC
cycle).” ibid. Furthermore, the departments have
targeted a 2025 fuel economy standard ranging from
46 to 60 mpg, which is an equivalent of 102 - 133
gCO2/km (in terms of the EU reporting standard).ibid. As
a final ruling, on July 29th, 2011, “President Obama
today announced a historic agreement with thirteen
major automakers to pursue the next phase in the
Administration’s national vehicle program, increasing
fuel economy to 54.5 miles per gallon for cars and
light-duty trucks by Model Year 2025.”2 This
compliance level would equate to 163 g/mi CO2
emissions, if all emissions reductions were achieved
solely through fuel economy.3 The means to achieve
Of particular interest and concern to many
individuals, organizations, governments, and
corporations alike are climate change and GHG
emissions. For this reason, this environmental issue is
at the forefront of consideration for many consumer
durables and motor vehicle corporations worldwide.
To most effectively address climate change and GHG
emission challenges, one must take into account the
fuel economy standards that these corporations must
adhere to as well.
BMW earned the highest overall PSI score
of companies in the Motor Vehicles and Consumer
Durables sector, receiving a score of “A+.” As a
German company, BMW is subject to the European
Union’s (E.U.) strict and effective fuel economy and
GHG emissions standards. The E.U. tests vehicles for
these standards through the European Union New
Drive Cycle, in order to implement carbon dioxide
limits measured in g/km on a weight-based limit value
curve.1 Originally, the E.U. approached limiting GHG
emissions and regulating corporate average fuel
economy standards in a way similar to the U.S., with a
voluntary program. However, the E.U. has now
realized that this methodology is not the most
effective, and has now opted for a mandatory (by
2012) carbon dioxide regulation approach, in light of
its Kyoto Protocol agreement and the increased
consistency achieved through this method. To further
increase the efficiency of vehicles the EU adopted:
On 23 April 2009 Regulation [EC] No. 443/2009 of
the European Parliament and of the Council
stipulating that by 2012, the fleet average to be
achieved by all cars registered in the EU shall be
130 gCO2/km. Furthermore, 10 gCO2/km in
savings had to be achieved through the
implementation of: i) use of biofuels; ii) gear
shifting reminders; iii) efficient air conditioners; iv)
low rolling resistance tires; v) tire pressure
2
"President Obama Announces Historic
54.5 Mpg Fuel Efficiency Standard." The White
House. N.p., n.d. Web. Apr.-May 2012.
<http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pressoffice/2011/07/29/president-obama-announceshistoric-545-mpg-fuel-efficiency-standard>.
3
United States. Environmental Protection
Agency. Transportation and Climate Division:Office
of Transportation and Air Quality U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.Transportation
and Air Quality. Environmental Protection Agency,
Mar. 2012. Web. 30 May 2012.
1
Feng, An, Robert Earley, and Lucia GreenWeiskel. United Nations Development. Proc. of
Commission on Sustainable Development Nineteenth
Session, New York. United Nations, 2011. Web. 1
June 2012.
<http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/resources/res_pdfs/csd19/Background-paper3-transport.pdf>. www.roberts.cmc.edu
7
Motor Vehicle and Consumer Durables Sectors 2012
government to follow.4 Another case, National Traffic
Highway Safety Administration (NHTSA) v. Center for
Biological Diversity, established that “NHTSA’s
failure to monetize the benefits of GHG emissions
reductions was arbitrary and capricious, and that the
environmental assessment performed by the agency
under NEPA was deficient in its attempt to justify its
refusal to complete an Environmental Impact
Statement” ibid. This case, as well as the other cases
mentioned, further signify that the U.S. government
might side with a more stringent federal plan to
regulate and reduce GHG emissions in order to soften
the effect of drastic climate change. Although there
“are currently no overarching federal laws that
require the government or corporations to mitigate
their impact on global climate change,” there is a
“policy shift” that is occurring due to “state, regional,
and local governments [that] are filling the void.” ibid.
This void is being filled through mechanisms such as
the cases outlined above and California Assembly Bill
32 (AB 32), the “granddaddy” of climate change
legislation. This Bill establishes “a range of statewide
programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and
promote efficiency,” in order to “establish a
statewide GHG emissions cap for 2020 based on 1990
emissions levels.” ibid. Through state efforts, on a
smaller scale, there is new momentum and support
for similar legislative efforts by the federal
government.
Nevertheless, progress towards allencompassing federal climate change legislation still
faces an uphill battle. The most recent push for
comprehensive federal climate change legislation
ended on September 10th, 2010. Senator Reid, at a
clean energy summit in Las Vegas, Nevada, broke the
news “that the world’s greatest deliberative body
would not consider legislation that limits emissions
from stationary sources of greenhouse gasses...”5
the fuel economy and GHG emissions standards
recently set in the U.S. will include the increased
incorporation of “several advanced power train
technologies” such as “gasoline direct injection,”
“turbo-charging,” “cylinder deactivation,” and “both
6-speed and 7-speed transmissions. ” ibid. According to
the EPA’s Light-Duty Automotive Technology, Carbon
Dioxide Emissions, and Fuel Economy Trends: 1975
Through 2011, Executive Summary:
Taken together, the MY 2011 CAFE standards, the
MY 2012-2016 greenhouse gas emissions and
CAFE standards, and the proposed MY 2017-2025
greenhouse gas emissions and CAFE standards
are projected to save approximately 6 billion
metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions and 12
billion barrels of oil over the lifetimes of the
ibid.
vehicles produced in MY 2011-2025.
These recent legislative developments definitely
indicate that the U.S., despite its failure to ratify the
Kyoto Protocol, is moving towards implementing
much stricter fuel economy standards upon the
vehicle industry in order to make progress in the area
of climate change and global warming issues.
Global Warming Federal
Legislation
In a series of recent court cases and
statewide initiatives, there is additional indication of
the U.S.’s inclination to develop and enforce climate
change and GHG emissions legislation, and not solely
through fuel economy standards. For example, in the
case of Massachusetts v. EPA, the Supreme Court
found that despite the EPA’s denial of responsibility
under the Clean Air Act (CAA) in regulating GHG
emissions, the Agency was indeed required to
regulate this non-traditional pollutant under the Act.
This finding was reached because GHG emissions
could “cause, or contribute to, air pollution which
may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public
health or welfare,” (CAA Section 202 (a) (1)) due to
the effects that GHG have on rising sea levels, severe
weather patterns, etc. In the case of Central Valley
Chrysler Jeep v. Goldstene, the court found that
“California’s GHG emission requirements were not
preempted by federal fuel efficiency standards.” This
decision thus set the precedent that state standards
could pave the way for more stringent federal
regulations, and be a model for the federal
4
Schmidt, Lauren E., and Geoffrey M.
Williamson. "Recent Developments in Climate
Change Law." The Colorado Lawyer 63 (Nov. 2008):
n. pag. Brownstein, Hyatt, Farber, Shreck.
Brownstein, Hyatt, Farber, Shreck, Nov. 2008. Web.
28 May 2012.
<http://www.bhfs.com/portalresource/lookup/wosid/c
ontentpilot-core-2301-7524/pdfCopy.pdf>. 5
Goslin, Thomas, and Annemargaret
Connolly. "Federal Climate Legislation Dies; EPA
Prepares to Regulate." Climate Change Update (Sept.
2010): n. pag. Weil. Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP,
Sept. 2010. Web. 28 May 2012.
<http://www.epa.gov/otaq/cert/mpg/fetrends/2012/42
0s12001.pdf> www.roberts.cmc.edu
8
Motor Vehicle and Consumer Durables Sectors 2012
new products.” ibid. Currently, the U.S. spends a mere
“47 billion dollars” or “0.4 percent of GDP” on
remanufacturing, compared to “ten percent of GDP
spent on manufacturing,” ibid. thus representing a large
market waiting to be realized. Society can benefit
from remanufacturing, in that it provides “lower
prices for consumers...thirty to forty percent less than
new products,” “it reduces the volume of energy and
natural resources” required to manufacture products,
and as a “direct result of energy savings,
remanufacturing is also extremely effective in
reducing greenhouse gas emissions.” ibid. Due to these
benefits of remanufacturing, and others, the U.S. is
now taking more aggressive legislative initiatives to
encourage the remanufacturing industry. For
example, “in May 1998, the Federal Trade Commission
formally began allowing remanufacturers to label
their products as ‘recycled’ and ‘remanufactured in
the U.S.’” ibid. Furthermore, “in 2000, Congress has
been considering a twenty percent tax credit on the
purchase of remanufacturing and recycling
equipment.” ibid.
However, according to the Automotive Parts
Remanufacturers Association (APRA), due to the
efforts of APRA and other associations “more
legislators and government officials have become
aware of the energy benefits which can be obtained
from great manufacturing;”7 but, there is no current
legislation to promote remanufacturing on a federal
level. According to the Association, the main avenue
available in legislation to pursue increased
remanufacturing practices is through The Advanced
Vehicle Technology Act of 2011, which has been
reintroduced to Congress recently. This Act increases
federal funding for advanced vehicle technology,
which provides for “recycling and remanufacture of
vehicle batteries and other vehicle components for
reuse in vehicles.” ibid. Remanufacturing is wellreported, but under-realized as a profitable industry
as it stands today, especially in the U.S.
With the possibility that the legislation would pass,
“Advocates for GHG-capping legislation had hoped
that a bill focused solely on limiting emissions from
utilities – rather than a more controversial bill limiting
economy-wide emissions – could be brought to the
Senate floor,” ibid. but this progress was brought to a
halt. EPA, however, has far from abandoned its efforts
to further GHG regulations, as discussed, through
other existing avenues such as the CAA. The CAA
regulates GHG emissions primarily through “New
Source Review Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (“PSD”) and Title V Operating Permit
programs, requiring only the largest emitters of GHGs
to obtain permits for their GHG emissions,” ibid. but not
mobile sources that would affect the standards for
emissions in the motor vehicle industry. Therefore,
the CAA cannot be relied upon entirely to address the
climate change issues that currently must be
addressed in the U.S.
Product Performance:
Recyclability
Recyclability is another major topic of
environmental concern, yet well-addressed issue in
corporate sustainability reporting. To approach
recyclability of products, the E.U. has adopted
standards that “no more than 15 percent of a scrap
vehicle can be discarded in Europe, with that
percentage dropping to 5 percent by 2015, coupled
with the mandate that a percentage of automobiles
sold each year must be remanufactured.”
Furthermore, “The German Packaging Order and the
German Recycling and Waste Control Act are models
of how to establish green legislation to drive
remanufacturing.”6 However, the industry for
recyclability and remanufacturing is yet to be fully
discovered globally. Remanufacturing is the “ultimate
form of recycling,” because “it conserves not only the
raw material content but also much of the value
added during the process required to manufacture
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
and Recycling/Remanufacture
<http://www.weil.com/files/Publication/315b43d02f45-4d12-9518
61d9ff4a8213/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/b
8e074d9-b797-45b2-9db663d53831314e/Climate_Change_Update_September
_2010.pdf>. 6
Giutini, R. "Remanufacturing: The next
Great Opportunity for Boosting US
Productivity."Business Horizons 46.6 (2003): 41-48.
Print. www.roberts.cmc.edu
The Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) is an important aspect of Consumer
7
Colon, Michael. "APRA." APRA.
Automotive Parts Remanufacturers Association, n.d.
Web. 01 June 2012.
<http://www.apra.org/Legislation/APRA_Positions.a
sp>. 9
Motor Vehicle and Consumer Durables Sectors 2012
Durable and Motor Vehicle Life Cycle Analysis (LCA),
in addition to recyclability. This Act was set forth in
1976 “to address the huge volumes of municipal and
industrial solid waste generated nationwide.”8 The
Act aims to “protect human health and the
environment from the potential hazards of waste
disposal, conserve energy and natural resources,
reduce the amount of waste generated, and ensure
that waste are managed in an environmentally sound
manner.” ibid Much of the end-of –life wastes from the
Consumer Durables and Motor Vehicles sector are
covered by this Act, due to the fact that many of the
resulting chemicals from disposal of these products
are considered hazardous wastes. Hazardous wastes
are regulated in order to “manage hazardous wastes
from cradle to grave” ibid. under Subtitle C of RCRA.
According to Section 1 of RCRA, RCRA also aims to
conserve energy and natural resources, and to
protect these resources from contamination by
hazardous waste. Because of this provision by RCRA,
a natural implication is that the Act also encourages
resource recovery, or remanufacture and recycling,
which is a major factor for the end-of life-cycle for
consumer durables and motor vehicles. RCRA has
even implemented initiatives to provide for a
recycling and remanufacturing market, and
furthermore, promulgated federal procurement
requirements to increase demand for recycled or
remanufactured products. RCRA, the main legislation
for solid (including hazardous) wastes, is a key piece
of legislation when considering the end-of-life-cycle
and LCA for motor vehicles and consumer durables,
now and in the future if remanufacturing becomes a
larger part of GDP
from the Sector successfully accomplish, provides a
much more coherent picture of the overall
environmental impact of these products. In the
Communication for Car Manufacturers, it states that:
Only when a vehicle’s total life cycle
emissions are accounted for can a true picture of its
environmental impact emerge. An LCA approach
allows manufacturers to make design choices based
on true environmental impact and economic value.9
With the recent impetus towards a shift to either
hybrid or electric vehicles, there are important LCA
considerations. According to the same publication,
“While a typical gasoline-powered vehicle currently
emits only around 15% of its GHG in production, the
use of cellulosic ethanol or a shift towards battery or
hybrid electric vehicles would dramatically increase
the share of vehicle production emissions.” ibid.
Although there is currently a lack of federal
legislation mandating LCA by manufacturers, as it is
evident from the PSI score for this topic, many
corporations are already taking this important factor
into consideration. The European Commission has
taken more governmental initiatives for LCA, and even
considers the LCA approach to be “the best
framework for assessing the potential environmental
impacts of products currently available.” ibid. This
serves as another instance that suggests that the E.U.
provides a model for the U.S. in crafting its own
legislation to best address sustainability issues faced
by the Consumer Durables and Motor Vehicles
sector.
Energy Used by Products
and Energy Star
Life Cycle Analysis
For the Consumer Durables and Motor
Vehicles sector, the Energy Used by Products
Element of environmental reporting requires
significant improvement. Currently, it is
underreported, considering its relative importance to
especially the consumer durables industry. Not only
is energy efficiency an important aspect of
sustainability, but also the implied reduction in GHG
emissions from improving the energy efficiency of
products. The United States can be considered as a
While it is of course important to consider
the GHG emissions and energy use of consumer
durables and motor vehicles from there usage by
consumers, incorporating a LCA approach when
evaluating these parameters, as most companies
8
United States. Environmental Protection
Agency. Office of Solid Waste/Communications,
Information, and Resources Management
Division. Port Compliance: Environmental
Compliance for Port Tenants and Authorities. Port
Compliance: Environmental Compliance for Port
Tenants and Authorities, n.d. Web. 01 June 2012.
<http://www.portcompliance.org/pdfs2/rcra%20orien
tation%20manual%202006.pdf> www.roberts.cmc.edu
9
World Auto Steel. Communication for Car
Manufacturers. N.p.: World Auto Steel, n.d.World
Auto Steel. World Auto Steel. Web. 5 May 2012.
<http://c315221.r21.cf1.rackcdn.com/LCAComm_Ca
r_Manufacturer_a4_201203_FINAL.pdf>. 10
Motor Vehicle and Consumer Durables Sectors 2012
leader in promoting energy efficiency for consumer
durables through its Energy Star program.
This widely recognized program was
developed to address energy efficiency issues
through “a joint program of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Energy
helping us all save money and protect the
environment through energy efficient products and
practices.”10According to the Energy Star and Other
Climate Projection Partnerships Annual Report:
Since 1992, the Energy Star program has
served as a trusted source for voluntary standards
and unbiased information to help consumers and
organizations across the country adopt energyefficient products and practices as cost-effective
strategies for reducing GHGs and protecting our
climate.11
Some of the main highlights of 2010, according to the
report, include that “EPA’s Energy Star efforts helped
Americans: Save more than 240 billion kilowatt-hours
(kWh)..., prevent 195 million metric tons of GHGs...,
and save more than $20 billion on their energy bills.”
ibid.
To achieve this progress, “Energy Star continues
to be regarded as the trusted source of unbiased
information that helps Americans identify reliable,
cost-effective, energy-saving solutions that protect
the environment by reducing GHG emissions.” ibid. In
addition, a primary focus of the Energy Star program
is to incentivize consumer durable manufacturers to
produce more energy efficient products.
Achievements by the Energy Star program in this area
include that, “more than 40,000 individual product
models, produced by over 1,600 manufacturing
partners, have earned the Energy Star across more
than 60 product categories.” ibid. But it is not only the
manufacturing of these products that has led to the
notable achievements of the Energy Star program, for
this program to be as widely successful as it has
already been, it also required that “Americans
purchased some 200 million Energy Star qualified
products in 2010, bringing the total to about 3.5 billion
since 2000, and EPA finalized third-party certification
and enhanced product testing and verification
procedures.” ibid.
Despite these successes and the growing
successes of the Energy Star program in the United
States, across corporations globally, more initiatives
must be taken by consumer durables manufacturers
to enlighten consumers regarding the energy
efficiency of their products. According to the Report,
there have been many efforts to increase awareness
and encourage participation with the Energy Star
Program. The report cites that the:
EPA engages in public outreach that encourages
Americans to make energy-efficient changes at
home, at work, and in their communities. The
Energy Star program’s approach
highlights both the financial and environmental
benefits of energy efficiency and provides a
forum to drive behavior change through a variety
of elements—reaching millions of people through
print, broadcast, and social media channels,
events nationwide, and grassroots-to-national
ibid.
partnerships.
To reach a wide audience and most effectively target
consumers, EPA has implemented strategies such as
“The national Change the World, Start with Energy
Star campaign,” which has “continued to promote
individual actions through the Energy Star Pledge in
2010.” ibid.
The success of this program alone is seen in
“more than 240,000 individuals [taking] the Energy
Star Pledge in 2010, representing an estimated
potential 3.7 billion pounds of GHG emissions
prevented and more than 2 billion kWh saved.” ibid. The
Energy Star program is a notable model for outreach
and awareness, and by implementing a similar
program in other nations, there would be more
incentive for consumer durables corporations to
report the energy efficiency of their products.
10
"About ENERGY STAR." : ENERGY
STAR. Environmental Protection Agency, n.d. Web. 2
June 2012.
<http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=about.ab_i
ndex> 11
United States. Environmental Protection
Agency. Air and Radiation. Energy Star.
Environmental Protection Agency, 2010. Web. 5
May 2012.
<http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/publications/
pubdocs/2010%20CPPD%20Annual%20Report.pdf?
118a-68b7> www.roberts.cmc.edu
11
Motor Vehicle and Consumer Durables Sectors 2012
Motor Vehicle and Consumer Durables
Environmental Intent Topics
Percent of possible points for all companies combined.
Two possible points for each topic:
Accountability
90
4
19
81.67
80
* Report contact person
* Environmental management structure
Management
71.67
16
20
21
23
68.75
70
60
* Environmental education
* Environmental management system
* Environmental accounting
* Stakeholder consultation
Policy
50.83
9
10
11
12
13
50
40
30
Vision
20
5
6
* Environmental policy statement
* Climate change/global warming
* Habitat/ecosystem conservation
* Biodiversity
* Green purchasing
* Environmental visionary statement
* Environmental impediments and challenges
Vision
Policy
Management
0
Accountability
10
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
12
Motor Vehicle and Consumer Durables Sectors 2012
Motor Vehicle and Consumer Durables
Environmental Reporting Topics
Seven possible points for each topic:
Emissions to Air
Percent of possible points for all companies combined.
83
114
122
* Carbon monoxide (CO)
* Nitrogen oxides (NOx)
* Volatile organic carbon (VOC), concentration
123
124
* Particulate matter (dust)
* Logistics emissions
118
121
70
63.33
60
* Greenhouse gases (or CO2 equivalents), total
* Volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
Energy
26
27
50
103
* Energy used (total)
* Energy used (renewable)
* Energy used: Logistics
Management
40
35.78
35.67 35.51
38
31.90
39
28.93
30
40
* Notices of violation (environmental)
* Environmental expenses and investments
* Fines (environmental)
Materials Usage
147
17.78
20
17.33
148
* Life Cycle Analysis (LCA)
* Materials used: Non-returnable packaging
Products
138
10
141
142
143
* Product performance, fuel efficiency
* Product performance, recyclability
Recycling
Water
Waste
Recycling
Products
Materials Usage
Management
Energy
Emissions to Air
0
* Energy used: Products
* Product performance, emissions
30
32
106
107
184
* Waste recycled: solid waste
* Waste (office) recycled
* Materials recycled: Wastewater
* Materials reused or recycled: Packaging materials
* Remanufacturing of products
Waste
34
35
37
109
110
* Waste (solid) disposed of
* Waste (hazardous) produced
* Waste (hazardous) released to the environment
* Waste: Packaging materials
* Waste water released to natural water bodies
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
13
Motor Vehicle and Consumer Durables Sectors 2012
Motor Vehicle and Consumer Durables
Social Intent Topics
Two possible points for each topic:
Percent of possible points for all companies combined.
Accountability
51
80
* Health and safety, or social organizational
73.89
54
67.50
70
Management
17
60
18
52
50
*
structure
Third-party validation
47.67
53
45.00
82
41.67
* Workforce profile: ethnicities/race
* Workforce profile: gender
* Workforce profile: age
* Emergency preparedness program
* Employee training for career development
Policy
40
45
47
30
49
* Social policy statement
* Code of conduct or business ethics
* Supplier screening based on social or
environmental performance/ supplier
management
20
Social Demographic
10
80
* Employment for individuals with disabilities
42
Vision
Social Demographic
Policy
Management
Accountability
Vision
0
43
* Social visionary statement
* Social impediments and challenges
Notes:
* These numbers correspond to the numbers in the PSI questionnaire. Items with numbers higher than 99 are sectorspecific questions. Appendix 1 has the complete questionnaire.
www.roberts.cmc.edu
14
Motor Vehicle and Consumer Durables Sectors 2012
Motor Vehicle and Consumer Durables
Social Reporting Topics
Seven possible points for each topic:
Human Rights
Percent of possible points for all companies combined.
7
48.25
50
45
1
8
58
42.42
59
38.00
40
60
* Sexual harassment
* Political contributions
* Bribery
* Anti-corruption practices
* Degrading treatment or punishment of employees
* Elimination of discrimination in respect to
employment and occupation
35
61
* Free association and collective bargaining of
employees
30
62
25.11
63
25
* Fair compensation of employees
* Elimination of all forms of forced and compulsory
labor
64
20
65
* Reasonable working hours
* Effective abolition of child labor
Management
15
2
10
* Women in management
Qualitative Social
66
5
68
Quantitative Social
Qualitative Social
Management
Human Rights
67
0
70
72
151
152
156
* Community development
* Employee satisfaction surveys
* Community education
* Occupational health and safety protection
* Employee volunteerism
* Product performance, noise
* Consumer education program
* Product performance, safety
Quantitative Social
3
74
75
76
77
81
* Employee turnover rate
* Recordable incident/accident rate
* Lost workday case rate
* Health and safety citations
* Health and safety fines
* Social community investment
Notes:
* These numbers correspond to the numbers in the PSI questionnaire. Items with numbers higher than 99 are sectorspecific questions. Appendix 1 has the complete questionnaire.
www.roberts.cmc.edu
15
Motor Vehicle and Consumer Durables Sectors 2012
Motor Vehicle and Consumer Durables
Environmental Intent Elements of the PSI Scores
Environmental management
system
93.3%
88.3%
Environmental policy
statement
93.3%
88.3%
Environmental visionary
statement
93.3%
91.7%
Climate change/global
warming
90.0%
86.7%
86.7%
76.7%
Stakeholder consultation
83.3%
Environmental management
structure
50.0%
Environmental education
73.3%
70.0%
Environmental impediments
and challenges
73.3%
71.7%
70.0%
65.0%
Green purchasing
Biodiversity
63.3%
58.3%
Habitat/ecosystem
conservation
63.3%
60.0%
60.0%
51.7%
Report contact person
46.7%
40.0%
Environmental accounting
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
= Percentage of companies addressing the topics
= Percentage of the total possible number of points awarded to all companies combined for each topic,
indicating the depth of reporting coverage measured by PSI criteria for each topic. If both percentages are
the same it means that each of those reporting companies reporting on a topic got all the possible points.
www.roberts.cmc.edu
16
Motor Vehicle and Consumer Durables Sectors 2012
Motor Vehicle and Consumer Durables
Environmental Reporting Elements of the PSI Scores
Energy used (total)
44.3%
Waste (solid) disposed of
44.8%
Product performance, recyclability
24.8%
46.2%
Water used
45.2%
Product performance, emissions
28.6%
Nitrogen oxides (NOx)
28.6%
Life Cycle Analysis (LCA)
80.0%
76.7%
70.0%
70.0%
63.3%
22.9%
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
63.3%
34.3%
Particulate matter (dust)
60.0%
18 . 6 %
Logistics emissions
56.7%
2 1. 0 %
Energy used (renewable)
56.7%
18 . 1%
Materials reused or recycled: Packaging materials
12 . 9 %
Waste water released to natural water bodies
12 . 9 %
Energy used: Logistics
14 . 3 %
2 1. 0 %
Waste (hazardous) produced
20.0%
Waste: Packaging materials
9.0%
Materials recycled: Wastewater
9.0%
50.0%
50.0%
46.7%
46.7%
40.0%
40.0%
36.7%
Fines (environmental)
11. 9 %
Materials used: Non-returnable packaging
12 . 9 %
Waste (hazardous) released to the environment
53.3%
46.7%
11. 0 %
Environmental expenses and investments
16 . 7 %
36.7%
36.7%
20.0%
6.2%
Volatile organic carbon (VOC), concentration
16 . 7 %
5.7%
Carbon monoxide (CO)
16 . 7 %
5.2%
Energy used: Products
83.3%
3 8 . 1%
Waste recycled: solid waste
Notices of violation (environmental)
83.3%
35.2%
Product performance, fuel efficiency
Waste (office) recycled
86.7%
83.3%
Greenhouse gases (or CO2 equivalents), total
Remanufacturing of products
90.0%
13 . 3 %
5.2%
11. 8 %
3.4%
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
17
Motor Vehicle and Consumer Durables Sectors 2012
Motor Vehicle and Consumer Durables
Social Intent Elements of the PSI Scores
100.0%
90.0%
Social visionary statement
86.7%
81.7%
Supplier screening based on social or environmental
performance/ supplier management
83.3%
76.7%
Employee training for career development
80.0%
75.0%
Social policy statement
76.7%
65.0%
Code of conduct or business ethics
Third-party validation
70.0%
55.0%
Workforce profile: gender
70.0%
65.0%
60.0%
Health and safety, or social organizational structure
35.0%
Employment for individuals with disabilities
53.3%
41.7%
Social impediments and challenges
53.3%
45.0%
Emergency preparedness program
46.7%
36.7%
Workforce profile: age
46.7%
35.0%
30.0%
25.0%
Workforce profile: ethnicities/race
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
= Percentage of companies addressing the topics
= Percentage of the total possible number of points awarded to all companies combined for each topic,
indicating the depth of reporting coverage measured by PSI criteria for each topic. If both percentages are
the same it means that each of those reporting companies reporting on a topic got all the possible points.
www.roberts.cmc.edu
18
Motor Vehicle and Consumer Durables Sectors 2012
Motor Vehicle and Consumer Durables
Social Reporting Elements of the PSI Scores
Community development
45.7%
Community education
45.2%
Elimination of discrimination in respect to employment and
occupation
46.7%
Occupational health and safety protection
46.2%
Employee volunteerism
83.3%
80.0%
76.7%
73.3%
46.7%
Effective abolition of child labor
70.0%
34.3%
Social community investment
66.7%
23.3%
Free association and collective bargaining of employees
66.7%
33.8%
Employee satisfaction surveys
30.5%
Elimination of all forms of forced and compulsory labor
30.5%
Bribery
31.0%
Product performance, noise
63.3%
63.3%
63.3%
63.3%
15.2%
Lost workday case rate
60.0%
30.5%
Recordable incident/accident rate
60.0%
32.4%
Sexual harassment
29.0%
Consumer education program
31.4%
Women in management
27.1%
Fair compensation of employees
26.7%
Political contributions
25.2%
56.7%
56.7%
53.3%
50.0%
50.0%
20.0%
Reasonable working hours
46.7%
30.0%
12.4%
Employee turnover rate
Health and safety fines
86.7%
20.5%
Anti-corruption practices
Degrading treatment or punishment of employees
86.7%
41.0%
Product performance, safety
Health and safety citations
86.7%
23.3%
7.1%
16.7%
9.5%
6.7%
1.9%
0%
10% 20%
30% 40%
50% 60%
70% 80%
90% 100%
= Percentage of companies addressing the topics
= Percentage of the total possible number of points awarded to all companies combined for each topic,
indicating the depth of reporting coverage measured by PSI criteria for each topic. If both percentages are
the same it means that each of those reporting companies reporting on a topic got all the possible points.
www.roberts.cmc.edu
19
Motor Vehicle and Consumer Durables Sectors 2012
EI Score Rankings
Environmental Intent Scores
Denso
BMW Group
A+
Denso
100.0
A+
BMW Group
96.2
A
Bridgestone
Daimler AG
Mazda Motor
Bridgestone
92.3
A
A
Daimler AG
92.3
A
Toyota Motor
Johnson Controls
Aisin Seiki
Mazda Motor
88.5
A
A-
T oyota Motor
88.5
A-
Toyota Industries
Johnson Controls
88.5
A-
Peugeot
Hyundai Motor
Michelin
Aisin Seiki
84.6
AA-
T oyota Industries
84.6
A-
Porsche
Peugeot
84.6
Hyundai Motor
AA-
Fiat
Ford Motor
84.6
B+
Electrolux
80.8
B+
Mitsubishi
Porsche
80.8
B+
B+
Whirlpool
Nissan Motor
Fiat
80.8
B
Honda Motor
Ford Motor
80.8
B
B-
Renault
Suzuki Motor
Michelin
76.9
Electrolux
B-
Tata Motors
73.1
B-
Volvo Group
W hirlpool
73.1
C+
C
Continental AG
Hyundai Mobis
Nissan Motor
73.1
C-
Magna International
D+
F
Fortune Brands
SAIC Motor
F
Dongfeng Motor Group
Mitsubishi
Honda Motor
69.2
65.4
Renault
61.5
Suzuki Motor
T ata Motors
57.7
Volvo Group
57.7
50.0
Continental AG
Hyundai Mobis
42.3
34.6
Magna International
26.9
Fortune Brands
SAIC Motor 3.8
Dongfeng Motor Group 0.0
0
25
50
75
100
Environmental intent scores include topics about the firm’s products, environmental organization, vision and commitment,
stakeholders, environmental policy and certifications, environmental aspects and impacts, choice of environmental
performance indicators and those used by the industry, environmental initiatives and mitigations, and environmental goals
and targets.
www.roberts.cmc.edu
20
Motor Vehicle and Consumer Durables Sectors 2012
ER Score Rankings
Environmental Reporting Scores
A+
BMW Group
A-
Electrolux
38.89
AA-
Whirlpool
Denso
47.59
BMW Group
40.00
Electrolux
W hirlpool
Denso
38.16
A-
Hyundai Motor
Hyundai Motor
37.78
T oyota Industries
36.22
B+
B+
Toyota Industries
Ford Motor
Ford Motor
35.86
B+
Toyota Motor
B+
Suzuki Motor
Fiat
Peugeot
T oyota Motor
35.78
Suzuki Motor
34.71
B+
B
Fiat
34.02
B
Daimler AG
Peugeot
33.56
Daimler AG
32.44
B
B
Mazda Motor
Honda Motor
B-
Johnson Controls
B-
Michelin
Aisin Seiki
Nissan Motor
30.57
Mazda Motor
Honda Motor
30.44
Johnson Controls
28.67
C+
C+
27.56
C
Porsche
C
C
Renault
Volvo Group
C
Continental AG
C-
Bridgestone
Mitsubishi
Tata Motors
Michelin
24.14
Aisin Seiki
Nissan Motor
22.00
Porsche
21.11
Renault
20.92
Volvo Group
19.54
CC-
Continental AG
18.22
D+
Hyundai Mobis
D
D-
Fortune Brands
Magna International
F
SAIC Motor
F
Dongfeng Motor Group
Bridgestone
16.00
Mitsubishi
14.89
T ata Motors
14.48
Hyundai Mobis 10.67
Fortune Brands 6.00
Magna International 2.76
SAIC Motor 0.00
Dongfeng Motor Group 0.00
0
25
50
75
100
Environmental reporting scores are based on the degree to which the company discusses its emissions, energy sources
and consumption, environmental incidents and violations, materials use, mitigations and remediation, waste produced, and
water used. They also include use of life cycle analysis, environmental performance and stewardship of products, and
environmental performance of suppliers and contractors.
www.roberts.cmc.edu
21
Motor Vehicle and Consumer Durables Sectors 2012
Environmental Performance Scores
EP Score Rankings
A+
BMW Group
A-
Toyota Industries
B+
Electrolux
18.33
BB-
Peugeot
Honda Motor
Honda Motor
18.33
B-
Denso
Denso
17.24
Suzuki Motor
17.24
BB-
Suzuki Motor
Ford Motor
Ford Motor
17.24
C+
Whirlpool
16.67
C+
Renault
15.52
C+
C+
Fiat
Daimler AG
C+
Toyota Motor
C+
C
Hyundai Motor
Nissan Motor
C
Aisin Seiki
C
Volvo Group
CC-
Mazda Motor
Continental AG
D+
Bridgestone
D+
D
Porsche
Michelin
BMW Group
31.03
T oyota Industries
25.00
Electrolux
22.41
Peugeot
W hirlpool
Renault
Fiat
15.52
Daimler AG
15.00
T oyota Motor
15.00
Hyundai Motor
15.00
Nissan Motor
13.33
Aisin Seiki
12.07
Volvo Group
12.07
Mazda Motor 10.34
Continental AG 10.00
Bridgestone 8.33
Porsche 6.67
D
Johnson Controls
Michelin 5.00
D-
Hyundai Mobis
Johnson Controls 5.00
DF
Mitsubishi
Magna International
Mitsubishi 1.67
F
Fortune Brands
Magna International 0.00
Fortune Brands 0.00
F
F
Tata Motors
SAIC Motor
T ata Motors 0.00
F
Dongfeng Motor Group
Hyundai Mobis 3.33
SAIC Motor 0.00
Dongfeng Motor Group 0.00
0
25
50
75
100
Environmental performance scores are based on whether or not the firm has improved its performance on each of the
topics discussed under the heading of environmental reporting, and on whether the quality of the performance is better
than that of the firm’s peers. Scoring for each topic is one point if performance is better than in previous reports, two
points if better than industry peers, three points if both.
www.roberts.cmc.edu
22
Motor Vehicle and Consumer Durables Sectors 2012
SI Score Rankings
Social Intent Scores
A+
A
Denso
Peugeot
A-
Mazda Motor
AB+
Bridgestone
Fiat
73.08
B+
BMW Group
73.08
B+
Aisin Seiki
Daimler AG
Toyota Motor
Denso
96.15
Peugeot
84.62
Mazda Motor
80.77
Bridgestone
80.77
Fiat
BMW Group
Aisin Seiki
69.23
Daimler AG
69.23
B+
B+
T oyota Motor
69.23
B+
Johnson Controls
69.23
B
B
Electrolux
Michelin
B
Whirlpool
B
Continental AG
B
B
Nissan Motor
Hyundai Motor
B-
Ford Motor
BC+
Suzuki Motor
Tata Motors
Johnson Controls
Electrolux
65.38
Michelin
65.38
W hirlpool
65.38
Continental AG
65.38
Nissan Motor
65.38
Hyundai Motor
61.54
Ford Motor
57.69
Suzuki Motor
53.85
C+
Toyota Industries
T ata Motors
50.00
C+
Hyundai Mobis
T oyota Industries
50.00
Hyundai Mobis
50.00
C+
C+
Renault
Volvo Group
50.00
C
Magna International
CC-
Honda Motor
Porsche
D+
Fortune Brands
D+
Mitsubishi
DF
SAIC Motor
Dongfeng Motor Group
Renault
Volvo Group
46.15
Magna International
38.46
Honda Motor
34.62
Porsche
30.77
Fortune Brands
26.92
Mitsubishi
23.08
SAIC Motor 7.69
Dongfeng Motor Group 3.85
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
23
Motor Vehicle and Consumer Durables Sectors 2012
SR Score Rankings
Social Reporting Scores
Electrolux
71.54
W hirlpool
64.36
BMW Group
63.85
Johnson Controls
55.51
Daimler AG
52.05
Peugeot
51.15
A+
Electrolux
A
A
Whirlpool
BMW Group
B+
Johnson Controls
B+
B+
Daimler AG
Peugeot
Ford Motor
48.85
B
Ford Motor
Hyundai Motor
47.44
B
Hyundai Motor
Mazda Motor
46.02
B
B-
Mazda Motor
Denso
B-
Tata Motors
BB-
Fiat
Nissan Motor
C+
Renault
C+
Volvo Group
C+
C
Toyota Industries
Continental AG
C
Michelin
Bridgestone
Toyota Motor
Denso
43.59
T ata Motors
42.95
Fiat
40.64
Nissan Motor
38.85
Renault
38.08
Volvo Group
37.95
T oyota Industries
36.28
Continental AG
32.31
Michelin
31.15
Bridgestone
30.51
C
C
T oyota Motor
30.51
C
Aisin Seiki
Aisin Seiki
29.23
C
Fortune Brands
Fortune Brands
28.46
25.51
CC-
Suzuki Motor
Magna International
Magna International
23.85
C-
Hyundai Mobis
Hyundai Mobis
23.33
D
D
Honda Motor
Porsche
Suzuki Motor
Honda Motor
14.36
D
Mitsubishi
9.23
F
SAIC Motor
SAIC Motor 0.00
F
Dongfeng Motor Group
Porsche 9.36
Mitsubishi
Dongfeng Motor Group 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
24
Motor Vehicle and Consumer Durables Sectors 2012
SP Score Rankings
Social Performance Scores
BMW Group
46.15
Electrolux
38.46
Daimler AG
34.62
W hirlpool
30.77
A+
BMW Group
A-
Electrolux
B+
B
Daimler AG
Whirlpool
C+
Peugeot
Fortune Brands
Tata Motors
Peugeot
23.08
Fortune Brands
21.15
C+
C+
T ata Motors
21.15
C+
Johnson Controls
Johnson Controls
21.15
C
Denso
Toyota Industries
Hyundai Motor
Denso
19.23
T oyota Industries
17.31
CC-
Hyundai Motor
17.31
C-
Ford Motor
17.31
Michelin
Nissan Motor
Michelin
13.46
CC-
Nissan Motor
13.46
D+
Mazda Motor
11.54
D+
Aisin Seiki
11.54
D+
D+
Renault
Fiat
D+
Volvo Group
D
D
Toyota Motor
Hyundai Mobis
D
Porsche
D
Suzuki Motor
DD-
Continental AG
Bridgestone
Continental AG 3.85
F
Magna International
Bridgestone 3.85
Magna International 0.00
F
F
Mitsubishi
SAIC Motor
Mitsubishi 0.00
F
Dongfeng Motor Group
SAIC Motor 0.00
F
Honda Motor
Ford Motor
Mazda Motor
Aisin Seiki
Renault 11.54
Fiat 11.54
Volvo Group
9.62
T oyota Motor 7.69
Hyundai Mobis 5.77
Porsche 5.77
Suzuki Motor 5.77
Dongfeng Motor Group 0.00
Honda Motor 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
25
Motor Vehicle and Consumer Durables Sectors 2012
Motor Vehicle and Consumer Durables
Human Rights Reporting Elements of the PSI Scores
Percent of companies reporting*
Human Rights Topics
adoption
reinforcement
monitoring
73.3%
40.0%
36.7%
13.3%
63.3%
23.3%
16.7%
6.7%
16.7%
10.0%
6.7%
0.0%
70.0%
30.0%
13.3%
6.7%
63.3%
26.7%
13.3%
3.3%
86.7%
46.7%
23.3%
13.3%
50.0%
26.7%
10.0%
10.0%
66.7%
36.7%
10.0%
10.0%
50.0%
6.7%
6.7%
6.7%
46.7%
30.0%
10.0%
6.7%
53.3%
36.7%
13.3%
0.0%
Anti-corruption practices
Bribery
Degrading treatment or punishment of employees
Effective abolition of child labor
Elimination of all forms of forced and compulsory labor
Elimination of discrimination in respect to employment
and occupation
Fair compensation of employees
Free association and collective bargaining of
employees
Political contributions
Reasonable working hours
Sexual harassment
compliance
Basis of Scores
Adoption
We assign one point for adoption of a policy standard or for an explicit discussion of an organization’s stance on each of
11 human rights principles.
Reinforcement
We assign one point for a description of reinforcement actions to make a policy stronger, such as providing educational
programs, training, or other activities to promote awareness.
Monitoring
We assign one point for a description of monitoring measures including mechanisms to detect violations at an early
stage, providing systematic reporting, or establishment of committee structure to oversee risky activities.
Compliance
We assign one point for a quantitative indication of compliance, such as a description of incidences of failure of
compliance, or a statement that there were no such incidences.
www.roberts.cmc.edu
26
Motor Vehicle and Consumer Durables Sectors 2012
Motor Vehicle and Consumer Durables
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
Sweden
South Korea
Japan
Italy
Overall
India
Germany
France
China
Canada
Country
N
Canada
1
China
2
France
3
Sweden
Germany
India
4
1
South Korea
Italy
1
Japan
Japan
South Korea
10
2
Sweden
2
USA
4
USA
Italy
Environmental
India
Germany
France
China
Canada
USA
Sweden
South Korea
Japan
Italy
Social
India
Germany
France
China
Canada
0
www.roberts.cmc.edu
5
10
15
20
25
30
27
35
40
45
50
Motor Vehicle and Consumer Durables Sectors 2012
Visual Cluster Analysis
Visual cluster analysis multivariate data of the sort produced by the PSI are difficult to summarize. Here we have created radar diagrams
of the performance of each company analyzed in the sector by its environmental and social intent, reporting, and performance sorted by
company ranking. Maximum scores will match the outer sides of the hexagon, which total up to 100 percent.
EI = Environmental Intent, ER = Environmental Reporting, EP = Environmental Performance
SI = Social Intent, SR = Social Reporting, SP = Social Performance
ER
EI
ER
100
100
75
75
75
50
EP
EI
EI
EP
50
EI
EP
50
EI
50
25
25
25
0
0
0
0
SP
SI
SP
SI
SR
SP
SI
SR
Electrolux
SI
SR
Whirlpool
ER
SP
SR
Denso
ER
Daimler AG
ER
ER
100
100
100
100
75
75
75
75
75
50
EP
EI
50
EP
EI
EP
50
EI
EP
50
EI
50
25
25
25
25
25
0
0
0
0
0
SP
SI
SR
SP
SI
SR
Peugeot
SI
SR
Hyundai Motor
ER
SP
ER
SP
SI
SR
Ford Motor
SP
Mazda Motor
ER
ER
100
100
100
100
100
75
75
75
75
75
50
EP
EI
50
EP
EI
EP
50
EI
EP
50
EI
50
25
25
25
25
25
0
0
0
0
0
SI
SP
SI
SR
SP
SI
SR
Toyota Industries
SI
SR
Fiat
ER
SP
ER
SP
SI
SR
Toyota Motor
SP
Michelin
ER
ER
100
100
100
100
100
75
75
75
75
75
50
EP
EI
25
EP
EI
25
0
SI
50
SI
SR
ER
SP
SR
SI
SR
SP
SR
Tata Motors
ER
ER
100
100
100
100
100
75
75
75
75
75
50
EP
EI
50
EP
EI
EP
50
EI
EP
50
EI
50
25
25
25
25
25
0
0
0
0
0
SP
SI
SP
SI
SR
SR
Bridgestone
SR
Porsche
ER
Hyundai Mobis
ER
ER
100
100
100
100
100
75
75
75
75
75
50
EP
EI
50
EP
EI
EP
50
EI
EP
50
EI
50
25
25
25
25
25
0
0
0
0
0
SI
SP
SR
Fortune Brands
www.roberts.cmc.edu
SI
SP
SR
Mitsubishi
SI
SP
SR
Magna International
28
EP
SP
SI
SR
Honda Motor
ER
SP
SI
SR
Continental AG
ER
SP
SI
EP
0
SP
Volvo Group
ER
50
25
SI
Renault
ER
EI
0
SI
Aisin Seiki
EP
50
25
0
SP
SR
Suzuki Motor
EI
25
0
SP
EP
50
EP
SR
Nissan Motor
ER
EP
SR
Johnson Controls
ER
EP
SP
100
SI
EI
EP
25
0
ER
EI
50
25
SR
EI
ER
100
75
BMW Group
EI
ER
100
75
SI
EI
ER
100
SI
SP
SR
SI
EP
SP
SR
SAIC Motor
Dongfeng Motor
Group
Motor Vehicle and Consumer Durables Sectors 2012
Relationships Between Overall PSI Score and Companies' Revenue and Profit
Company Name
Overall
Score
Revenue
($million)
Revenue
Log10 $M
Profits
Profits
($million) Log $M
10
Assets Assets
($million) Log $M
10
Market
Value
($million)
Market
Value
Log10 $M
Aisin Seiki
BMW Group
28.44
53.72
22740
1.36
-260
17220
1.24
7740
0.89
74090
1.87
450
-0.35
139310
2.14
26830
1.43
Bridgestone
25.59
27940
1.45
10
-2.00
28720
1.46
14440
1.16
Continental AG
Daimler AG
23.75
41.00
28790
1.46
-2360
32020
1.51
9010
0.95
110060
2.04
-3690
184490
2.27
45070
1.65
1.51
-860
29340
1.47
24050
1.38
Denso
Dongfeng Motor Gro
41.31
0.23
32280
10360
1.02
590
-0.23
8640
0.94
12700
1.10
Electrolux
49.89
15240
1.18
360
-0.44
9800
0.99
6090
0.78
Fiat
Ford Motor
35.48
38.49
71780
1.86
-1200
92760
1.97
13240
1.12
118310
2.07
2720
0.43
194850
2.29
41800
1.62
Fortune Brands
15.71
6210
0.79
240
-0.62
12370
1.09
6680
0.82
Honda Motor
Hyundai Mobis
22.64
16.67
102820
2.01
1410
0.15
117240
2.07
63220
1.80
11110
1.05
840
-0.08
8300
0.92
12460
1.10
Hyundai Motor
38.57
63950
1.81
690
-0.16
81450
1.91
21840
1.34
Johnson Controls
Magna International
37.65
12.19
29570
1.47
620
-0.21
23810
1.38
21410
1.33
17370
1.24
-490
12300
1.09
6400
0.81
Mazda Motor
Michelin
36.15
28.72
26040
1.42
-730
20650
1.31
150
Mitsubishi
13.35
20270
1.31
Nissan Motor
Peugeot
29.76
40.67
86650
Porsche
Renault
SAIC Motor
Suzuki Motor
17500
1.24
4660
0.67
23670
1.37
10360
1.02
-560
11440
1.06
7990
0.90
1.94
-2400
102520
2.01
35650
1.55
69370
1.84
-1660
91190
1.96
5970
0.78
17.66
81310
1.91
-3600
300450
2.48
8880
0.95
28.18
0.66
47010
1.67
-4360
91690
1.96
11270
1.05
15440
1.19
100
-1.00
15770
1.20
21110
1.32
28.56
30860
1.49
280
-0.55
20590
1.31
11620
1.07
Tata Motors
Toyota Industries
26.15
35.51
13610
1.13
-490
14290
1.16
7930
0.90
16270
1.21
-340
23450
1.37
8610
0.94
Toyota Motor
32.60
210840
2.32
-4490
292730
2.47
127100
2.10
Volvo Group
Whirlpool
26.34
45.13
30490
1.48
-2060
44770
1.65
18310
1.26
17100
1.23
330
15090
1.18
6430
0.81
-0.82
-0.48
Source:
www.roberts.cmc.edu
29
2010 Forbes List
Motor Vehicle and Consumer Durables Sectors 2012
60
5 3 .7 2
50
4 9 .8 9
Overall PSI Scores
4 5 .13
4 1.3 1
40
3 5 .5 1
4 1.0 0
4 0 .6 7
3 8 .5 7
3 7 .6 5
3 6 .15
3 8 .4 9
3 5 .4 8
3 2 .6 0
30
2 9 .7 6
2 8 2.782.4 4
2 8 .5 6
2 6 .3 4
2 5 .5 9
2 3 .7 5
2 6 .15
2 8 .18
2 2 .6 4
20
17 .6 6
16 .6 7
15 .7 1
13 .3 5
12 .19
10
2
R = 0.1772
0 .6 6
0 .2 3
0
0
0.5
1
1. 5
2
2.5
Revenue
Log10 $M
60
53.72
49.89
50
4 5 . 13
Overall PSI Scores
40
38.57
37.65
28.72
28.56
38.49
30
25.59
22.64
20
15 . 7 1
2 16 . 6 7
R = 0.0366
10
0.66
- 2.5
-2
- 1.5
0 . 203
-1
- 0.5
0
0.5
1
Profits
Log10 $M
www.roberts.cmc.edu
30
Motor Vehicle and Consumer Durables Sectors 2012
60
53.72
50
49.89
Overall PSI Scores
4 5 . 13
4 1. 3 1
40
4 1. 0 0
38.49
40.67
38.57
37.65
3 6 . 153 5 . 5 1
35.48
32.60
30
29.76
2 8 . 18
2 8 .24 842. 586. 7 2
2 6 . 15
25.59 26.34
23.75
22.64
2
20
R = 0.132
16 . 6 7
17 . 6 6
15 . 7 1
13 . 3 5
12 . 19
10
0.66
0.23
0
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
Asset
Log10 $M
60
53.72
50
49.89
Overall PSI Scores
4 5 . 13
4 1. 3 1
38.57
37.65
40.67
40
3 6 . 15
35.51
4 1. 0 0
38.49
35.48
32.60
30
29.76
2 8 . 4 4 2 822.878.2.18
56
2 6 . 15
2 5 . 5 92 6 . 3 4
23.75
22.64
20
17 . 6 6
16 . 6 7
15 . 7 1
13 . 3 5
12 . 19
2
R = 0.0149
10
0.66
0.23
0
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Market Value
Log10 $M
www.roberts.cmc.edu
31
Motor Vehicle and Consumer Durables Sectors 2012
Number of Explicit numerical goals Reported
BMW Group
12
11
Ford Motor
9
Fiat
8
Denso
7
Mitsubishi
6
Toyota Industries
5
Johnson Controls
5
Toyota Motor
5
Mazda Motor
5
Honda Motor
5
Daimler AG
4
Fortune Brands
4
Electrolux
4
Nissan Motor
4
Peugeot
Renault
4
4
Continental AG
4
Volvo Group
3
Aisin Seiki
3
Whirlpool
2
Hyundai Motor
Porsche 2
Suzuki Motor 2
Michelin 2
Tata Motors 1
0
5
10
15
20
25
Explicit Goals Most Frequently Reported
1
Waste (solid) disposed of
13
2
Greenhouse gases (or CO2 equivalents), total
10
3
Water used
9
4
Product performance, recyclability
9
5
Energy used (total)
7
6
Product performance, emissions
6
7
Waste recycled: solid waste
6
www.roberts.cmc.edu
32
Motor Vehicle and Consumer Durables Sectors 2012
Number of Topics Showing Performance Improvement over Previous Year Data
BMW Group
21
Toyota Industries
19
Denso
15
Daimler AG
14
Electrolux
14
Ford Motor
14
Hyundai Motor
11
Renault
11
Peugeot
11
Whirlpool
11
Fiat
10
Suzuki Motor
10
Toyota Motor
9
Johnson Controls
9
Aisin Seiki
9
Honda Motor
9
Mazda Motor
7
Volvo Group
7
Nissan Motor
6
Continental AG
6
Bridgestone
6
Michelin
5
Porsche
4
Hyundai Mobis 1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Topics Most Frequently Reported as Having Improvements over previous year data
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Water used
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
Energy used (total)
Waste (solid) disposed of
Greenhouse gases (or CO2 equivalents), total
Product performance, emissions
Recordable incident/accident rate
Lost workday case rate
Waste (hazardous) released to the environment
Product performance, fuel efficiency
Waste (hazardous) produced
Nitrogen oxides (NOx)
Logistics emissions
Waste recycled: solid waste
Materials used: Non-returnable packaging
Women in management
www.roberts.cmc.edu
17
16
16
15
15
13
11
9
8
8
7
6
6
5
5
5
33
Motor Vehicle and Consumer Durables Sectors 2012
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Occupational health and safety protection
Employee satisfaction surveys
Employee volunteerism
Environmental expenses and investments
Life Cycle Analysis (LCA)
Employee turnover rate
Energy used (renewable)
Community education
Waste (office) recycled
Fines (environmental)
Waste water released to natural water bodies
Social community investment
Energy used: Logistics
Consumer education program
Waste: Packaging materials
Particulate matter (dust)
Remanufacturing of products
Materials recycled: Wastewater
Product performance, safety
Health and safety citations
Product performance, noise
Carbon monoxide (CO)
Volatile organic carbon (VOC), concentration
Product performance, recyclability
Health and safety fines
Notices of violation (environmental)
Materials reused or recycled: Packaging materials
Community development
AA1000, AccountAbility
www.roberts.cmc.edu
34
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
Motor Vehicle and Consumer Durables Sectors 2012
Number of Topics in which Performance was Better than Sector Average*
Electrolux
4
BMW Group
3
Porsche
3
Toyota Motor
3
Honda Motor
2
Hyundai Mobis
2
Nissan Motor
2
Continental AG
1
Daimler AG
1
Denso
1
Hyundai Motor
1
Johnson Controls
1
Peugeot
1
Volvo Group
1
Whirlpool
1
0
1
2
3
4
5
*Sector averages are calculated from the materials scored for this report.
www.roberts.cmc.edu
35
Motor Vehicle and Consumer Durables Sectors 2012
C+
Aisin 2010 Corporate Sustainability Report, 4th
Environmental Plan, and 2011 Web Pages
Aisin Seiki
Aisin Seki demonstrates a clear commitment to corporate sustainability, as seen in its 2010 Corporate Sustainability Report, 2010 Web Pages, and 4th
Environmental Action Plan. Much of its quantitative data, however, is not transparent. This is especially evident in Aisin Seki’s reporting of water usage
and release to natural water bodies and logistics emissions. Only ten of twenty-three of Aisin Seki’s subsidiaries were reported.•Aisin Seki’s commitment
to stakeholders and promoting biodiversity are two highlights of Aisin Seki’s environmental responsibility. Also, the company promotes a balance of male
and female employees, as seen in its Reduced Working Hours for Childcare Program to increase women in its workforce. To improve its PSI score, Aisin
Seki needs to report more quantitative data, completely and transparently.
Analyst(s): Hilary Haskell
Karen de Wolski
E=Total Environmental Score, ESA=Environmental Sector Average Score, EI=Environmental Intent, ER=Environmental Reporting, EP=Environmental Performance, S=Total Social
Score, SSA=Social Sector Average Score, SI=Social Intent, SR=Social Reporting, SP=Social Performance
Comparison with sector averages
Distribution of points
Source of points
E
85
ES A
E
48%
S
S
52%
SSA
0
25
50
69
29
24
EI
75
ER
12
12
EP
SI
SR
Aisin Seiki
SP
Environmental Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
2
4
50
Good
Management
8
8
100
Excellent
Policy
8
10
80
Excellent
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
10
49
20
Needs substantial improvement
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
8
21
38
Needs improvement
Management
3
21
14
Needs substantial improvement
Needs substantial improvement
Materials Usage
1
14
7
Products
7
21
33
Needs improvement
Recycling
4
35
11
Needs substantial improvement
Waste
9
35
26
Needs improvement
Water
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
2
4
50
Good
Management
6
10
60
Good
Policy
4
6
67
Good
Social Demographic
2
2
100
Excellent
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
14
77
18
Needs substantial improvement
Needs substantial improvement
Social Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Social Reporting
Question Category
Human Rights
Management
0
7
0
Qualitative Social
16
56
29
Needs improvement
Quantitative Social
14
42
33
Needs improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
36
Motor Vehicle and Consumer Durables Sectors 2012
A+
BMW 2008 Sustainable Value Report and 2011 Web
Pages
BMW Group
The 2008 BMW Sustainable Value Report covers a wide range of topics detailing its commitment to care for the environment and its communities. Although
BMW has taken initiative in implementing top environmental management systems, its report did not include as much quantitative data as we prefer to
score. The BMW Group has a high level of involvement with particular communities, describing a variety of social projects in the report. Social involvement
is demonstrated through the Corporate Investment and Community Impact Award received by BMW from CiCi in March of 2009, and numerous community
education projects such as SEED school in South Africa. Employees of BMW group receive a large amount of job and skill training, and surveyed as 89.2%
very satisfied. • The BMW group chose to go above and beyond the environmental management system, ISO 14001, and sets higher standards for its effect
on the environment, as well as for its suppliers. A separate report is created for BMW Group’s stance on climate change, and it details effective policy
options for vehicle manufacturers to take in order to fight climate change. BMW also prides the recyclability of the vehicles produced, with close to the full
vehicle recyclable. BMW group does not include any information of fine or violations received.
Analyst(s): Whitney Ellen Dawson
Carolyn Campbell
E=Total Environmental Score, ESA=Environmental Sector Average Score, EI=Environmental Intent, ER=Environmental Reporting, EP=Environmental Performance, S=Total Social
Score, SSA=Social Sector Average Score, SI=Social Intent, SR=Social Reporting, SP=Social Performance
Comparison with sector averages
Distribution of points
Source of points
E
96
73
E
45%
ES A
S
48
S
55%
SSA
0
25
50
64
46
31
BMW Group
EI
75
ER
EP
SI
SR
SP
Environmental Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
3
4
75
Excellent
Management
8
8
100
Excellent
Policy
10
10
100
Excellent
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Emissions to Air
28
49
57
Good
Good
Energy
11
21
52
Management
6
21
29
Needs improvement
Materials Usage
6
14
43
Needs improvement
Products
15
21
71
Good
Recycling
11
35
31
Needs improvement
Waste
6
35
17
Needs substantial improvement
Water
4
7
57
Good
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
1
4
25
Needs improvement
Management
7
10
70
Good
Policy
5
6
83
Excellent
Social Demographic
2
2
100
Excellent
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
42
77
55
Good
Social Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Social Reporting
Question Category
Human Rights
Management
7
7
100
Excellent
Qualitative Social
46
56
82
Excellent
Quantitative Social
14
42
33
Needs improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
37
Motor Vehicle and Consumer Durables Sectors 2012
C+
Bridgestone 2011 Environmental Report & 2012 Web
Pages
Bridgestone
Bridgestone’s pervasive theme of “One Team, One Planet” is deeply rooted in its mission statement. TEAMS (Total Environmental Advance Management
System) functions as Bridgestone’s overarching guide to ensure all global branches act in an environmentally and socially responsible manner. Bridgestone
identifies three main areas of environmental progress: products and services, operations, and community activities. Within each category, Bridgestone
provides a detailed discussion, as well as concrete examples, of how the company is continually striving towards a more environmentally sustainable
future. Whether through higher quality products such as energy efficient tires or better operating logistics, Bridgestone reports efforts to improve its
environmental performance. Bridgestone Americas requires all manufacturing facilities to obtain ISO 14001 certification within the first two years of
ownership. The company also stresses the importance of employee volunteerism as a way to create a more environmentally conscious atmosphere in the
communities in which it serves. Bridgestone implements several “eco-Projects” with four main points of emphasis: prevention of global warming,
biodiversity protection, educating the next generation, and moving towards a recycling-oriented society.
Analyst(s): Daniel Olmsted
Carolyn Campbell
E=Total Environmental Score, ESA=Environmental Sector Average Score, EI=Environmental Intent, ER=Environmental Reporting, EP=Environmental Performance, S=Total Social
Score, SSA=Social Sector Average Score, SI=Social Intent, SR=Social Reporting, SP=Social Performance
Comparison with sector averages
Distribution of points
Source of points
E
92
E
43%
ES A
S
S
57%
SSA
0
25
50
81
31
16
EI
75
ER
8
EP
4
SI
SR
Bridgestone
SP
Environmental Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
4
4
100
Excellent
Management
6
8
75
Excellent
Policy
10
10
100
Excellent
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
4
49
8
Needs substantial improvement
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
4
21
19
Needs substantial improvement
Management
0
21
0
Needs substantial improvement
Materials Usage
7
14
50
Good
Products
4
28
14
Needs substantial improvement
Recycling
2
35
6
Needs substantial improvement
Waste
4
35
11
Needs substantial improvement
Water
4
7
57
Good
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
4
4
100
Excellent
Good
Social Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Management
7
10
70
Policy
6
6
100
Social Demographic
0
2
0
Vision
4
4
100
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
8
77
10
Needs substantial improvement
Needs substantial improvement
Excellent
Needs substantial improvement
Excellent
Social Reporting
Question Category
Human Rights
Management
0
7
0
Qualitative Social
18
56
32
Needs improvement
Quantitative Social
12
42
29
Needs improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
38
Motor Vehicle and Consumer Durables Sectors 2012
C
Continental AG 2011 Web Pages
Continental AG
Continental’s web pages demonstrate strong commitment to corporate sustainability reporting. Continental presents quantitative data on its energy usage,
water usage, carbon dioxide emissions, and the extent to which the ISO 14001 management system has been implemented throughout Continental’s
organization. Additionally, Continental presents interesting findings on the relationship between tire rolling resistance, CO2 emissions, and breaking
performance. Continental provides basic information on its environmental management structure, but does not identify the individuals currently holding the
positions. The company also fails to report important data such as NOX and VOC emissions. More data should be published and the web pages should be
reorganized to avoid any overlap.
Analyst(s): Alan Hu
Karen de Wolski
E=Total Environmental Score, ESA=Environmental Sector Average Score, EI=Environmental Intent, ER=Environmental Reporting, EP=Environmental Performance, S=Total Social
Score, SSA=Social Sector Average Score, SI=Social Intent, SR=Social Reporting, SP=Social Performance
Comparison with sector averages
Distribution of points
Source of points
E
E
40%
ES A
S
S
60%
SSA
0
25
50
65
50
EI
75
32
18
10
ER
EP
4
SI
SR
Continental AG
SP
Environmental Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
2
4
50
Good
Good
Management
4
8
50
Policy
3
10
30
Needs improvement
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
8
49
16
Needs substantial improvement
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
6
21
29
Needs improvement
Management
0
21
0
Needs substantial improvement
Materials Usage
4
14
29
Needs improvement
Products
3
28
11
Needs substantial improvement
Recycling
0
35
0
Needs substantial improvement
Waste
6
35
17
Needs substantial improvement
Water
6
7
86
Excellent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
2
4
50
Good
Management
6
10
60
Good
Policy
5
6
83
Excellent
Social Demographic
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Vision
4
4
100
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
14
77
18
Needs substantial improvement
Needs improvement
Social Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Excellent
Social Reporting
Question Category
Human Rights
Management
3
7
43
Qualitative Social
16
56
29
Needs improvement
Quantitative Social
8
42
19
Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
39
Motor Vehicle and Consumer Durables Sectors 2012
B+
Daimler 2009 Sustainability Report, Integrity Code,
Diversity Management at Daimler, and 2010 Web
Pages
Daimler AG
Daimler AG makes a conscious effort to demonstrate near total transparency about its environmental impact and initiatives to offset that impact to the
public. This effort is evident in the company’s strict adherence to the Global Reporting Initiative’s indicators of corporate sustainability and environmental
impact. However, despite Daimler’s impressive GRI grade of an A+ and the large amount of detail in its 2010 Sustainability Report; the report was at times
confusing to read and determine specific information from. Daimler publishes two versions of the report, a print version and an interactive online report, the
latter containing more detailed graphs that offer the viewer the ability to customize the data that they wish to compare. While the print version contains the
same printed information about Daimler’s environmental and social initiatives, goals, and impacts, it lacks the detailed graphs of the online report. The lack
of easily accessible graphical data can make it challenging to find certain emissions data and to achieve a visual representation of the change in emissions
over time. Both reports would benefit from the addition of quantitative data pertaining to a wider range of emissions and waste categories. Additionally,
the printed report lacks sufficient tables containing data over a multi-year period to allow the reader to garner a sense of whether the net increase or
decrease in waste or emissions was on a yearly basis or due specifically to the decrease in sales that resulted during 2009 in the midst of the global
depression. One detail that is omitted from both reports is a figure for the safety ratings received by Daimler’s vehicles. This omission may be a result of
the inability to accurately compare the safety of a passenger van, bus, passenger car, and truck to one another; however, the data could be compiled if
done by percentage of the entire fleet of vehicles that meets the standards for the top safety rating offered by the ratings association for its relevant genre
of vehicle. Going forward, Daimler should include more graphs and data tables in their printed report that demonstrate a trend over time for all quantitative
data. The company should also be clearer about its social policy statement, as its current descriptions of the desire to make a social impact are very
general. As Daimler runs an impressive number of social initiatives, publishing a more specific statement of social policy would help the public connect its
global initiatives to one another and form a more unified approach to social impact.
Analyst(s): Elizabeth Duckworth
Karen de Wolski
E=Total Environmental Score, ESA=Environmental Sector Average Score, EI=Environmental Intent, ER=Environmental Reporting, EP=Environmental Performance, S=Total Social
Score, SSA=Social Sector Average Score, SI=Social Intent, SR=Social Reporting, SP=Social Performance
Comparison with sector averages
Distribution of points
Source of points
E
92
E
4 1%
ES A
S
69
S
59%
SSA
0
25
50
52
35
32
15
EI
75
ER
EP
Daimler AG
SI
SR
SP
Environmental Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
3
4
75
Excellent
Management
8
8
100
Excellent
Policy
10
10
100
Excellent
Vision
3
4
75
Excellent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
20
49
41
Needs improvement
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
8
21
38
Needs improvement
Management
2
21
10
Needs substantial improvement
Needs substantial improvement
Materials Usage
3
14
21
Products
7
28
25
Needs improvement
Recycling
7
35
20
Needs substantial improvement
Waste
6
35
17
Needs substantial improvement
Water
5
7
71
Good
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
3
4
75
Excellent
Good
Social Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Management
6
10
60
Policy
5
6
83
Excellent
Social Demographic
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Vision
4
4
100
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
39
77
51
Good
Excellent
Social Reporting
Question Category
Human Rights
Management
7
7
100
Excellent
Qualitative Social
29
56
52
Good
Quantitative Social
13
42
31
Needs improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
40
Motor Vehicle and Consumer Durables Sectors 2012
B+
Denso 2009 Corporate Sustainability Report, 2015
Ecovision, and 2011 Web Pages
Denso
Denso Corporation’s commitment to corporate sustainability reporting is evident in its 2009 Corporate Sustainability Report, 2010 web pages, and 2015
Ecovision Report. The corporation provided thorough and transparent reporting on its actions and initiatives.• More quantitative data, especially about
product performance should be included. Denso has already invested almost seventy seven-seven million dollars in 2009 alone on environmental
expenses.• Denso is committed to employment without discrimination against race, gender, age, or disability. This is highlighted by profiles and initiatives.
In addition, Denso emphasizes community efforts with its Denso Youth for Earth Action program and Denso Community Service Day.
Analyst(s): Hilary Haskell
Carolyn Campbell
E=Total Environmental Score, ESA=Environmental Sector Average Score, EI=Environmental Intent, ER=Environmental Reporting, EP=Environmental Performance, S=Total Social
Score, SSA=Social Sector Average Score, SI=Social Intent, SR=Social Reporting, SP=Social Performance
Comparison with sector averages
Source of points
Distribution of points
E
100
ES A
E
48%
S
S
52%
SSA
0
25
50
96
44
38
19
17
EI
75
ER
EP
Denso
SI
SR
SP
Environmental Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
4
4
100
Excellent
Management
8
8
100
Excellent
Policy
10
10
100
Excellent
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
17
49
35
Needs improvement
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
6
21
29
Needs improvement
Management
10
21
48
Needs improvement
Materials Usage
6
14
43
Needs improvement
Products
4
21
19
Needs substantial improvement
Recycling
7
35
20
Needs substantial improvement
Waste
12
35
34
Needs improvement
Water
3
7
43
Needs improvement
Social Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
3
4
75
Excellent
Management
10
10
100
Excellent
Policy
6
6
100
Excellent
Social Demographic
2
2
100
Excellent
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
22
77
29
Needs improvement
Social Reporting
Question Category
Human Rights
Management
7
7
100
Excellent
Qualitative Social
18
56
32
Needs improvement
Quantitative Social
17
42
40
Needs improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
41
Motor Vehicle and Consumer Durables Sectors 2012
F
Dongfeng Motor Corporation 2011 Web Pages
Dongfeng Motor
Group
Dongfeng Motor Corporation has shown almost no commitment to either social or environmental sustainability through any of its publicly accessible
information. While the company does have a Corporate Social Responsibility Report in Chinese, the Roberts Environmental Center does not score reports
that are not in English.
Analyst(s): Alan Hu
Bukola Jimoh
E=Total Environmental Score, ESA=Environmental Sector Average Score, EI=Environmental Intent, ER=Environmental Reporting, EP=Environmental Performance, S=Total Social
Score, SSA=Social Sector Average Score, SI=Social Intent, SR=Social Reporting, SP=Social Performance
Comparison with sector averages
Distribution of points
Source of points
E
0%
E
ES A
4
S
S
100%
SSA
0
25
50
75
0
0
0
EI
ER
EP
SI
0
0
SR
SP
Dongfeng Motor
Group
Environmental Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
0
4
0
Needs substantial improvement
Management
0
8
0
Needs substantial improvement
Policy
0
10
0
Needs substantial improvement
Vision
0
4
0
Needs substantial improvement
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
0
49
0
Needs substantial improvement
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
0
21
0
Needs substantial improvement
Management
0
21
0
Needs substantial improvement
Materials Usage
0
14
0
Needs substantial improvement
Products
0
21
0
Needs substantial improvement
Recycling
0
35
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
10
0
Needs substantial improvement
Policy
0
6
0
Needs substantial improvement
Social Demographic
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Vision
1
4
25
Needs improvement
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
0
77
0
Needs substantial improvement
Social Reporting
Question Category
Human Rights
Management
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Qualitative Social
0
56
0
Needs substantial improvement
Quantitative Social
0
42
0
Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
42
Motor Vehicle and Consumer Durables Sectors 2012
A
Electrolux Group 2009 GRI Summary Report and
2011 Web Pages
Electrolux
Electrolux provides extensive data on its environmental and social sustainability online, but improvements could be made to make this information more
readable and user-friendly. Rather than producing a designated sustainability report, Electrolux released only a brief GRI Summary Report, with additional
data available online. Pages of small text and graphs, while highly informative, could use more explanatory notes.••One area where Electrolux performed
extremely well was in human rights reporting. The Electrolux Workplace Standard outlines detailed policies and procedures for monitoring, preventing, and
dealing with human rights issues such as forced or child labor, harassment, working hours, and fair compensation. These, and other Electrolux policy
statements, are excellent examples of sound sustainability reporting. Although a few social programs are outlined, additional information regarding social
community investment programs and employee volunteerism would increase Electrolux’s score. Other missing data include emissions of specific pollutants,
such as volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, and nitrogen oxides. Overall, Electrolux shows a strong commitment to sustainability, but could
improve the methods by which it conveys this information.
Analyst(s): Erin Franks
Karen de Wolski
E=Total Environmental Score, ESA=Environmental Sector Average Score, EI=Environmental Intent, ER=Environmental Reporting, EP=Environmental Performance, S=Total Social
Score, SSA=Social Sector Average Score, SI=Social Intent, SR=Social Reporting, SP=Social Performance
Comparison with sector averages
Distribution of points
Source of points
E
77
E
39%
ES A
S
SSA
25
50
72
38
22
S
61%
0
65
40
Electrolux
EI
75
ER
EP
SI
SR
SP
Environmental Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
4
4
100
Excellent
Management
6
8
75
Excellent
Policy
6
10
60
Good
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Emissions to Air
9
49
18
Needs substantial improvement
Good
Energy
11
21
52
Management
6
21
29
Needs improvement
Materials Usage
10
14
71
Good
Products
9
21
43
Needs improvement
Recycling
7
35
20
Needs substantial improvement
Waste
15
35
43
Needs improvement
Water
4
7
57
Good
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
2
4
50
Good
Management
5
10
50
Good
Policy
6
6
100
Social Demographic
0
2
0
Vision
4
4
100
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
68
77
88
Excellent
Needs improvement
Social Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Excellent
Needs substantial improvement
Excellent
Social Reporting
Question Category
Human Rights
Management
2
7
29
Qualitative Social
20
56
36
Needs improvement
Quantitative Social
22
42
52
Good
www.roberts.cmc.edu
43
Motor Vehicle and Consumer Durables Sectors 2012
B
Fiat Group 2009 Sustainability Report, Business Code
of Conduct, and 2010 Web Pages
Fiat
Fiat Group’s web pages and nearly 200 page sustainability report are proof of a clear commitment to sustainability and improved environmental
performance. The company gives much relevant data about its initiatives in green technology and reduced levels of pollution from earlier periods. The
website’s layout of initiatives and future goals in a table form is a very clear and easy way of analyzing the company’s sustainability policy. The only area
that the company lacks sufficient data in is fines and notices of health, safety, and environmental violations and sustainable and environmental policy
statements. While the data is organized in a clear manner, it can be overwhelming for a typical reader to find specific information due to its sheer volume.
Analyst(s): Sam Kahr
Bukola Jimoh
E=Total Environmental Score, ESA=Environmental Sector Average Score, EI=Environmental Intent, ER=Environmental Reporting, EP=Environmental Performance, S=Total Social
Score, SSA=Social Sector Average Score, SI=Social Intent, SR=Social Reporting, SP=Social Performance
Comparison with sector averages
Source of points
Distribution of points
E
81
ES A
E
48%
S
S
52%
SSA
0
25
50
73
41
34
16
EI
75
ER
EP
12
SI
SR
Fiat
SP
Environmental Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
3
4
75
Excellent
Management
8
8
100
Excellent
Policy
8
10
80
Excellent
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
16
49
33
Needs improvement
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
6
21
29
Needs improvement
Management
3
21
14
Needs substantial improvement
Materials Usage
8
14
57
Good
Products
4
21
19
Needs substantial improvement
Recycling
6
35
17
Needs substantial improvement
Waste
10
35
29
Needs improvement
Water
5
7
71
Good
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
3
4
75
Excellent
Social Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Management
6
10
60
Good
Policy
6
6
100
Excellent
Social Demographic
1
2
50
Good
Vision
3
4
75
Excellent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
33
77
43
Needs improvement
Good
Social Reporting
Question Category
Human Rights
Management
4
7
57
Qualitative Social
17
56
30
Needs improvement
Quantitative Social
4
42
10
Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
44
Motor Vehicle and Consumer Durables Sectors 2012
B+
Ford Motor Company 2009/2010 Sustainability
Report, Code of Conduct, and 2011 Web Pages
Ford Motor
Ford Motor Company publishes a sustainability report each year that is specific to the current model year of its products. In its 2010/2011 report, the
company focuses on greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. Ford explores the idea that operating in an environmentally friendly fashion is more
than simply the company’s responsibility; it can also be fairly cost effective and lead to the generation of new profit for the company. Ford offers and
explains its visionary statement for its environmental and social actions but the company could benefit from mentioning ways in which its actions have not
been fully achieved as a result of difficulties encountered. The company is very positive about the effects it has had and the future effects it hopes to have
on the communities its operations are based in and the people it employs; however, it is difficult to garner a truly accurate sense of the company’s
achievements when no mention of failure is made. Ford’s published Code of Conduct is detailed and offers specific instructions of what to do and what not
to do should they find themselves in an ethically unclear situation. The company utilizes yearly employee satisfaction surveys to determine how helpful the
Code of Conduct is to its employees. Not included in the Code of Conduct, sustainability report or elsewhere on the Ford website is an evacuation or
containment plan for emergencies that may occur at the company’s plants. Additionally, there is a lack of quantitative data pertaining to various types of
emissions beyond CO2, water usage and waste produced by Ford’s plants. The company could benefit from publishing more quantitative data relating to
the impacts made by its factories as opposed to continuing to only publish data about the impact its products have on the environment. Data about both
components are necessary to create a more accurate picture of the company’s actual environmental impact.
Analyst(s): Elizabeth Duckworth
Bukola Jimoh
E=Total Environmental Score, ESA=Environmental Sector Average Score, EI=Environmental Intent, ER=Environmental Reporting, EP=Environmental Performance, S=Total Social
Score, SSA=Social Sector Average Score, SI=Social Intent, SR=Social Reporting, SP=Social Performance
Comparison with sector averages
Distribution of points
Source of points
E
81
ES A
E
46%
S
58
SSA
0
25
50
36
S
54%
49
17
EI
75
ER
17
EP
SI
SR
Ford Motor
SP
Environmental Intent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
Question Category
3
4
75
Excellent
Management
5
8
63
Good
Policy
9
10
90
Excellent
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
11
49
22
Needs substantial improvement
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
8
21
38
Needs improvement
Management
4
21
19
Needs substantial improvement
Materials Usage
7
14
50
Good
Products
9
21
43
Needs improvement
Recycling
6
35
17
Needs substantial improvement
Waste
12
35
34
Needs improvement
Water
5
7
71
Good
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
2
4
50
Good
Management
4
10
40
Needs improvement
Policy
5
6
83
Excellent
Social Demographic
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Vision
4
4
100
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
29
77
38
Needs improvement
Needs improvement
Social Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Excellent
Social Reporting
Question Category
Human Rights
Management
2
7
29
Qualitative Social
27
56
48
Needs improvement
Quantitative Social
11
42
26
Needs improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
45
Motor Vehicle and Consumer Durables Sectors 2012
C-
Fortune Brands 2009 Annual Review, Code of
Business Conduct and Ethics and 2011 Web Pages
Fortune Brands
The 2009 Annual Review published by Fortune Brands was aesthetically pleasing and easy to read; however, it did not contain much information about the
company’s energy consumption or its waste and water management policies. The Statement of Environmental Stewardship and Global Citizenship Policy
superficially stated the company’s stance on environmental and social issues respectively. It would be useful for Fortune Brands to flesh out a more
detailed sustainability report, which contained information on the environmental and social impacts of the company, and also lists the measures it is
adopting to reduce these impacts.
Analyst(s): Sachi Singh
Bukola Jimoh
E=Total Environmental Score, ESA=Environmental Sector Average Score, EI=Environmental Intent, ER=Environmental Reporting, EP=Environmental Performance, S=Total Social
Score, SSA=Social Sector Average Score, SI=Social Intent, SR=Social Reporting, SP=Social Performance
Comparison with sector averages
Source of points
E
Distribution of points
E
20%
ES A
S
27
0
25
50
28
21
6
S
80%
SSA
27
Fortune Brands
0
EI
75
ER
EP
SI
SR
SP
Environmental Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
0
4
0
Needs substantial improvement
Needs improvement
Management
2
8
25
Policy
3
10
30
Needs improvement
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
0
49
0
Needs substantial improvement
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
2
21
10
Needs substantial improvement
Management
0
21
0
Needs substantial improvement
Materials Usage
0
14
0
Needs substantial improvement
Products
0
28
0
Needs substantial improvement
Recycling
3
35
9
Needs substantial improvement
Waste
2
35
6
Needs substantial improvement
Water
2
7
29
Needs improvement
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
0
4
0
Needs substantial improvement
Needs substantial improvement
Social Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Management
0
10
0
Policy
4
6
67
Good
Social Demographic
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Vision
3
4
75
Excellent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
36
77
47
Needs improvement
Social Reporting
Question Category
Human Rights
Management
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Qualitative Social
10
56
18
Needs substantial improvement
Quantitative Social
2
42
5
Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
46
Motor Vehicle and Consumer Durables Sectors 2012
C
Honda Motors 2010 Environmental report
Honda Motor
Honda motors was sporadic in its reporting in their 2010 Environmental report. While some areas were meticulously reported such as environmental intent
and quantitative data on waste and emissions, other areas such as social intent and social reporting went for the most part unmentioned. •Honda Motors'
report suggests a clear commitment to helping protect the environment, with a goal of acting “as a responsible member of society whose task lies in the
preservation of the global climate.” Honda’s thorough reporting of its waste, emissions, and product performance all help support this statement. In
addition, its improvements in reducing energy use, waste, water use and carbon dioxide and volatile organic compounds emissions all show how Honda
Motors is becoming a more environmentally responsible company. On the contrary, Honda Motors’ lack of reporting on topics including its social visionary
statement, workforce profiles, fines and violations, and adoption of policies that promote proper employee treatment, show that the company is failing to
fulfill its policy statement. Improvement in reporting of social aspects of the company will help improve Honda’s score greatly.
Analyst(s): Jordan Lieberman
Carolyn Campbell
E=Total Environmental Score, ESA=Environmental Sector Average Score, EI=Environmental Intent, ER=Environmental Reporting, EP=Environmental Performance, S=Total Social
Score, SSA=Social Sector Average Score, SI=Social Intent, SR=Social Reporting, SP=Social Performance
Comparison with sector averages
Distribution of points
Source of points
E
S
30%
ES A
S
69
35
30
18
E
70%
SSA
0
25
50
EI
75
ER
EP
14
SI
SR
0
Honda Motor
SP
Environmental Intent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
Question Category
1
4
25
Needs improvement
Management
5
8
63
Good
Policy
8
10
80
Excellent
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
11
49
22
Needs substantial improvement
Energy
4
21
19
Needs substantial improvement
Management
1
21
5
Needs substantial improvement
Needs substantial improvement
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Materials Usage
2
14
14
Products
9
28
32
Needs improvement
Recycling
13
35
37
Needs improvement
Waste
13
35
37
Needs improvement
Water
4
7
57
Good
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
0
4
0
Needs substantial improvement
Needs substantial improvement
Social Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Management
2
10
20
Policy
5
6
83
Excellent
Social Demographic
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
4
77
5
Needs substantial improvement
Social Reporting
Question Category
Human Rights
Management
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Qualitative Social
13
56
23
Needs substantial improvement
Quantitative Social
0
42
0
Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
47
Motor Vehicle and Consumer Durables Sectors 2012
C-
Hyundai Mobis 2010 Sustainability Report and 2011
Web Pages
Hyundai Mobis
While the information contained on Hyundai Mobis’ sustainability web pages is limited; its 2010 Sustainability Report provides a considerable overview of
the company’s practices and performance. The report describes materials used for its production, but little data are given about recycling or logistics. In
addition, little data could be found about the company’s release of hazardous materials and volatile organic compounds. While the report does state what
department is responsible for its publication, it does not provide information on who to contact specifically with questions. To improve its score, Hyundai
Mobis must provide qualitative data about previous years to show improvement and trends toward increased sustainability. Also, the company should
include an accessible code of conduct that details employee conduct and company policy.
Analyst(s): Karun Kiani
Karen de Wolski
E=Total Environmental Score, ESA=Environmental Sector Average Score, EI=Environmental Intent, ER=Environmental Reporting, EP=Environmental Performance, S=Total Social
Score, SSA=Social Sector Average Score, SI=Social Intent, SR=Social Reporting, SP=Social Performance
Comparison with sector averages
Distribution of points
Source of points
E
E
36%
ES A
23
S
11
S
64%
SSA
0
25
50
50
42
EI
75
ER
6
3
EP
SI
SR
Hyundai Mobis
SP
Environmental Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
1
4
25
Needs improvement
Good
Management
4
8
50
Policy
4
10
40
Needs improvement
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
12
49
24
Needs substantial improvement
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
3
21
14
Needs substantial improvement
Management
0
21
0
Needs substantial improvement
Materials Usage
0
14
0
Needs substantial improvement
Products
1
28
4
Needs substantial improvement
Recycling
0
35
0
Needs substantial improvement
Waste
1
35
3
Needs substantial improvement
Water
1
7
14
Needs substantial improvement
Social Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
3
4
75
Excellent
Management
7
10
70
Good
Policy
0
6
0
Needs substantial improvement
Social Demographic
1
2
50
Good
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
16
77
21
Needs substantial improvement
Social Reporting
Question Category
Human Rights
Management
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Qualitative Social
12
56
21
Needs substantial improvement
Quantitative Social
3
42
7
Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
48
Motor Vehicle and Consumer Durables Sectors 2012
B+
Hyundai Motor 2010 Sustainability Report and 2010
Web Pages
Hyundai Motor
Hyundai Motor Company (HMC) shows a clear commitment to development of sustainable vehicles, but its environmental and social reporting is
incomplete. One of the main issues with the 2010 Sustainability Report is that much of the environmental data is reported only for domestic operations. As a
global company, with factories in the US, China, India, and Europe, HMC should extend its reporting to cover all of its production and sales. Another topic
that is noticeably avoided is the discussion of fines and citations for non-compliance with environmental or safety regulations. We would like to see
companies be transparent in their sustainability reporting, including information on negative aspects as well as positive ones.••One area where HMC really
shines is in its commitment to development of more environmentally-friendly vehicles, as evidenced by the significant reductions made in the level of
emissions and increased fuel efficiency for models released in the last few years. One particularly notable initiative aims to improve recyclability of vehicles
to 95% by 2015, and HMC has several innovative programs to use recycled materials such as PET bottles in its vehicles. HMC mentions programs to attract
a more diverse workforce, but does not offer a description of what those programs include – more detailed coverage of this issue would be preferable.
While HMC appears to have a genuine commitment to sustainability, incomplete reporting damages both its score and its appearance.
Analyst(s): Erin Franks
Karen de Wolski
E=Total Environmental Score, ESA=Environmental Sector Average Score, EI=Environmental Intent, ER=Environmental Reporting, EP=Environmental Performance, S=Total Social
Score, SSA=Social Sector Average Score, SI=Social Intent, SR=Social Reporting, SP=Social Performance
Comparison with sector averages
Source of points
Distribution of points
E
85
ES A
62
E
47%
S
SSA
0
25
50
38
S
53%
47
15
EI
75
ER
EP
17
SI
SR
Hyundai Motor
SP
Environmental Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
2
4
50
Good
Management
6
8
75
Excellent
Policy
10
10
100
Excellent
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
16
49
33
Needs improvement
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
8
21
38
Needs improvement
Management
4
21
19
Needs substantial improvement
Needs substantial improvement
Materials Usage
3
14
21
Products
10
28
36
Needs improvement
Recycling
10
35
29
Needs improvement
Waste
10
35
29
Needs improvement
Water
5
7
71
Good
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
3
4
75
Excellent
Social Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Management
4
10
40
Needs improvement
Policy
6
6
100
Excellent
Social Demographic
1
2
50
Good
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
36
77
47
Needs improvement
Needs substantial improvement
Social Reporting
Question Category
Human Rights
Management
0
7
0
Qualitative Social
27
56
48
Needs improvement
Quantitative Social
7
42
17
Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
49
Motor Vehicle and Consumer Durables Sectors 2012
B
Johnson Controls 2009 Business and Sustainability
Report and 2010 Web Pages
Johnson Controls
Johnson Controls expressed its commitment to environmental and social responsibility in its Business and Sustainability Report. It designed a sustainable
program that helps to manage and minimize environmental impact across product life cycle. The Global Environmental Sustainability Council leads efforts to
reduce the environmental footprint of the company and improve eco-efficiency of the supply chain. Johnson Controls is also committed to renewable
energy initiatives, specifically, solar photovoltaic, thermal, biomass, wind, and geothermal. It is also part of the Clinton Climate Initiative which helps
municipalities improve their energy usage. Johnson Controls has goals to reduced its energy intensity by 30% by 2018. It is also the leading independent
provider of hybrid battery systems that make vehicles more energy efficient and are focusing efforts on hybrid electric vehicles. The Conservation
Leadership Corps offers internships and summer training crew opportunities to over 3,000 students per year. Community involvement is reflected in the
company's work towards boosting the economy by offering teenagers jobs and decreasing unemployment. Johnson Controls has a limited information base
regarding emission and energy output statistics. Despite reporting its United Nation human rights reporting, it has little information on social responsibility.
Analyst(s): Jaclyn T. D'Arcy
Bukola Jimoh
E=Total Environmental Score, ESA=Environmental Sector Average Score, EI=Environmental Intent, ER=Environmental Reporting, EP=Environmental Performance, S=Total Social
Score, SSA=Social Sector Average Score, SI=Social Intent, SR=Social Reporting, SP=Social Performance
Comparison with sector averages
Distribution of points
Source of points
E
88
E
38%
ES A
S
69
S
62%
SSA
0
25
50
56
29
21
5
EI
75
ER
EP
Johnson Controls
SI
SR
SP
Environmental Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
3
4
75
Excellent
Management
7
8
88
Excellent
Policy
9
10
90
Excellent
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
14
49
29
Needs improvement
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
6
21
29
Needs improvement
Management
10
21
48
Needs improvement
Materials Usage
0
14
0
Needs substantial improvement
Products
6
28
21
Needs substantial improvement
Recycling
2
35
6
Needs substantial improvement
Waste
4
35
11
Needs substantial improvement
Water
4
7
57
Good
Social Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
2
4
50
Good
Management
8
10
80
Excellent
Policy
6
6
100
Social Demographic
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
22
77
29
Needs improvement
Excellent
Social Reporting
Question Category
Human Rights
Management
3
7
43
Needs improvement
Qualitative Social
32
56
57
Good
Quantitative Social
20
42
48
Needs improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
50
Motor Vehicle and Consumer Durables Sectors 2012
D+
Magna Corporate Constitution, Employee Charter,
Health and Safety and Environmental Policy, Health
and Safety and Environmental Committee Charter,
and 2011 Web Pages
Magna
International
Magna International is not transparent or thorough in reporting its environmental and social initiatives and actions. The company does not provide a
corporate sustainability report or include a section in its annual report dedicated to discussing its environmental efforts. • Most of Magna International’s
information is found on the current web pages; there is no sustainability report. The information they do present is vague and cursory. It does not provide
many specific details. In addition, Magna International did not report any quantitative data. To improve its PSI score, Magna International should include
this data.
Analyst(s): Hilary Haskell
Carolyn Campbell
E=Total Environmental Score, ESA=Environmental Sector Average Score, EI=Environmental Intent, ER=Environmental Reporting, EP=Environmental Performance, S=Total Social
Score, SSA=Social Sector Average Score, SI=Social Intent, SR=Social Reporting, SP=Social Performance
Comparison with sector averages
Source of points
E
Distribution of points
E
22%
ES A
S
24
S
78%
SSA
0
25
50
38
35
EI
3
0
ER
EP
0
SI
SR
Magna International
SP
75
Environmental Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
1
4
25
Needs improvement
Needs improvement
Management
2
8
25
Policy
4
10
40
Needs improvement
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
0
49
0
Needs substantial improvement
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
1
21
5
Needs substantial improvement
Management
0
21
0
Needs substantial improvement
Materials Usage
0
14
0
Needs substantial improvement
Products
1
21
5
Needs substantial improvement
Recycling
1
35
3
Needs substantial improvement
Waste
1
35
3
Needs substantial improvement
Water
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
1
4
25
Needs improvement
Management
3
10
30
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
16
77
21
Needs substantial improvement
Social Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Social Reporting
Question Category
Human Rights
Management
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Qualitative Social
11
56
20
Needs substantial improvement
Quantitative Social
0
42
0
Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
51
Motor Vehicle and Consumer Durables Sectors 2012
B
Mazda 2010 Sustainability Report, Mazda Supplier
CSR Guidelines, and 2011 Web Pages
Mazda Motor
Mazda provides extensive information in its 2010 Corporate Sustainability Report, 2010 web pages, and Mazda Supplier Guidelines discussing its
environmental and social initiatives and actions. However, much of the report either lacks substantiating quantitative data or only covers domestic
subsidiaries.• Mazda has many initiatives to improve its products’ fuel efficiency and reduce both noise and emissions. However, the report does not offer
adequate description within its manufacturing and production environmental initiatives. Additionally, little historical quantitative data is given, making it
difficult to determine if progress has been made. Mazda’s reporting focuses primarily on the product performance and sustainability in areas such as
recycling, alternative energy use, efficiency, and waste. • Mazda’s social contributions are notable, with both monetary donations to the community and
employee volunteerism included in its social initiatives.
Analyst(s): Hilary Haskell
Karen de Wolski
E=Total Environmental Score, ESA=Environmental Sector Average Score, EI=Environmental Intent, ER=Environmental Reporting, EP=Environmental Performance, S=Total Social
Score, SSA=Social Sector Average Score, SI=Social Intent, SR=Social Reporting, SP=Social Performance
Comparison with sector averages
Distribution of points
Source of points
E
88
E
43%
ES A
S
46
S
57%
SSA
0
25
50
81
31
10
EI
75
ER
EP
12
SI
SR
Mazda Motor
SP
Environmental Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
1
4
25
Needs improvement
Management
8
8
100
Excellent
Policy
10
10
100
Excellent
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
8
49
16
Needs substantial improvement
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
4
21
19
Needs substantial improvement
Management
4
21
19
Needs substantial improvement
Materials Usage
6
14
43
Needs improvement
Products
11
21
52
Good
Recycling
4
35
11
Needs substantial improvement
Waste
11
35
31
Needs improvement
Water
2
7
29
Needs improvement
Social Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
3
4
75
Excellent
Management
8
10
80
Excellent
Policy
6
6
100
Excellent
Social Demographic
2
2
100
Excellent
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
32
77
42
Needs improvement
Needs improvement
Social Reporting
Question Category
Human Rights
Management
3
7
43
Qualitative Social
22
56
39
Needs improvement
Quantitative Social
6
42
14
Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
52
Motor Vehicle and Consumer Durables Sectors 2012
C+
Michelin Group 2011 Web Pages
Michelin
Michelin Group has received recognition from various organizations for its commitment to road safety initiatives. It chairs the Global Road Safety
Partnership, in addition to working with other organizations. The Group also creates fuel-efficient tires and provides consumers the opportunity to retread
and regroove their tires. Michelin selects suppliers based on social and environmental practices, with an emphasis on corporate responsibility in
developing countries. Michelin's web pages addressed most environmental and social initiatives in depth, but providing specific goals and/or targets
would greatly improve the company's transparency.
Analyst(s): Ashley Scott
Bukola Jimoh
E=Total Environmental Score, ESA=Environmental Sector Average Score, EI=Environmental Intent, ER=Environmental Reporting, EP=Environmental Performance, S=Total Social
Score, SSA=Social Sector Average Score, SI=Social Intent, SR=Social Reporting, SP=Social Performance
Comparison with sector averages
Source of points
Distribution of points
E
81
ES A
E
47%
S
S
53%
SSA
0
25
50
65
31
28
13
5
EI
75
ER
EP
SI
SR
Michelin
SP
Environmental Intent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
Question Category
3
4
75
Excellent
Management
5
8
63
Good
Policy
9
10
90
Excellent
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
11
49
22
Needs substantial improvement
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
7
21
33
Needs improvement
Management
3
21
14
Needs substantial improvement
Materials Usage
4
14
29
Needs improvement
Products
8
28
29
Needs improvement
Recycling
2
35
6
Needs substantial improvement
Waste
5
35
14
Needs substantial improvement
Water
4
7
57
Good
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
2
4
50
Good
Management
7
10
70
Good
Policy
3
6
50
Good
Social Demographic
1
2
50
Good
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
10
77
13
Needs substantial improvement
Needs improvement
Social Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Social Reporting
Question Category
Human Rights
Management
2
7
29
Qualitative Social
22
56
39
Needs improvement
Quantitative Social
13
42
31
Needs improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
53
Motor Vehicle and Consumer Durables Sectors 2012
D+
Mitsubishi Motors Social and Environmental Report
2008, Social and Environmental Report 2010, and
2011 Web Pages
Mitsubishi
Mitsubishi Motors is diligent in its publication of a Social and Environmental Report at the conclusion of each fiscal year. However, some of the reports are
vastly more detailed than others. The 2008 Social and Environmental Report contained a detailed breakdown of the companies social and environmental
initiatives, along with goals the company hoped to achieve in the next fiscal year, and graphs of quantitative data. In contrast, the 2009 and 2010 Social and
Environmental Reports did not contain a detailed breakdown of all initiatives, goals, graphs, or quantitative data. Additionally, the 2009 and 2010 reports
were significantly shorter than the 2008 report. The reports discussed the company’s social and environmental initiatives, but there is an absence of
quantitative data from the last two years is a major obstacle in rating Mitsubishi Motors’ performance. Beyond the lack of quantitative data, Mitsubishi is
very clear in its social and environmental policies and initiatives. The one area that the company was not clear about is how it treats its employees and the
standard that those employees are expected to meet. A code of ethics is mentioned several times throughout the reports and the website; however, it is
only mentioned in passing and no code can be downloaded or viewed online. Because there is no code of conduct, it is impossible to garner information
about how the management treats employees, the gender and racial breakdown of the employees, and what rules the employees are told to follow when
put in a situation where it would be easy to act unethically. Going forward, the company should publish quantitative data about its environmental impact at
the end of each fiscal year, in addition to publishing its code of conduct and a breakdown of its workforce by gender and race.
Analyst(s): Elizabeth Duckworth
Carolyn Campbell
E=Total Environmental Score, ESA=Environmental Sector Average Score, EI=Environmental Intent, ER=Environmental Reporting, EP=Environmental Performance, S=Total Social
Score, SSA=Social Sector Average Score, SI=Social Intent, SR=Social Reporting, SP=Social Performance
Comparison with sector averages
E
S
33%
ES A
S
E
67%
SSA
0
25
50
Distribution of points
Source of points
73
23
15
EI
75
ER
2
EP
SI
9
0
SR
SP
Mitsubishi
Environmental Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
2
4
50
Good
Management
6
8
75
Excellent
Policy
7
10
70
Good
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
6
49
12
Needs substantial improvement
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
1
21
5
Needs substantial improvement
Management
0
21
0
Needs substantial improvement
Materials Usage
4
14
29
Needs improvement
Products
5
28
18
Needs substantial improvement
Recycling
5
35
14
Needs substantial improvement
Waste
2
35
6
Needs substantial improvement
Water
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
0
4
0
Needs substantial improvement
Social Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Management
0
10
0
Needs substantial improvement
Policy
3
6
50
Good
Social Demographic
2
2
100
Excellent
Vision
1
4
25
Needs improvement
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
0
77
0
Needs substantial improvement
Social Reporting
Question Category
Human Rights
Management
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Qualitative Social
10
56
18
Needs substantial improvement
Quantitative Social
1
42
2
Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
54
Motor Vehicle and Consumer Durables Sectors 2012
B-
Nissan Motor Vehicles 2010 Sustainability Report,
CSR handbook, and 2010 Web Pages
Nissan Motor
Nissan Motor Vehicles is committed to reducing the environmental impact of their operations; not just after their product has been purchased but
throughout the product’s entire life-cycle. Nissan’s long-term goal is to create cars that will not have a cumulative impact more than what can be naturally
absorbed by the earth. To reach this goal Nissan has centered its environmental initiatives around three Rs; reducing carbon dioxide emissions, reducing
other emissions and recycling resources. The RRR framework is used throughout Nissan’s web pages and 2010 Sustainability Report to organize what
initiatives the company is currently taking and is very effective in explaining the reasoning behind Nissan’s actions. • Nissan lacks transparency in certain
areas related to how Nissan interacts with the environment such as the amount of wastewater the company discharges and how much money has been
invested into environmental initiatives and to support social causes. Sometimes information is repeated in more than one place within their web pages but
the numbers do not align when they should.
Analyst(s): Danielle L. Manning
Karina Gomez
E=Total Environmental Score, ESA=Environmental Sector Average Score, EI=Environmental Intent, ER=Environmental Reporting, EP=Environmental Performance, S=Total Social
Score, SSA=Social Sector Average Score, SI=Social Intent, SR=Social Reporting, SP=Social Performance
Comparison with sector averages
Distribution of points
Source of points
E
73
E
42%
ES A
S
0
25
50
39
S
58%
SSA
65
22
EI
75
ER
13
EP
13
SI
SR
Nissan Motor
SP
Environmental Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
1
4
25
Needs improvement
Management
6
8
75
Excellent
Policy
8
10
80
Excellent
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
8
49
16
Needs substantial improvement
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
8
21
38
Needs improvement
Management
0
21
0
Needs substantial improvement
Needs substantial improvement
Materials Usage
0
14
0
Products
10
28
36
Needs improvement
Recycling
4
35
11
Needs substantial improvement
Waste
7
35
20
Needs substantial improvement
Water
4
7
57
Good
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
2
4
50
Good
Management
6
10
60
Good
Policy
6
6
100
Excellent
Social Demographic
1
2
50
Good
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
30
77
39
Needs improvement
Good
Social Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Social Reporting
Question Category
Human Rights
Management
4
7
57
Qualitative Social
16
56
29
Needs improvement
Quantitative Social
7
42
17
Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
55
Motor Vehicle and Consumer Durables Sectors 2012
B+
PSA Peugeot Citroen 2009 Sustainable Development
Performance Indicators, Code of Ethics, and 2011
Web Pages
Peugeot
PSA Peugeot Citroën demonstrates a strong commitment to sustainability reporting. Their website provides a detailed mission statement and describes
ongoing projects to decrease environmental impacts. The company indicated in its newer vehicles that there is a 95% recycling rate. With annual sales of
more than a million vehicles with less than 140g/km of CO2, the company demonstrates its commitment to lowering carbon dioxide emissions. While the
report does provide data for product performance in regards to emissions and fuel efficiency, the figures are presented per car and a company wide
average is not presented. The website goes into specifics of its top priorities including green materials, controlling energy consumption, and lowconsumption vehicles. There is also a detailed Code of Conduct that is clear in its employee’s standards. However, PSA Peugeot Citroën fails to identify a
specialized person who can answer questions regarding the company’s sustainability. While lacking in certain areas, the company remains exceptional in
its scoring, with high standards of green consumption and production, outstanding employee outreach, and excellent overall reporting.
Analyst(s): Han Dinh
Carolyn Campbell
E=Total Environmental Score, ESA=Environmental Sector Average Score, EI=Environmental Intent, ER=Environmental Reporting, EP=Environmental Performance, S=Total Social
Score, SSA=Social Sector Average Score, SI=Social Intent, SR=Social Reporting, SP=Social Performance
Comparison with sector averages
Distribution of points
Source of points
E
85
E
42%
ES A
S
51
S
58%
SSA
0
25
50
85
34
23
18
EI
75
ER
EP
Peugeot
SI
SR
SP
Environmental Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
1
4
25
Needs improvement
Management
7
8
88
Excellent
Policy
10
10
100
Excellent
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
16
49
33
Needs improvement
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
9
21
43
Needs improvement
Management
2
21
10
Needs substantial improvement
Materials Usage
6
14
43
Needs improvement
Products
10
28
36
Needs improvement
Recycling
6
35
17
Needs substantial improvement
Waste
7
35
20
Needs substantial improvement
Water
5
7
71
Good
Social Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
2
4
50
Good
Management
8
10
80
Excellent
Policy
6
6
100
Excellent
Social Demographic
2
2
100
Excellent
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
36
77
47
Needs improvement
Good
Social Reporting
Question Category
Human Rights
Management
4
7
57
Qualitative Social
27
56
48
Needs improvement
Quantitative Social
11
42
26
Needs improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
56
Motor Vehicle and Consumer Durables Sectors 2012
C-
Porsche 2009 Environmental Statement, Porsche
and the Environment, 2010 Web Pages
Porsche
Porsche AG demonstrates a commitment to sustainability through its 2009 Environmental Statement, Porsche and the Environment Report, and the 2010
Web Pages. Overall, Porsche demonstrates this commitment, but the reporting is limited and lacks quantitative details and past years data. Porsche
emphasizes their commitment to reducing 1.7% of carbon dioxide annually, which is the highest in the automotive industry, but Porsche’s reporting only
presents carbon dioxide emissions from 2008 for the Zuffenhausen production facility and a graph showing the overall negative trend for carbon dioxide
vehicle emissions from 1990 to 2006. Reporting states that the current Porsche fleet accounts for less than one tenth of one percent of the carbon dioxide
emissions in Germany. It is also stated that the Porsche production process is regarded as an international model in terms of efficiency and environmental
protection. For total energy used in the production process, a decrease over past years is shown, but no exact data is given for past years. There is no
mention of materials recycled, renewable energy, logistics emissions, environmental investments, or environmental expenses. Porsche is in the process of
developing a hybrid SUV, but the fuel consumption is still to be determined. • Porsche barely shows any commitment to social issues and has almost no
social reporting. No code of conduct or business ethics is available on the web site, and therefore no social issues or rights of workers are addressed. The
employees are rarely discussed at all. Porsche should vastly improve its social reporting.
Analyst(s): Simone Berkovitz
Karen de Wolski
E=Total Environmental Score, ESA=Environmental Sector Average Score, EI=Environmental Intent, ER=Environmental Reporting, EP=Environmental Performance, S=Total Social
Score, SSA=Social Sector Average Score, SI=Social Intent, SR=Social Reporting, SP=Social Performance
Comparison with sector averages
E
S
32%
ES A
S
E
68%
SSA
0
25
50
Distribution of points
Source of points
81
21
EI
75
ER
31
7
EP
SI
9
6
SR
SP
Porsche
Environmental Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
3
4
75
Excellent
Management
4
8
50
Good
Policy
10
10
100
Excellent
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
9
49
18
Needs substantial improvement
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
4
21
19
Needs substantial improvement
Management
0
21
0
Needs substantial improvement
Materials Usage
2
14
14
Needs substantial improvement
Products
12
28
43
Needs improvement
Recycling
1
35
3
Needs substantial improvement
Waste
6
35
17
Needs substantial improvement
Water
2
7
29
Needs improvement
Social Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
2
4
50
Good
Management
4
10
40
Needs improvement
Policy
0
6
0
Needs substantial improvement
Social Demographic
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
2
77
3
Needs substantial improvement
Social Reporting
Question Category
Human Rights
Management
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Qualitative Social
8
56
14
Needs substantial improvement
Quantitative Social
4
42
10
Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
57
Motor Vehicle and Consumer Durables Sectors 2012
C+
Renault 2009 Annual Report, Safety Data Sheets,
Environmental Data Sheets, Code of Conduct, and
2010 Web Pages
Renault
Although Renault does not provide a report specifically dedicated to environmental initiatives and actions, the company demonstrates sustainability through
its 2009 Annual Report, 2010 web pages, safety data sheets, environmental datasheets, and Code of Conduct. Renault’s commitment to producing
environmentally sustainable vehicles is clear in the recyclability, fuel efficiency, and low emission technology of its products. However, the company is not
as transparent in its environmental reporting initiatives. •There is little quantitative information about energy use, recycling, waste, water, emissions,
investments, or fines. Renault’s reporting focuses on the performance and sustainability of its products, not on the environmental and social performance
of the company. The safety and environmental data sheets effectively communicate the products’ performance, and similar data sheets reporting the
company’s performance would increase Renault’s overall score.•Notable consumer education initiatives include the “Safety for All” program and
“ecodriving” to promote environmentally responsible driving practices. However, Renault does not report how much was spent on these programs,
community involvement, or environmental expenses.
Analyst(s): Hilary Haskell
Karina Gomez
E=Total Environmental Score, ESA=Environmental Sector Average Score, EI=Environmental Intent, ER=Environmental Reporting, EP=Environmental Performance, S=Total Social
Score, SSA=Social Sector Average Score, SI=Social Intent, SR=Social Reporting, SP=Social Performance
Comparison with sector averages
Distribution of points
Source of points
E
E
43%
ES A
S
65
S
57%
SSA
0
25
50
50
21
EI
75
ER
38
16
EP
12
SI
SR
Renault
SP
Environmental Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
1
4
25
Needs improvement
Management
6
8
75
Excellent
Policy
6
10
60
Good
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
10
49
20
Needs substantial improvement
Energy
3
21
14
Needs substantial improvement
Management
0
21
0
Needs substantial improvement
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Materials Usage
3
14
21
Needs substantial improvement
Products
11
21
52
Good
Recycling
4
35
11
Needs substantial improvement
Waste
6
35
17
Needs substantial improvement
Water
2
7
29
Needs improvement
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
0
4
0
Needs substantial improvement
Management
4
10
40
Needs improvement
Policy
6
6
100
Excellent
Social Demographic
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Vision
3
4
75
Excellent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
24
77
31
Needs improvement
Needs improvement
Social Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Social Reporting
Question Category
Human Rights
Management
3
7
43
Qualitative Social
26
56
46
Needs improvement
Quantitative Social
0
42
0
Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
58
Motor Vehicle and Consumer Durables Sectors 2012
F
SAIC Motors 2011 Web Pages
SAIC Motor
The website of SAIC Motors is sparse. Little to no useful information could be gleaned from the website, as the company did not publish an environmental
report or a code of conduct on their website. Additionally, the website does not contain any sort of interactive sustainability report. There is simply no
information pertaining to sustainability to be found on the website. Perhaps that information was disregarded in the translation of the website from its
original Chinese, but regardless, the company should add information about sustainability to its website in the future. It would be helpful for SAIC Motors to
publish a code of conduct and a sustainability report with quantitative data in it; however, any additional sustainability data would be an enormous
contribution to a website that contains essentially no information about the social and environmental impact of the company.
Analyst(s): Elizabeth Duckworth
Carolyn Campbell
E=Total Environmental Score, ESA=Environmental Sector Average Score, EI=Environmental Intent, ER=Environmental Reporting, EP=Environmental Performance, S=Total Social
Score, SSA=Social Sector Average Score, SI=Social Intent, SR=Social Reporting, SP=Social Performance
Comparison with sector averages
Distribution of points
Source of points
E
E
3 1%
ES A
S
8
4
S
69%
SSA
0
25
50
EI
75
0
0
ER
EP
SI
0
0
SR
SP
SAIC Motor
Environmental Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
0
4
0
Needs substantial improvement
Management
1
8
13
Needs substantial improvement
Policy
0
10
0
Needs substantial improvement
Vision
0
4
0
Needs substantial improvement
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
0
49
0
Needs substantial improvement
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
0
21
0
Needs substantial improvement
Management
0
21
0
Needs substantial improvement
Materials Usage
0
14
0
Needs substantial improvement
Products
0
28
0
Needs substantial improvement
Recycling
0
35
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
1
10
10
Needs substantial improvement
Policy
0
6
0
Needs substantial improvement
Social Demographic
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Vision
1
4
25
Needs improvement
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
0
77
0
Needs substantial improvement
Social Reporting
Question Category
Human Rights
Management
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Qualitative Social
0
56
0
Needs substantial improvement
Quantitative Social
0
42
0
Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
59
Motor Vehicle and Consumer Durables Sectors 2012
C+
Suzuki 2009 Environmental and Social Report,
Suzuki Green Procurement Guide, and 2010 Web
Pages
Suzuki Motor
Suzuki Motors has put considerable effort in sustainability reporting through its 2009 Environmental and Social Report (ESR) and Suzuki Green Procurement
Guide. The ESR is well organized and covers a broad range of materials with great depth. The only issues with its report include the lack of a well
developed business ethics section (only a list of principles are listed; no initiatives are reported) and the lack of an energy used section.
Analyst(s): Carolyn Campbell
Bukola Jimoh
E=Total Environmental Score, ESA=Environmental Sector Average Score, EI=Environmental Intent, ER=Environmental Reporting, EP=Environmental Performance, S=Total Social
Score, SSA=Social Sector Average Score, SI=Social Intent, SR=Social Reporting, SP=Social Performance
Comparison with sector averages
Distribution of points
Source of points
E
ES A
62
S
42%
E
58%
S
54
35
26
17
6
Suzuki Motor
SSA
0
25
50
EI
75
ER
EP
SI
SR
SP
Environmental Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
1
4
25
Needs improvement
Management
6
8
75
Excellent
Policy
7
10
70
Good
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
14
49
29
Needs improvement
Energy
4
21
19
Needs substantial improvement
Management
4
21
19
Needs substantial improvement
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Materials Usage
5
14
36
Needs improvement
Products
5
21
24
Needs substantial improvement
Recycling
8
35
23
Needs substantial improvement
Waste
16
35
46
Needs improvement
Water
4
7
57
Good
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
1
4
25
Needs improvement
Management
4
10
40
Needs improvement
Policy
5
6
83
Excellent
Social Demographic
2
2
100
Excellent
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
16
77
21
Needs substantial improvement
Needs substantial improvement
Social Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Social Reporting
Question Category
Human Rights
Management
0
7
0
Qualitative Social
18
56
32
Needs improvement
Quantitative Social
1
42
2
Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
60
Motor Vehicle and Consumer Durables Sectors 2012
C+
Tata Motors 2011 Web Pages
Tata Motors
Tata Motors does an adequate job reporting its sustainability practices through various online documents including its Global Reporting Initiative Report,
Global Compact Communication on Progress and Social Responsibility Annual Report. These reports contain an impressive amount of information about its
green initiatives with their channel partner and a dedication towards recycling. The company also shows their understanding of the importance of climate
change and has developed low carbon, fuel efficient technologies to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. However, some of the information is difficult
to find because it is scattered over these different reports, and the only quantitative data is found in the 2007 version of the Global Reporting Initiative. Of
this quantitative data, little is provided about their renewable energy used or waste recycled. The company needs to strongly improve their quantitative
reporting in order show its commitment environmental sustainability. In terms of social sustainability, Tata Motors provides in-depth information about its
policies against bribery, corruption and other basic social issues.
Analyst(s): Eric Robert King
Karen de Wolski
E=Total Environmental Score, ESA=Environmental Sector Average Score, EI=Environmental Intent, ER=Environmental Reporting, EP=Environmental Performance, S=Total Social
Score, SSA=Social Sector Average Score, SI=Social Intent, SR=Social Reporting, SP=Social Performance
Comparison with sector averages
Distribution of points
Source of points
E
58
E
29%
ES A
S
0
25
50
43
21
14
S
71%
SSA
50
Tata Motors
0
EI
75
ER
EP
SI
SR
SP
Environmental Intent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
Question Category
3
4
75
Excellent
Management
3
8
38
Needs improvement
Policy
5
10
50
Good
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
7
49
14
Needs substantial improvement
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
4
21
19
Needs substantial improvement
Management
3
21
14
Needs substantial improvement
Materials Usage
0
14
0
Needs substantial improvement
Products
3
21
14
Needs substantial improvement
Recycling
1
35
3
Needs substantial improvement
Waste
1
35
3
Needs substantial improvement
Water
2
7
29
Needs improvement
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
2
4
50
Good
Management
4
10
40
Needs improvement
Policy
5
6
83
Excellent
Social Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Social Demographic
1
2
50
Good
Vision
1
4
25
Needs improvement
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
35
77
45
Needs improvement
Social Reporting
Question Category
Human Rights
Management
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Qualitative Social
31
56
55
Good
Quantitative Social
2
42
5
Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
61
Motor Vehicle and Consumer Durables Sectors 2012
B
Toyota Industries 2011 Web Pages
Toyota Industries
Toyota Industries Corporation made huge strides in its efforts to become an environmentally friendly company. It has developed an Environmental Label
Mark for products such that an environmental factor evaluation is used to assess improvements on environmental efficiency. To improve the greenness of
its production techniques, it has developed environmentally-friendly lift trucks that meet new exhaust emissions standards and reduced the operating
noise. Toyota Industries also promotes greening activities outside its plants to promote environmental pollution. It plants trees in the communities and has
implemented a Green Fund at plant locations. Through this program, Toyota Industries requests donations from its employees to be used for government
promotion of city-wide green activities. Another implementation at Toyota Industries is its Fourth Action Plan (2007-2011) that establishes targets for
curbing global warming using resources more efficiently, reducing environmental risk factors, and consolidating management. In its environmental
reporting web pages, it includes improved statistics on COD, Nitrogen, and Phosphorous emissions. While the environmental reporting is conclusive, there
is a limited amount of human rights reporting.
Analyst(s): Jaclyn T. D'Arcy
Karina Gomez
E=Total Environmental Score, ESA=Environmental Sector Average Score, EI=Environmental Intent, ER=Environmental Reporting, EP=Environmental Performance, S=Total Social
Score, SSA=Social Sector Average Score, SI=Social Intent, SR=Social Reporting, SP=Social Performance
Comparison with sector averages
Distribution of points
Source of points
E
85
ES A
S
46%
E
54%
S
SSA
0
25
50
36
EI
75
ER
50
25
EP
36
17
SI
SR
Toyota Industries
SP
Environmental Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
3
4
75
Excellent
Management
7
8
88
Excellent
Policy
10
10
100
Excellent
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
23
49
47
Needs improvement
Needs substantial improvement
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
4
21
19
Management
8
21
38
Needs improvement
Materials Usage
5
14
36
Needs improvement
Products
7
28
25
Needs improvement
Recycling
5
35
14
Needs substantial improvement
Waste
11
35
31
Needs improvement
Water
6
7
86
Excellent
Social Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
3
4
75
Excellent
Management
2
10
20
Needs substantial improvement
Policy
5
6
83
Excellent
Social Demographic
1
2
50
Good
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
14
77
18
Needs substantial improvement
Social Reporting
Question Category
Human Rights
Management
2
7
29
Needs improvement
Qualitative Social
30
56
54
Good
Quantitative Social
7
42
17
Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
62
Motor Vehicle and Consumer Durables Sectors 2012
B-
Toyota Motor Corporation 2010 Sustainability
Report, Code of Conduct, Supplier Screening
Guidelines, and 2010 Web Pages
Toyota Motor
Toyota Motor Corporation’s 2010 Sustainability Report clearly defines the company’s sustainability philosophy and initiatives. Data about the company’s
energy use, recycling, and hazardous waste disposal are available. However, data about notices of violations, environmental fines, and product
performance are not presented in the report. Another way Toyota could improve the report would be to include data regarding the breakdown of its
workforce from an ethnic, gender, and age-oriented standpoint. It should go into more detail about programs made to ensure diversity including reporting its
workforce profile for age, gender, and race. Toyota also demonstrates a commitment to improving traffic safety not only through improving its vehicles, but
also through funding for traffic education. Additionally, the report also suggests a commitment to Toyota’s community through volunteer programs that
range from disaster relief to community education outreach. However, Toyota should specify the amount of money it invests in its community to make its
report more comprehensive.
Analyst(s): Karun Kiani
Carolyn Campbell
E=Total Environmental Score, ESA=Environmental Sector Average Score, EI=Environmental Intent, ER=Environmental Reporting, EP=Environmental Performance, S=Total Social
Score, SSA=Social Sector Average Score, SI=Social Intent, SR=Social Reporting, SP=Social Performance
Comparison with sector averages
Distribution of points
Source of points
E
88
69
ES A
S
45%
E
55%
S
SSA
0
25
50
36
31
15
EI
75
ER
EP
8
SI
SR
Toyota Motor
SP
Environmental Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
1
4
25
Needs improvement
Management
8
8
100
Excellent
Policy
10
10
100
Excellent
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
20
49
41
Needs improvement
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
8
21
38
Needs improvement
Management
3
21
14
Needs substantial improvement
Materials Usage
7
14
50
Good
Products
7
28
25
Needs improvement
Recycling
3
35
9
Needs substantial improvement
Waste
11
35
31
Needs improvement
Water
4
7
57
Good
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
3
4
75
Excellent
Social Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Management
5
10
50
Good
Policy
6
6
100
Excellent
Social Demographic
2
2
100
Excellent
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
14
77
18
Needs substantial improvement
Needs substantial improvement
Social Reporting
Question Category
Human Rights
Management
0
7
0
Qualitative Social
17
56
30
Needs improvement
Quantitative Social
9
42
21
Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
63
Motor Vehicle and Consumer Durables Sectors 2012
C+
Volvo Group 2009 Sustainability Report, Code of
Conduct, The Volvo Way Report, and 2010 Web Pages
Volvo Group
Volvo Group’s website has clear commitment to sustainability and consumer and employee protection. For a company the size of Volvo Group, however, it
has a relatively sparse sustainability report and very little environmental information. Most of the data given in the environmental report is incomplete and
focuses on social policy instead of environmental information. Many of the initiatives given by the company to improve their environmental performance are
very brief and do not include any quantitative information. The sustainability report does not include any information about preserving biodiversity and
natural ecosystems affected by its operations. Very little quantitative information is given in the report, rather it is found in a separate supplement to the
report. The information on the whole company is given in graph form with no precise numbers. The only way to get totals for the entire company, such as
total energy consumption, it to add the numbers given by individual operations, of which there are 67. ••In addition, the company’s code of conduct, a
meager 4 pages, hardly even touches on the rights of the company’s workers. Most topics, such as fair compensation of employees and the elimination of
discrimination in the workplace, are given only a few brief sentences.
Analyst(s): Sam Kahr
Bukola Jimoh
E=Total Environmental Score, ESA=Environmental Sector Average Score, EI=Environmental Intent, ER=Environmental Reporting, EP=Environmental Performance, S=Total Social
Score, SSA=Social Sector Average Score, SI=Social Intent, SR=Social Reporting, SP=Social Performance
Comparison with sector averages
Distribution of points
Source of points
E
58
46
E
4 1%
ES A
S
S
59%
SSA
0
25
50
20
EI
75
ER
38
12
EP
10
SI
SR
Volvo Group
SP
Environmental Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
3
4
75
Excellent
Good
Management
5
8
63
Policy
4
10
40
Needs improvement
Vision
3
4
75
Excellent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
12
49
24
Needs substantial improvement
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
6
21
29
Needs improvement
Management
0
21
0
Needs substantial improvement
Materials Usage
3
14
21
Needs substantial improvement
Products
3
21
14
Needs substantial improvement
Recycling
1
35
3
Needs substantial improvement
Waste
6
35
17
Needs substantial improvement
Water
4
7
57
Good
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
1
4
25
Needs improvement
Management
5
10
50
Good
Policy
4
6
67
Good
Social Demographic
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
28
77
36
Needs improvement
Needs improvement
Social Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Social Reporting
Question Category
Human Rights
Management
2
7
29
Qualitative Social
19
56
34
Needs improvement
Quantitative Social
3
42
7
Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
64
Motor Vehicle and Consumer Durables Sectors 2012
A-
Whirlpool 2008 Sustainability Report, 2008 Global
Reporting Intiative, Code of Ethics, 2011 Web Pages
Whirlpool
Whirlpool Corporation shows a clear commitment to environmental and social sustainability through its 2008 Sustainability Report, 2008 Global Reporting
Initiative, Code of Ethics, and 2010 Web Pages. Whirlpool states that is was the first appliance manufacturer to announce a global GHG reduction target.
Today over 300 energy star appliances are sold and manufactured. Reporting addresses almost all aspects of the PSI, but is lacking a sustainability contact
person and an environmental management structure. Much of the data was shown as bar graph, but exact quantitative values should be given. The Atlanta
and Columbus facilities are among the ten largest LEED certified distribution centers in the US, with the Atlanta facility receiving a gold LEED rating.
Whirlpool reporting states that renewable energy is used in the production process, but no quantitative data or percentage is given. Reporting should give a
clear amount of renewable energy used or state investments in renewable sources. Reporting also lacks a detailed reporting of environmental
expenditures. • Whirlpool demonstrates a clear commitment to its workforce. The Code of Business Ethics is very detailed and includes monitoring and
reinforcement in almost every aspect. Whirlpool demonstrates community invest and volunteerism. It is stated that over $50 million was spent for the
Habitat for Humanity Project, but in a different section it is stated only $12 million was spent on community investment. Community investments should be
made clearer.
Analyst(s): Simone Berkovitz
Karina Gomez
E=Total Environmental Score, ESA=Environmental Sector Average Score, EI=Environmental Intent, ER=Environmental Reporting, EP=Environmental Performance, S=Total Social
Score, SSA=Social Sector Average Score, SI=Social Intent, SR=Social Reporting, SP=Social Performance
Comparison with sector averages
Distribution of points
Source of points
E
E
40%
ES A
S
73
S
60%
SSA
0
25
50
65
64
39
31
17
EI
75
ER
EP
W hirlpool
SI
SR
SP
Environmental Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
2
4
50
Good
Management
6
8
75
Excellent
Policy
7
10
70
Good
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
15
49
31
Needs improvement
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
7
21
33
Needs improvement
Management
4
21
19
Needs substantial improvement
Materials Usage
5
14
36
Needs improvement
Products
9
28
32
Needs improvement
Recycling
7
35
20
Needs substantial improvement
Waste
17
35
49
Needs improvement
Water
4
7
57
Good
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
2
4
50
Good
Management
4
10
40
Needs improvement
Policy
5
6
83
Excellent
Social Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Social Demographic
2
2
100
Excellent
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
60
77
78
Excellent
Social Reporting
Question Category
Human Rights
Management
2
7
29
Needs improvement
Qualitative Social
21
56
38
Needs improvement
Quantitative Social
15
42
36
Needs improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
65
Motor Vehicle and Consumer Durables Sectors 2012
Consumer Durables: Motor Vehicles and Parts
Environmental visionary statement
Environmental management structure
5
-Discussion: includes a clear visionary statement expressing an organizational
commitment to good environmental performance.
-Initiatives/actions: include measures to fulfill that commitment.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
Initiatives/actions
Initiatives Pg#
Environmental impediments and challenges
6
Environmental management system
Health and safety, or social organizational structure
43
Stakeholder consultation
9
Environmental education
Environmental accounting
Initiatives/actions
4
Initiatives Pg#
Third-party validation
-Discussion: identifies the person specifically designated to answer questions
about the report or sustainability issues. Investor relations or public relations
contact representatives are not valid contacts for this question.
-Initiatives/actions: to facilitate such contact, i.e. providing email address,
phone number, or a link for feedback and questions.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
Initiatives/actions
21
-Discussion: of environmental expenditures.
-Initiatives/actions: include detailed accounting of such expenditures.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
Initiatives Pg#
Report contact person
Initiatives Pg#
Initiatives/actions
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#
Initiatives/actions
-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
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
Initiatives Pg#
Environmental policy statement
Initiatives Pg#
Initiatives/actions
Discussion: of impediments and challenges faced by the organization in
attempting to realize its social vision and commitments.
Initiatives/actions: include measures taken to overcome them.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
Initiatives/actions
51
-Discussion: of organizational structure or staffing for ensuring health and
safety or social responsibility.
-Initiatives/actions: include identification of the individuals currently holding
the staff positions.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
Initiatives Pg#
Social impediments and challenges
Initiatives Pg#
Initiatives/actions
42
-Discussion: includes a clear visionary statement expressing an organizational
commitment to good social performance.
-Initiatives/actions: include measures taken to fulfill that commitment.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
Initiatives/actions
20
-Discussion: includes a statement of adoption of ISO 14001 or other formal
environmental management system.
-Initiatives/actions: include information on the extent to which the system has
been implemented.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
Initiatives Pg#
Social visionary statement
Initiatives Pg#
Initiatives/actions
-Discussion: of impediments and challenges faced by the organization in
attempting to realize its environmental vision and commitments.
-Initiatives/actions: include measures to overcome them.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
Initiatives/actions
19
-Discussion: of the organization's environmental management structure or
staffing.
-Initiatives/actions: include identification of individuals currently holding the
staff positions.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
54
-Discussion: of the value (or lack thereof) of third-party auditing or validation.
-Initiatives/actions: include formal auditing or validation by a qualified
external third-party source.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
Initiatives/actions
Initiatives Pg#
Initiatives Pg#
Climate change/global warming
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
www.roberts.cmc.edu
66
Initiatives Pg#
Motor Vehicle and Consumer Durables Sectors 2012
Consumer Durables: Motor Vehicles and Parts
Habitat/ecosystem conservation
Emergency preparedness program
11
-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
Employee training for career development
12
Initiatives Pg#
Green purchasing
Code of conduct or business ethics
13
Energy used (total)
Context
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
17
Year
-Discussion: of racial or ethnic distribution of workforce.
-Initiatives/actions: taken to avoid racial or ethnic discrimination.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
Initiatives/actions
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Units
18
-Discussion: of gender distribution of workforce.
-Initiatives/actions: taken to avoid gender discrimination and achieve
appropriate balance
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
Energy used (renewable)
52
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
-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
Year
Initiatives Pg#
Employment for individuals with disabilities
27
Energy used from renewable sources such as wind, solar, hydroelectric, or
other renewable sources.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Context Pg#:
Context
Initiatives Pg#
Workforce profile: age
Initiatives/actions
Data Values
Context Pg#:
Goal Pg#:
Initiatives Pg#
Workforce profile: gender
Initiatives/actions
26
Sum of the energy used by the organization in all different forms, including
electricity, fuel, natural gas and others.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Initiatives Pg#
Workforce profile: ethnicities/race
Initiatives Pg#
Initiatives/actions
49
-Discussion: or description of procedures to evaluate and select suppliers on
their ability to meet the requirements of the company's social or environmental
policy and principles.
-Initiatives/actions: include measures to implement or assure such screening or
selection.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
Initiatives/actions
47
-Discussion: includes a formal organizational code of conduct or of ethical
behavior.
-Initiatives/actions: include measures to assure that the code of conduct is
followed.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
Initiatives Pg#
Supplier screening based on social or environmental
performance/ supplier management
Initiatives Pg#
Initiatives/actions
-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
82
-Discussion: of training, skills and learning programs appropriate to support
employees' upward mobility.
-Initiatives/actions: taken to implement such training.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
-Discussion: of the organization's position on biodiversity.
-Initiatives/actions: taken by to the organization to foster biodiversity.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
Initiatives/actions
Initiatives Pg#
Initiatives/actions
Initiatives Pg#
Biodiversity
53
-Discussion: of emergency preparedness programs to prepare employees or the
public to cope with potential emergencies at the organization's facilities.
-Initiatives/actions: include measures taken to implement such programs.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
Data Values
Goal Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Units
80
-Discussion: of appropriate actions to accommodate employees with disabilities.
-Initiatives/actions: taken to implement such accommodations.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
Initiatives/actions
Initiatives Pg#
www.roberts.cmc.edu
67
Motor Vehicle and Consumer Durables Sectors 2012
Consumer Durables: Motor Vehicles and Parts
Energy used: Logistics
Waste (solid) disposed of
103
Amount of fuel consumed for logistics purposes
Discussion
Context
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
Year
Data Values
Discussion Pg#:
Context Pg#:
Context
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
Goal Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Units
Year
Waste recycled: solid waste
30
Year
Data Values
Data Values
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#:
Goal Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Context
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
Units
Year
Waste (office) recycled
Context Pg#:
Goal Pg#:
Waste (hazardous) produced
Sum of all solid waste recycled, including hazardous waste.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Context
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
34
Includes solid hazardous and non-hazardous waste landfilled, incinerated, or
transferred.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Data Values
Context Pg#:
Goal Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Units
32
Office recycling of paper, cardboard, metal, or plastic.
Discussion
Context
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
Year
Data Values
Discussion Pg#:
Context Pg#:
Goal Pg#:
Waste (hazardous) released to the environment
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Units
Context
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
Year
www.roberts.cmc.edu
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
68
Data Values
Context Pg#:
Goal Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Units
Motor Vehicle and Consumer Durables Sectors 2012
Consumer Durables: Motor Vehicles and Parts
Materials recycled: Wastewater
Materials used: Non-returnable packaging
106
Wastewater that is reused in a manufacturing process or otherwise recycled.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Context
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
Year
Data Values
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 reused or recycled: Packaging materials
Year
Data Values
Goal Pg#:
Improve Pg#
109
29
Data Values
Discussion Pg#:
Context Pg#:
Goal Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Units
Waste water released to natural water bodies
The amount of waste materials specified as packaging materials by the
organization, and not reused or recycled.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
110
Amount of waste water released into natural waters.
Discussion
Context
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
Context Pg#:
Goal Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Units
www.roberts.cmc.edu
Improve Pg#
Units
Discussion
Context
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Waste: Packaging materials
Data Values
Prev Quan Pg#:
Sum of all water used during operations.
Year
Year
Goal Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Water used
Units
Context
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
Data Values
Context Pg#:
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
Context Pg#:
Context
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
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
Year
69
Data Values
Discussion Pg#:
Context Pg#:
Goal Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Units
Motor Vehicle and Consumer Durables Sectors 2012
Consumer Durables: Motor Vehicles and Parts
Greenhouse gases (or CO2 equivalents), total
Nitrogen oxides (NOx)
83
The sum of all greenhouse gases released, which could include CO2, CH4
(methane), N2O (nitrous oxide), SF6 (Sulphur hexafluoride), PFCs
(Perfluorocarbons) and HFCs (hydrofluorocarbons). The report should label
this indicator as "greenhouse gases released", "CO2 Equivalents", or similar.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Context Pg#:
Context
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
Year
Data Values
121
Emissions of all nitrogen oxides to air.
Discussion
Context
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
Goal Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Year
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Data Values
Discussion Pg#:
Context Pg#:
Goal Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Units
Units
Volatile organic carbon (VOC), concentration
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
The concentration of volatile organic compound emissions in and around
production facilities.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Context Pg#:
Context
114
Total emissions of volatile organic compounds, airborn chemicals most often
released during the painting process.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Context
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
Year
Data Values
122
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
Context Pg#:
Goal Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Year
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Data Values
Goal Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Units
Units
Particulate matter (dust)
Carbon monoxide (CO)
118
Carbon Monoxide (CO) released.
Discussion
Context
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
Year
Data Values
123
"Particulate matter" usually refers to all material emitted to air smaller than 10
microns in diameter (PM10). Smaller, more toxic material such as PM 2.5,
smaller than 2.5 microns, may also be called out.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Context Pg#:
Context
Discussion Pg#:
Context Pg#:
Goal Pg#:
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Year
Data Values
Goal Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Units
Units
www.roberts.cmc.edu
70
Motor Vehicle and Consumer Durables Sectors 2012
Consumer Durables: Motor Vehicles and Parts
Logistics emissions
Lost workday case rate
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
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
Discussion
Context
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Year
Units
Context
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
81
Context
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
Goal Pg#:
Data Values
Context Pg#:
Goal Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Units
Notices of violation (environmental)
74
Number of employee incidents or accidents, such as: “total case incident
rate,” “incident rate,” or "accident rate."
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Data Values
Units
Amount of money spent on community outreach, including education grants,
donations, and relief effort funds.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Discussion Pg#:
Context Pg#:
Recordable incident/accident rate
Year
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Social community investment
3
Annual employee turnover rate.
Data Values
Data Values
Context Pg#:
Goal Pg#:
Units
Employee turnover rate
Year
75
Number of employee injuries or illnesses that resulted in one or more lost
workdays.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
38
Notices of violation (NOVs) for environmental infractions.
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
71
Motor Vehicle and Consumer Durables Sectors 2012
Consumer Durables: Motor Vehicles and Parts
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
Context
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
Units
Context
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
141
Year
Data Values
Context Pg#:
Goal Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Units
Units
Product performance, fuel efficiency
76
Context
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
142
Description of fuel efficiency of products
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
Data Values
Improve Pg#
Quantification of emissions in exhaust gases emitted by products
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Context Pg#:
Goal Pg#:
Health and safety citations
Year
Goal Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Product performance, emissions
40
Government imposed fines for environmental infractions.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Data Values
Data Values
Context Pg#:
Units
Fines (environmental)
Year
77
Fines levied against a company for health and safety violations.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Discussion
Context
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
Context Pg#:
Goal Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Year
Improve Pg#
Data Values
Discussion Pg#:
Context Pg#:
Goal Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Units
Units
www.roberts.cmc.edu
72
Motor Vehicle and Consumer Durables Sectors 2012
Consumer Durables: Motor Vehicles and Parts
Product performance, recyclability
Remanufacturing of products
143
Description of recyclability of products
Discussion
Context
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
Year
Data Values
Discussion Pg#:
Context Pg#:
Context
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
Goal Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Units
Year
Product performance, noise
Description of noise emissions by products
Year
Data Values
Data Values
Context Pg#:
Goal Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Units
Life Cycle Analysis (LCA)
151
Discussion
Context
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
184
Description of use of remanufactured or refurbished parts in products
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
147
Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) is a formal procedure that examines the environmental
aspects and impacts of a process or product from "cradle to grave". To get credit
here, it must be referred to as life cycle analyses or planning.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Discussion Pg#:
Context Pg#:
Goal Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Initiative Pg#:
Initiatives/Action
Context Pg#:
Context
Improvement Over Previous Improve Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Women in management
Units
2
Relative numbers of women in management.
Discussion
Initiatives/Action
Context
Improvement Over Previous
Product performance, safety
Improve Pg#:
67
Surveys to monitor employee satisfaction.
Discussion
Context
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
Data Values
Context Pg#:
Employee satisfaction surveys
156
Description of safety of products
Year
Discussion Pg#:
Initiative Pg#:
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Initiatives/Action
Context
Improvement Over Previous
Context Pg#:
Goal Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Discussion Pg#:
Initiative Pg#:
Context Pg#:
Improve Pg#:
Occupational health and safety protection
70
Efforts to provide a safe and healthy working environment at all sites.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Units
Initiative Pg#:
Initiatives/Action
Context Pg#:
Context
Improvement Over Previous Improve Pg#:
Employee volunteerism
72
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#:
www.roberts.cmc.edu
73
Motor Vehicle and Consumer Durables Sectors 2012
Consumer Durables: Motor Vehicles and Parts
Community development
Fair compensation of employees
66
Adoption of Policy
Action to Reinforce Policy
Monitoring
Quant. Indication of Compliance
Initiative Pg#:
Initiatives/Action
Context Pg#:
Context
Improvement Over Previous Improve Pg#:
Community education
Adoption of Policy
Action to Reinforce Policy
Monitoring
Quant. Indication of Compliance
Initiative Pg#:
Initiatives/Action
Context Pg#:
Context
Improvement Over Previous Improve Pg#:
152
Adoption of Policy
Action to Reinforce Policy
Monitoring
Quant. Indication of Compliance
Initiative Pg#:
Monitoring Pg#:
Adoption of Policy
Action to Reinforce Policy
Monitoring
Quant. Indication of Compliance
Qty Perf Pg#:
7
59
Policy Adopt Pg#:
Initiative Pg#:
Monitoring Pg#:
Qty Perf Pg#:
60
Policy Adopt Pg#:
Initiative Pg#:
Monitoring Pg#:
Qty Perf Pg#:
Free association and collective bargaining of employees
Initiative Pg#:
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
8
Rejection of bribery
61
Policy Adopt Pg#:
Initiative Pg#:
Monitoring Pg#:
Qty Perf Pg#:
Policy Adopt Pg#:
Elimination of all forms of forced and compulsory labor
Initiative Pg#:
Monitoring Pg#:
63
Assurance that all employees enter employment with the company of their own free
will, not by compulsion.
Qty Perf Pg#:
Anti-corruption practices
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.
www.roberts.cmc.edu
Monitoring Pg#:
Qty Perf Pg#:
Policy Adopt Pg#:
Bribery
Adoption of Policy
Action to Reinforce Policy
Monitoring
Quant. Indication of Compliance
Initiative Pg#:
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#:
Policy about political contributions.
Adoption of Policy
Action to Reinforce Policy
Monitoring
Quant. Indication of Compliance
Policy Adopt Pg#:
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
64
Commitment to oppose any corporal/hard labor punishment, mental/physical
coercion, or verbal abuse.
Initiative Pg#:
Initiatives/Action
Context Pg#:
Context
Improvement Over Previous Improve Pg#:
Political contributions
Qty Perf Pg#:
Degrading treatment or punishment of employees
Effor to educate consumer of the reponsible usage of the product. For example
education on road safety in automobile and parts sector or responsible drinking in
food and beverage sector.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Adoption of Policy
Action to Reinforce Policy
Monitoring
Quant. Indication of Compliance
Initiative Pg#:
Monitoring Pg#:
Compliance with applicable laws and industry standards on working hours, including
overtime.
Efforts to support education in the communities where the company is located.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Sexual harassment
Policy Adopt Pg#:
Reasonable working hours
68
Consumer education program
62
Assurance that wages paid meet or exceed legal or industry minimum standard.
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
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#:
74
Policy Adopt Pg#:
Initiative Pg#:
Monitoring Pg#:
Qty Perf Pg#:
Motor Vehicle and Consumer Durables Sectors 2012
Aisin Seiki, BMW Group, Bridgestone, Continental AG, Daimler
AG, Denso, Dongfeng Motor
Group, Electrolux, Fiat, Ford
Motor, Fortune Brands, Honda
Motor, Hyundai Mobis, Hyundai
Motor, Johnson Controls, Magna
International, Mazda Motor, Michelin, Mitsubishi, Nissan Motor,
Peugeot, Porsche, Renault, SAIC
Motor, Suzuki Motor, Tata Motors,
Toyota Industries, Toyota Motor,
Volvo Group, and Whirlpool
Roberts Environmental Center
The Roberts Environmental Center is a research institute at Claremont McKenna College, endowed by George R.
Roberts, Founding Partner, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. The Center is managed by faculty and staff, and its research,
including the material in this report, is done by students at the Claremont Colleges.
Claremont McKenna College
Claremont McKenna College, a member of the Claremont Colleges, is a highly selective, independent, coeducational,
residential, undergraduate liberal arts college with a curricular emphasis on economics, government, and public
affairs.
The Claremont Colleges
The Claremont Colleges form a consortium of five undergraduate liberal arts colleges and two graduate institutions
based on the Oxford/Cambridge model. The consortium offers students diverse opportunities and resources typically
found only at much larger universities. The consortium members include Claremont McKenna College, Harvey Mudd
College, Pitzer College, Pomona College, Scripps College, Keck Graduate Institute of Applied Life Sciences, and the
Clremont Graduate University which—includes the Peter F. Drucker and Masatoshi Ito Graduate School of
Management.
Contact Information
Dr. J. Emil Morhardt, Director, Phone: 909-621-8190, email: emorhardt@cmc.edu
Elgeritte Adidjaja, Research Fellow, Phone: 909-621-8698, email: eadidjaja@cmc.edu
Roberts Environmental Center, Claremont McKenna College, 925 N. Mills Avenue, Claremont, CA 91711-5916, USA.