ABB, Atlas Copco, Bharat Heavy
Electricals, Caterpillar Inc., Cooper
2012
Sustainability
Reporting
of
the
Industries, Cummins, Deere &
Top
30
Global
Capital
Goods
Companies
Company, Eaton, Fanuc, Hyundai
(*Industrial and Farm Equipment)
Heavy Industries, Illinois Tool Works,
Komatsu, Kubota, LeGrand, MAN
Group, Mitsubishi Electric, Mitsubishi
Heavy Industries, Nidec, Paccar Inc.,
Parker Hannifin, Samsung Heavy
Industries, Sandvik, Schindler Holding,
Schneider Electric, Shanghai Electric
Group, Sumitomo Electric Industries,
Vallourec, Vestas Wind Systems,
Wärtsilä, and WW Grainger
Pacific Sustainability Index Scores: A benchmarking tool for online sustainability reporting
J. Emil Morhardt, Elgeritte Adidjaja, Gracie Beck, Simone Berkovitz, Carolyn Campbell, Jaclyn T. D'Arcy,
Whitney Ellen Dawson, Karen de Wolski, Elizabeth Duckworth, Erin Franks, Hilary Haskell, Alan Hu,
Bukola Jimoh, Quentin Jones, Sam Kahr, Eric Robert King, Jordan Lieberman, Danielle L. Manning, Stephanie Oehler, Daniel Olmsted, Ashley Scott, Michael Handler Shoemaker, and Sachi Singh.
*This report is based on companies in the Forbes 2010 Capital Goods sector, roughly equivalent to the
Fortune Magazine Industrial & Farm Equipment sector used in our previous reports.
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
Visual Cluster Analysis
Performance by Country
Relationship Between PSI Scores and Financial
Variables
Number of Explicit numerical goals Reported
Number of Topics Showing Performance
Improvement over Previous Year Data
Number of Topics in which Performance was
Better than Sector Average
Analyst’s Comments, alphabetically listed by
company name
Appendix: PSI Questionnaire
Page
3
4
5
6
9
10
11
12
13
14
The Roberts Environmental Center has been the foremost
analyst of corporate sustainability reporting for over a
decade. We analyze corporate online disclosure using our
Pacific Sustainability Index (PSI) and publish the results
online.
Industrial Sector**
2
0
0
4
2
0
0
5
X
Electronics & Semiconductors
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Entertainment
X
Federal Agencies
Food Services
X
X
X
X
X
General Merchandiser
X
Homebuilders
X
X
X
X
X
X
X*
X*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Petroleum & Refining
X
Pharmaceuticals
X
Scientific, Photo, & Control
Equipment
Telecommunications, Network, &
Peripherals
Transportation
X
X
Municipalities
Oil and Gas Equipment
Elgeritte Adidjaja, Research Fellow
(909) 621-8698
(eadidjaja@cmc.edu)
X
X
X
Motor Vehicle & Parts
Dr. J. Emil Morhardt, Director
(emorhardt@cmc.edu)
Roberts Environmental Center
Claremont McKenna College
925 N. Mills Ave. Claremont, CA 91711-5916, USA
Direct line: (909) 621-8190
2
0
1
2
X
X
X
Household, Apparel, & Personal
Products
Industrial & Farm Equipment
Mail, Freight, & Shipping
Medical Products & Equipment
Metals
Mining, Crude Oil
Questions should be addressed to:
2
0
1
1
X
Forest & Paper Products
63
2
0
1
0
X
Energy & Utilities
33
2
0
0
9
X
Colleges/Universities
Computer, Office Equipment, &
Services
Conglomerates
Food & Beverages
32
2
0
0
8
X
Banks, Insurance
Chemicals
29
30
2
0
0
7
X
Aerospace & Defense
Airlines
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
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
Capital Goods: Industrial & Farm Equipment Sector 2012
Capital Goods (Industrial and Farm Equipment) Sector
Corporate Environmental and Sustainability Reporting
Company Rankings
Overall Grade
A+
Wärtsilä (Finland)
B+
Schneider Electric (France)
B+
Mitsubishi Electric (Japan)
B
Sandvik (Sweden)
B
Komatsu (Japan)
B-
Vallourec (France)
B-
Sumitomo Electric Industries (Japan)
B-
LeGrand (France)
B-
Kubota (Japan)
36.93
B-
ABB (Switzerland)
36.41
C+
Caterpillar Inc. (USA)
C+
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (Japan)
36.35
C+
Atlas Copco (Sweden)
35.47
C+
Samsung Heavy Industries (South
Korea)
C+
MAN Group (Germany)
C
Deere & Company (USA)
C
WW Grainger (USA)
C
Cooper Industries (USA)
C-
Schindler Holding (Switzerland)
C-
Nidec (Japan)
C-
Cummins (USA)
C-
Eaton (USA)
C-
Hyundai Heavy Industries (South
Korea)
C-
Illinois Tool Works (USA)
D+
Bharat Heavy Electricals (India)
D+
Paccar Inc. (USA)
D+
Parker Hannifin (USA)
F
Shanghai Electric Group (China)
F
Fanuc (Japan)
F
Vestas Wind Systems (USA)
63.39
Wärtsilä
49.89
Sc hneider Elec tric
48.70
Mitsubishi Elec tric
41.20
Sandvik
40.44
Komatsu
39.06
Vallourec
Sumitomo Elec tric Industries
LeGrand
Kubota
ABB
Caterpillar Inc .
34.22
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries
33.49
31.20
Atlas Copc o
30.26
Samsung Heavy Industries
29.58
MAN Group
26.25
Deere & Company
25.36
WW Grainger
24.69
Cooper Industries
23.23
Sc hindler Holding
Nidec
22.76
Cummins
22.76
21.46
Eaton
Hyundai Heavy Industries
20.10
Illinois Tool Works
19.84
16.09
Bharat Heavy Elec tric als
14.27
Pac c ar Inc .
13.28
Parker Hannifin
1.98
Shanghai Elec tric Group
Fanuc
0.00
Vestas Wind Systems
0.00
0
25
50
75
100
This report is an analysis of the voluntary environmental and social reporting of companies on the 2010 Forbes List Capital GoodsIndustrial and Farm Equipment 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
2/3/2011 through 6/11/2011
10/22/2011 through 11/25/2011
3
Capital Goods: Industrial & Farm Equipment Sector 2012
The Pacific Sustainability Index (PSI) Overview
the PSI Scoring System
The Pacific Sustainability Index (PSI) uses two systematic questionnaires to analyze the quality of the
sustainability reporting—a base questionnaire for reports across sectors and a sector-specific
questionnaire for companies within the same sector. The selection of questions is based on, and
periodically adjusted to, the most frequently-mentioned topics in over 1,900 corporate sustainability reports
analyzed from 2002 through 2009 at the Roberts Environmental Center.
The Roberts Environmental Center
The Roberts Environmental Center is an environmental research institute at Claremont McKenna College
(CMC). Its mission is to provide students of all the Claremont Colleges with a comprehensive and realistic
understanding of today’s environmental issues and the ways in which they are being and can be resolved-beyond the confines of traditional academic disciplines and curriculum--and to identify, publicize, and
encourage policies and practices that achieve economic and social goals in the most environmentally
benign and protective manner. The Center is partially funded by an endowment from George R. Roberts
(Founding Partner of Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. and CMC alumnus),
other grants and gifts, and is staffed by faculty and students from the
Claremont Colleges.
Methodology
Student analysts download relevant English language web pages from
the main corporate website for analysis. Our scoring excludes data
independently stored outside the main corporate website or available
only in hard copy. When a corporate subsidiary has its own
sustainability reporting, partial credit is given to the parent company
when a direct link is provided in the main corporate website. We archive these web pages as PDF files for
future reference. Our analysts use a keyword search function to search reporting of specific topics, fill out
a PSI scoring sheet (http://www.roberts.cmc.edu/PSI/scoringsheet.asp), and track the coverage and depths
of different sustainability issues mentioned in all online materials.
Scores and Ranks
When they are finished scoring, the analysts enter their scoring results into the PSI database. The PSI
database calculates scores and publishes them on the Center’s website. This sector report provides an indepth analysis on sustainability reporting of the largest companies of the sector, as listed in the latest 2010
Forbes lists. Prior to publishing our sector report, we notify companies analyzed and encourage them to
provide feedback and additional new online materials, which often improve their scores.
What do the scores mean?
We normalize all the scores to the potential maximum score. Scores of subsets of the overall score are also
normalized to their potential maxima. The letter grades (A+, A, A-, B+, etc.), however, are normalized to the
highest scoring company analyzed in the report. Grades of individual companies in the report might be
different from grades posted online on the Roberts Environmental Center's website, since the normalization
of scores of an individual company online is not limited to the companies analyzed in the sector report, but
also includes other companies of the same sector irrespective of the year of analysis. Companies with
scores in the highest 4% get an A+ and any in the bottom 4% get an F. We assign these by dividing the
maximum PSI score obtained in the sector into 12 equal parts then rounding fractional score up or down.
This means that A+ and F are under-represented compared to the other grades. The same technique applies
to the separate categories of environmental and social scores. Thus, we grade on the curve. We assume
that the highest score obtained in the sector and any scores near it represent the state-of-the-art for that
sector and deserve an A+.
www.roberts.cmc.edu
4
Capital Goods: Industrial & Farm Equipment Sector 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
Capital Goods: Industrial & Farm Equipment Sector 2012
Lead Analyst’s
Commentary
challenges. Furthermore, Wärtsilä discusses the
issue that the “Growth in the world’s energy needs,
combined with increasingly stringent environmental
requirements, creates a challenging operating
climate for companies in Wärtsilä’s line of business.”
Consequently, “Wärtsilä has responded to these
challenges by improving the energy efficiency of its
products while simultaneously reducing their
emissions” as obstacles that must be overcome.
Wärtsilä’s exemplary corporate sustainability
reporting serves as a framework for the other
companies of the Capital Goods sector.
By Hilary Haskel, CMC ‘14
T
he leader in the Capital Goods
sector overall is Wärtsilä, the only
company to receive a grade of “A+”
in its corporate environmental and
sustainability reporting. However, Fanuc, Vestas
Wind Systems, and Shanghai Electric Group all
received a grade of “F” in their corporate
environmental and sustainability reporting, overall. A
major contributor to the low grades received by many
Capital Goods sector companies is the lack of
reporting on Life Cycle Analysis, an integral aspect of
corporate environmental and sustainability reporting
for the Capital Goods sector. Only 43.3 % of
companies within this sector addressed this topic,
and the relative depth of reporting on this topic was
only 19.0%, indicating a need for improvement in this
area. Comparatively, companies from the Capital
Goods sector focus substantially on reporting their
products’ performance, including emission levels, fuel
efficiency, and recyclability. Therefore, it is not
surprising that for the Environmental Reporting topics
for the Capital Goods sector, Products Reporting was
reported at the highest rate for all companies
combined, 60%. For the Social Reporting elements of
the PSI Scores, consumer education programs,
product performance, safety; and product
performance, noise; were reported by all companies.
This data further reflects the importance of not only
the companies’ manufacturing processes, but the
product sustainability and responsibility of the
products that the companies in the Capital Goods
sector produce.
Life Cycle Analysis
Capital goods, the inputs required in the
production of other goods, play an important role in
global industry. Not only do the companies that
manufacture capital goods have an impact on social
and environmental factors, but their products affect
the manufacturing process further down the supply
chain as well. For this reason, capital goods are an
integral aspect of the Life Cycle Analysis process. In
the EPA’s Life Cycle Assessment: Principle and
Practice, the main importance of capital goods in a
“cradle to grave approach” that ranges from “the
gathering of raw materials from the earth to create
the product and ends at the point when all materials
are returned to the earth”1 is through the
manufacturing process. Furthermore, because “LCA
evaluates all stages of a product’s life from the
perspective that they are interdependent, meaning
that one operation leads to the next,” ibid. it is important
to consider the “interdependence” of capital goods
within the process. LCA is an important aspect of
corporate environmental and sustainability reporting
in that “LCA provides a comprehensive view of the
environmental aspects of the product or process and
a more accurate picture of the true environmental
trade-offs in product and process selection.” ibid.
Wärtsilä not only received the highest PSI
score in its sector, but it also captures the importance
of capital goods in sustainable production through its
discussion of product performance. The company
reports that its main role in sustainability is “to supply
environmentally sound solutions and services, which
enable its customers to develop their business in a
sustainable way. This requires continuous investment
in technology development and an on-going search
for new solutions.” Through this statement, Wärtsilä
explains the demands that the Capital Goods sector
must respond to in the face of environmental
1
United States. Environmental Protection
Agency. National Risk Management Research
Laboratory Office of Research and
Development. Life Cycle Assessment: Principles and
Practice. By Mary Ann Curran. Scientific
Applications International Corporation (SAIC), May
2006. Web. 20 Apr. 2012.
<http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/std/lca/pdfs/600r06060.p
df>.
www.roberts.cmc.edu
6
Capital Goods: Industrial & Farm Equipment Sector 2012
Due to the relatively low level of reporting
on LCA with respect to capital goods, it is important to
consider why this might be problematic in
sustainability reporting. In an article by Rolf
Frischknecht et al, there is discussion of whether or
not capital goods should be included in LCA of other
products, and what factors should be considered
when making this determination. It must be noted
that:
caused because inputs are not used effectively in the
process of production, that is, inputs are not
converted completely [embodied] into useful output.”3
Ramirez goes on to “refer(s) to capital that can
increase the effectiveness (or productivity) of inputuse and reduce pollution per unit of input and per unit
of output as conservation capital,” ibid. which the
Capital Goods sector must strive to produce in the
future in order to create more sustainable production
practices for entire industries. The economical
considerations of conservation capital investment
include that “…conservation capital is rival and
productivity enhancing; there exist private incentives
to invest in it. However, since producers are likely to
disregard the public benefits of investing in
conservation capital, they will under invest in it
relative to the socially optimal level.” ibid Therefore, in
order for there to be sustainable development
through investment in capital goods that allow for
efficient production, there must be an emphasis on
research and development of capital goods in the
Capital Goods sector.
In ISO standards 14040 and 14044 the capital goods are
explicitly part of the product system. Thus, it is doubtful
if capital goods can be excluded per se as has been
done in quite a number of case studies and LCA
databases. There is yet no clear idea about if and when
capital goods play an important role in life cycle
2
assessments.
Cooper Industries has implemented its LCA so that
“companies are also using this LCA tool, making it
easier for customers to compare products from
different suppliers” in order to address this issue.
Cooper Industries serves as an example to other
companies in the Capital Goods industry as to why it
is important to provide data on LCA in sustainability
reporting. Frischknecht’s conclusion is that the most
relevant factors in LCA are “whether maintenance
and depreciation costs of capital equipment form a
substantial part of the product price (Heijungs et al.
1992a), and whether actual environmental hot spots
occur along the capital goods' supply chain.” ibid.
These factors are important considerations when
assessing the Capital Goods sector’s implementation
of LCA.
It is not only important to consider the
impacts of capital goods in LCA, but also the
performance of capital goods. The efficiency of these
input factors in supply chains are an essential aspect
of the sustainability of industrial practices. According
to Ramirez et al, The Capital Goods sector must
dedicate itself to producing technology and capital so
that “investment in capital goods augments the
effectiveness of input use and, thus, input productivity
and lowers the pollution intensity of inputs…” This
leads to the “Underlying…premise that pollution is
Over-arching Goals
Given the PSI scores of companies from the
Capital Goods sector on a global scale, the
importance of sustainable development in both
developing and developed countries is a necessary
consideration. In the United Nation’s Agenda 21,
“Chapter 34: Transfer of Environmentally Sound
Technology, Cooperation & Capacity-Building;” there
is discussion of “The availability of scientific and
technological information and access to and transfer
of environmentally sound technology are essential
requirements for sustainable development.”4 This
3
Ramirez, Donna T., Madhu Khanna, and
David Zilberman. "Conservation Capital and
Sustainable Economic Growth." Department of
Agricultural & Resource Economics College of
Natural Resources | University oCalifornia, Berkeley.
University of California, Berkeley. Web. 20 Apr.
2012.
<http://are.berkeley.edu/~zilber11/papers/conservatio
n.pdf>. 2
Frischknecht, Rolf, Hans-Jorg Althaus,
Christian Bauer, Gabor Doka, Thomas Heck, Niels
Jungbluth, Daniel Kellengerger, and Thomas
Nemecek. "The Environmental Relevance of Capital
Goods in." International Journal Life Cycle
Analysis (2006). ESU-Services Fair Consulting in
Sustainability. ESU-services Ltd., 21 Feb. 2007.
Web. 4 Apr. 2012. <http://www.esuservices.ch/fileadmin/download/Frischknecht-2007CapitalGoods_IntJLCA.pdf>. 4
"DSD :: Resources - Publications - Core
Publications- Agenda 21." UN News Center. UN,
2009. Web. 20 Apr. 2012.
www.roberts.cmc.edu
7
Capital Goods: Industrial & Farm Equipment Sector 2012
section of the Agenda stresses “The availability of
scientific and technological information and access
to and transfer of environmentally sound technology
[as] essential requirements for sustainable
development.” ibid. The Capital Goods Sector, on a
global scale, is in the position to be able to provide
“access to and transfer of environmentally sound
technology,” to developing nations, in the wake of the
increasing demand for “green” and low emissions
production methods. With sustainable practices from
the Capital Goods sector, the “vicious cycle of
economic decline, increasing poverty, and
environmental degradation” ibid. can be halted with
technology transfer and sustainable development.
“Principle 9” of the Rio Declaration on Environment
and Development, cited in the Issue Paper of the
United Nations Minestrial Conference of the Least
Developed Countries, asserted the following:
company represents the Capital Goods sector in both
China and India, for both of these developing nations,
the overall environmental PSI scores were the lowest
compared to all other countries. This fact
demonstrates the need for sustainable technology
and capital goods in these nations, as already made
evident by the relatively low environmental PSI
scores received by the companies from these
countries. The process of technology transfer has
been facilitated through relevant international
organizations such as the United Nations
Environment Programme (UNEP), the United Nations
Development, Programme (UNDP), and the United
Nations Industrial Development, Organization
(UN1DO)” ibid.
The Capital Goods sector offers promise for
improving corporate sustainability, especially in the
realm of tapping into global opportunities and
crossing efficiency frontiers. In addition, the Capital
Goods sector is unique in that the corporate
sustainability of its companies not only impacts the
company’s corporate sustainability, but supply chains
as well through the company’s products. This unique
attribute of the Capital Goods sector places it in the
position to be a leader in corporate sustainability.
States should cooperate to strengthen
endogenous capacity-building for sustainable
development by improving scientific
understanding through exchanges of scientific
and technological knowledge, and by enhancing
the development,
adaptation, diffusion, and transfer of
technologies, including new and innovative
technologies. 5
Consequently, the case for technology transfers have
the potential “To promote long-term technological
partnerships between holders of environmentally
sound technologies and potential users,” ibid. in order
to make an impact on the sustainability of the
developing world through these nations’ means of
production.
As developing countries such as China and
India grow at a rapid pace, especially in GDP, their
capital inputs must also do so in order to support this
new economic expansion. Although only one
<http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/res_agenda21_
34.shtml>. 5
"Globalization and the Least Developed
Countries: Issues in Technology." Making
Globalization Work for the LDCs. Proc. of United
Nations Ministerial Conference of the Least
Developed Countries, Turkey, Istanbul. United
Nations. Web. 20 Apr. 2012.
<http://www.unohrlls.org/UserFiles/File/LDC%20Do
cuments/Turkey/Technology-Final.pdf>. www.roberts.cmc.edu
8
Capital Goods: Industrial & Farm Equipment Sector 2012
Capital Goods (Industrial and Farm Equipment)
Environmental Intent Topics
Percent of possible points for all companies combined.
Two possible points for each topic:
Accountability
70.00
70
4
19
* Report contact person
* Environmental management structure
Management
60
52.50
16
20
21
23
51.00
50
41.67
* Environmental education
* Environmental management system
* Environmental accounting
* Stakeholder consultation
Policy
40
9
10
11
12
13
30
* Environmental policy statement
* Climate change/global warming
* Habitat/ecosystem conservation
* Biodiversity
* Green purchasing
Vision
20
5
6
* 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
9
Capital Goods: Industrial & Farm Equipment Sector 2012
Capital Goods (Industrial and Farm Equipment)
Environmental Reporting Topics
Seven possible points for each topic:
Emissions to Air
Percent of possible points for all companies combined.
83
114
115
118
60.00
60
121
122
123
49.33
50
124
* Greenhouse gases (or CO2 equivalents), total
* Volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
* Methane (CH4)
* Carbon monoxide (CO)
* Nitrogen oxides (NOx)
* Volatile organic carbon (VOC), concentration
* Particulate matter (dust)
* Logistics emissions
Energy
26
40
27
103
33.11
30
Management
29.78
28.78
* Energy used (total)
* Energy used (renewable)
* Energy used: Logistics
38
26.45
39
40
23.17
* Notices of violation (environmental)
* Environmental expenses and investments
* Fines (environmental)
Materials Usage
20
147
148
13.56
* Life Cycle Analysis (LCA)
* Materials used: Non-returnable packaging
Products
10
141
142
143
Recycling
Water
Waste
Recycling
Products
Materials Usage
Management
Energy
Emissions to Air
0
* Product performance, emissions
* Product performance, fuel efficiency
* Product performance, recyclability
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
10
Capital Goods: Industrial & Farm Equipment Sector 2012
Capital Goods (Industrial and Farm Equipment)
Social Intent Topics
Two possible points for each topic:
Percent of possible points for all companies combined.
Accountability
51
70
* Health and safety, or social organizational
64.44
54
60
58.33
56.67
*
structure
Third-party validation
Management
17
18
50
52
53
82
40
32.33
* Workforce profile: ethnicities/race
* Workforce profile: gender
* Workforce profile: age
* Emergency preparedness program
* Employee training for career development
Policy
30
45
26.67
47
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
11
Capital Goods: Industrial & Farm Equipment Sector 2012
Capital Goods (Industrial and Farm Equipment)
Social Reporting Topics
Seven possible points for each topic:
Human Rights
Percent of possible points for all companies combined.
1
7
60
56.21
8
58
59
50
60
* Sexual harassment
* Political contributions
* Bribery
* Anti-corruption practices
* Degrading treatment or punishment of employees
* Elimination of discrimination in respect to
employment and occupation
61
40
* Free association and collective bargaining of
employees
62
29.15
30
63
28.00
* Fair compensation of employees
* Elimination of all forms of forced and compulsory
labor
26.11
64
65
* Reasonable working hours
* Effective abolition of child labor
20
Management
2
Qualitative Social
10
66
68
Quantitative Social
Qualitative Social
Management
Human Rights
67
0
* Women in management
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
12
Capital Goods: Industrial & Farm Equipment Sector 2012
Capital Goods (Industrial and Farm Equipment)
Environmental Intent Elements of the PSI Scores
Environmental visionary
statement
93.3%
88.3%
Environmental management
system
83.3%
75.0%
Environmental policy
statement
83.3%
80.0%
Climate change/global
warming
73.3%
68.3%
73.3%
Environmental management
structure
50.0%
Environmental impediments
and challenges
56.7%
51.7%
Stakeholder consultation
56.7%
48.3%
Environmental education
53.3%
50.0%
46.7%
36.7%
Environmental accounting
Habitat/ecosystem
conservation
43.3%
35.0%
Biodiversity
40.0%
38.3%
Report contact person
40.0%
33.3%
36.7%
33.3%
Green purchasing
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
= Percentage of companies addressing the topics
= Percentage of the total possible number of points awarded to all companies combined for each topic,
indicating the depth of reporting coverage measured by PSI criteria for each topic. If both percentages are
the same it means that each of those reporting companies reporting on a topic got all the possible points.
www.roberts.cmc.edu
13
Capital Goods: Industrial & Farm Equipment Sector 2012
Capital Goods (Industrial and Farm Equipment)
Environmental Reporting Elements of the PSI Scores
Materials used: Non-returnable packaging
10 0 . 0 %
14 . 3 %
Remanufacturing of products
Product performance, recyclability
10 0 . 0 %
42.9%
Product performance, fuel efficiency
14 . 3 %
Waste water released to natural water bodies
14 . 3 %
10 0 . 0 %
10 0 . 0 %
Product performance, emissions
7 1. 4 %
Materials reused or recycled: Packaging materials
10 0 . 0 %
85.7%
Waste: Packaging materials
28.6%
Energy used: Logistics
28.6%
Greenhouse gases (or CO2 equivalents), total
79.3%
70.0%
70.0%
35.2%
Energy used (total)
70.0%
33.8%
Waste recycled: solid waste
63.3%
29.5%
Nitrogen oxides (NOx)
23.2%
Waste (hazardous) produced
22.4%
Life Cycle Analysis (LCA)
19 . 0 %
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
20.5%
Energy used (renewable)
6 2 . 1%
53.3%
43.3%
43.3%
40.0%
13 . 3 %
Environmental expenses and investments
40.0%
17 . 1%
33.3%
11. 0 %
3 1. 0 %
8.9%
Fines (environmental)
20.0%
6.7%
Notices of violation (environmental)
20.0%
5.2%
Waste (office) recycled
10 0 . 0 %
30.5%
Water used
Methane (CH4)
10 0 . 0 %
47.3%
Waste (solid) disposed of
Particulate matter (dust)
10 0 . 0 %
10 0 . 0 %
42.9%
Logistics emissions
Waste (hazardous) released to the environment
10 0 . 0 %
5 7 . 1%
10 . 7 %
1. 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
14
Capital Goods: Industrial & Farm Equipment Sector 2012
Capital Goods (Industrial and Farm Equipment)
Social Intent Elements of the PSI Scores
90.0%
83.3%
Social visionary statement
83.3%
75.0%
Code of conduct or business ethics
76.7%
70.0%
Employee training for career development
73.3%
55.0%
Health and safety, or social organizational structure
66.7%
61.7%
Social policy statement
63.3%
58.3%
Third-party validation
60.0%
56.7%
Supplier screening based on social or environmental
performance/ supplier management
Emergency preparedness program
40.0%
31.7%
Social impediments and challenges
40.0%
33.3%
36.7%
28.3%
Workforce profile: gender
33.3%
26.7%
Employment for individuals with disabilities
Workforce profile: age
20.0%
15.0%
Workforce profile: ethnicities/race
20.0%
16.7%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
= Percentage of companies addressing the topics
= Percentage of the total possible number of points awarded to all companies combined for each topic,
indicating the depth of reporting coverage measured by PSI criteria for each topic. If both percentages are
the same it means that each of those reporting companies reporting on a topic got all the possible points.
www.roberts.cmc.edu
15
Capital Goods: Industrial & Farm Equipment Sector 2012
Capital Goods (Industrial and Farm Equipment)
Social Reporting Elements of the PSI Scores
Consumer education program
28.6%
Product performance, safety
28.6%
Product performance, noise
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
42.9%
Community development
86.7%
48.6%
Occupational health and safety protection
83.3%
60.0%
Elimination of discrimination in respect to employment and
occupation
80.0%
34.3%
Social community investment
73.3%
25.7%
Community education
70.0%
39.0%
Recordable incident/accident rate
66.7%
33.8%
Employee volunteerism
63.3%
36.2%
Lost workday case rate
63.3%
32.9%
Effective abolition of child labor
20.0%
Free association and collective bargaining of employees
19.0%
Anti-corruption practices
56.7%
53.3%
53.3%
25.7%
Elimination of all forms of forced and compulsory labor
50.0%
21.9%
Fair compensation of employees
50.0%
26.7%
Political contributions
46.7%
17.1%
Bribery
20.5%
Sexual harassment
21.0%
Women in management
20.0%
Degrading treatment or punishment of employees
12.4%
46.7%
43.3%
40.0%
36.7%
30.0%
17.6%
Employee satisfaction surveys
Reasonable working hours
26.7%
10.5%
Health and safety citations
23.3%
6.7%
Employee turnover rate
20.0%
9.5%
Health and safety fines
10.0%
3.3%
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
Capital Goods: Industrial & Farm Equipment Sector 2012
EI Score Rankings
Environmental Intent Scores
92.3
Schneider Electric
Mitsubishi Electric
88.5
84.6
Komatsu
80.8
Samsung Heavy Industries
A+
Schneider Electric
A
Mitsubishi Electric
A
Komatsu
AA-
Samsung Heavy Industries
Wärtsilä
A-
MAN Group
Caterpillar Inc.
Vallourec
W ärtsilä
76.9
AB+
MAN Group
76.9
B+
Kubota
Caterpillar Inc.
76.9
B+
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries
Nidec
Sumitomo Electric Industries
Vallourec
73.1
B+
B
Kubota
73.1
B
Hyundai Heavy Industries
73.1
B
B-
Sandvik
LeGrand
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries
Nidec
69.2
Sumitomo Electric Industries
Hyundai Heavy Industries
Sandvik
B-
Cummins
65.4
B-
Atlas Copco
65.4
BC+
ABB
Cooper Industries
C+
WW Grainger
C+
C
Bharat Heavy Electricals
Paccar Inc.
61.5
LeGrand
57.7
Cummins
57.7
C-
Parker Hannifin
Atlas Copco
57.7
C-
Schindler Holding
57.7
CD+
Eaton
Illinois Tool Works
D+
Deere & Company
F
F
Shanghai Electric Group
Fanuc
F
Vestas Wind Systems
ABB
46.2
Cooper Industries
W W Grainger
42.3
Bharat Heavy Electricals
42.3
38.5
Paccar Inc.
Parker Hannifin
26.9
Schindler Holding
26.9
Eaton
26.9
Illinois T ool W orks
23.1
Deere & Company
23.1
Shanghai Electric Group 3.8
Fanuc 0.0
Vestas W ind Systems 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
17
Capital Goods: Industrial & Farm Equipment Sector 2012
ER Score Rankings
Environmental Reporting Scores
61.18
W ärtsilä
54.12
Mitsubishi Electric
45.88
Sandvik
43.81
Schneider Electric
37.65
Vallourec
A+
Wärtsilä
A
Mitsubishi Electric
B+
B+
Sandvik
Schneider Electric
B-
Vallourec
Sumitomo Electric Industries
Komatsu
Sumitomo Electric Industries
34.51
BB-
Komatsu
34.05
C+
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries
C+
Caterpillar Inc.
Schindler Holding
Hyundai Heavy Industries
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries
32.94
Caterpillar Inc.
31.37
C+
C+
Schindler Holding
30.59
C
ABB
C
C
LeGrand
MAN Group
C
Kubota
C
Samsung Heavy Industries
C
D+
Atlas Copco
Cummins
Hyundai Heavy Industries
28.24
ABB
27.84
LeGrand
27.45
MAN Group
27.45
Kubota
27.06
Samsung Heavy Industries
25.10
D+
Deere & Company
Atlas Copco
23.92
D+
D+
Eaton
Cooper Industries
D
Nidec
D
WW Grainger
D
D
Parker Hannifin
Illinois Tool Works
D-
Bharat Heavy Electricals
F
F
Paccar Inc.
Fanuc
F
Shanghai Electric Group
F
Vestas Wind Systems
Cummins
17.65
Deere & Company
16.47
Eaton
15.29
13.33
Cooper Industries
Nidec 11.76
W W Grainger 8.24
Parker Hannifin 8.24
Illinois T ool W orks 8.24
Bharat Heavy Electricals 4.71
Paccar Inc. 1.96
Fanuc 0.00
Shanghai Electric Group 0.00
Vestas W ind Systems 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
18
Capital Goods: Industrial & Farm Equipment Sector 2012
Environmental Performance Scores
W ärtsilä
EP Score Rankings
26.47
A+
Wärtsilä
A
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries
23.53
A
ABB
ABB
23.53
Schneider Electric
Vallourec
Schneider Electric
21.43
AB+
Vallourec
20.59
B+
Sumitomo Electric Industries
Sumitomo Electric Industries
20.59
B+
B
Mitsubishi Electric
MAN Group
B-
LeGrand
14.71
B-
Parker Hannifin
Parker Hannifin
14.71
Eaton
14.71
BC-
Eaton
WW Grainger
C-
Sandvik
CC-
Schindler Holding
Kubota
C-
Atlas Copco
C-
Hyundai Heavy Industries
CD+
Caterpillar Inc.
Komatsu
D+
Nidec
D+
D-
Cummins
Samsung Heavy Industries
Mitsubishi Electric
20.59
MAN Group
17.65
LeGrand
W W Grainger 8.82
Sandvik 8.82
Schindler Holding 8.82
Kubota 8.82
Atlas Copco 8.82
Hyundai Heavy Industries 8.82
Caterpillar Inc. 8.82
Komatsu 7.14
Nidec 5.88
Cummins 5.88
F
Cooper Industries
Samsung Heavy Industries 2.94
F
Paccar Inc.
Cooper Industries 0.00
Paccar Inc. 0.00
F
F
Fanuc
Bharat Heavy Electricals
Fanuc 0.00
F
Shanghai Electric Group
Bharat Heavy Electricals 0.00
Shanghai Electric Group 0.00
F
F
Vestas Wind Systems
Illinois Tool Works
Vestas W ind Systems 0.00
F
Deere & Company
Illinois T ool W orks 0.00
Deere & Company 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
19
Capital Goods: Industrial & Farm Equipment Sector 2012
SI Score Rankings
Social Intent Scores
Schneider Electric
92.31
A+
A
Schneider Electric
LeGrand
LeGrand
84.62
A
Mitsubishi Electric
Mitsubishi Electric
84.62
B+
B
Sumitomo Electric Industries
Samsung Heavy Industries
65.38
B
Kubota
65.38
B
WW Grainger
Wärtsilä
Atlas Copco
Sumitomo Electric Industries
73.08
Samsung Heavy Industries
Kubota
W ärtsilä
57.69
BB-
Atlas Copco
57.69
B-
Komatsu
57.69
BC+
Deere & Company
Vallourec
C+
Caterpillar Inc.
C+
Sandvik
C+
C+
Parker Hannifin
MAN Group
C+
Schindler Holding
Bharat Heavy Electricals
Cooper Industries
W W Grainger
61.54
Komatsu
Deere & Company
53.85
Vallourec
50.00
Caterpillar Inc.
50.00
Sandvik
46.15
Parker Hannifin
46.15
MAN Group
46.15
Schindler Holding
46.15
C+
C+
46.15
C
Nidec
C
Hyundai Heavy Industries
ABB
Paccar Inc.
Bharat Heavy Electricals
Cooper Industries
42.31
Nidec
38.46
Hyundai Heavy Industries
38.46
C
C-
38.46
C-
Cummins
Eaton
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries
ABB
Paccar Inc.
34.62
Cummins
34.62
CC-
Eaton
34.62
D+
Illinois Tool Works
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries
34.62
D-
Shanghai Electric Group
F
F
Fanuc
Vestas Wind Systems
Illinois T ool W orks
23.08
Shanghai Electric Group 7.69
Fanuc 0.00
Vestas W ind Systems 0.00
0
25
50
75
100
Social intent scores include topics about the firm’s financials, employees, safety reporting, social management
organization, social vision and commitment, stakeholders, social policy and certifications, social aspects and impacts,
choice of social performance indicators and those used by the industry, social initiatives and mitigations, and social goals
and targets.
www.roberts.cmc.edu
20
Capital Goods: Industrial & Farm Equipment Sector 2012
SR Score Rankings
Social Reporting Scores
W ärtsilä
70.29
A+
Wärtsilä
46.52
B+
B
Komatsu
Schneider Electric
Sandvik
45.94
B
Sandvik
ABB
44.20
41.59
B
B-
ABB
Mitsubishi Electric
Komatsu
52.95
Schneider Electric
Mitsubishi Electric
LeGrand
41.01
B-
LeGrand
Vallourec
40.00
B-
Vallourec
Atlas Copco
38.70
BB-
Atlas Copco
Illinois Tool Works
C+
Kubota
C+
C+
Deere & Company
Cooper Industries
C+
Caterpillar Inc.
C+
Sumitomo Electric Industries
C+
C
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries
MAN Group
C
Eaton
Samsung Heavy Industries
WW Grainger
Illinois T ool W orks
38.70
Kubota
36.81
Deere & Company
35.65
Cooper Industries
35.36
Caterpillar Inc.
34.64
Sumitomo Electric Industries
33.77
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries
32.32
MAN Group
28.99
Eaton
28.41
Samsung Heavy Industries
28.26
C
C
27.97
W W Grainger
C-
Nidec
Nidec
25.07
C-
Cummins
Cummins
25.07
20.29
D+
D+
Schindler Holding
Bharat Heavy Electricals
19.56
D+
Paccar Inc.
D
D-
Parker Hannifin
Hyundai Heavy Industries
Hyundai Heavy Industries 8.12
F
Shanghai Electric Group
Shanghai Electric Group 2.90
F
Fanuc
Fanuc 0.00
F
Vestas Wind Systems
Schindler Holding
Bharat Heavy Electricals
Paccar Inc.
17.39
Parker Hannifin 9.13
Vestas W ind Systems 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
21
Capital Goods: Industrial & Farm Equipment Sector 2012
SP Score Rankings
Social Performance Scores
W ärtsilä
56.52
Komatsu
34.62
A+
Wärtsilä
B-
Komatsu
WW Grainger
Kubota
W W Grainger
26.09
C+
C+
Kubota
26.09
C
Mitsubishi Electric
19.57
CC-
Sandvik
Deere & Company
19.57
Mitsubishi Electric
21.74
Sandvik
Deere & Company
C-
Vallourec
Vallourec
17.39
C-
Schneider Electric
Schneider Electric
17.39
Sumitomo Electric Industries
15.22
D+
D+
Sumitomo Electric Industries
Caterpillar Inc.
Caterpillar Inc.
15.22
D+
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries
D+
D
ABB
Paccar Inc.
D
Cooper Industries
D
LeGrand
D
D
Nidec
Samsung Heavy Industries
D-
Schindler Holding
DD-
Cummins
Bharat Heavy Electricals
D-
Eaton
D-
Atlas Copco
Atlas Copco 4.35
F
F
Parker Hannifin
Hyundai Heavy Industries
Parker Hannifin 2.17
F
MAN Group
Hyundai Heavy Industries 2.17
MAN Group 0.00
F
F
Fanuc
Shanghai Electric Group
Fanuc 0.00
F
Vestas Wind Systems
Shanghai Electric Group 0.00
F
Illinois Tool Works
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries
13.04
ABB
13.04
Paccar Inc. 10.87
Cooper Industries 8.70
LeGrand 8.70
Nidec 8.70
Samsung Heavy Industries 8.70
Schindler Holding 6.52
Cummins 6.52
Bharat Heavy Electricals 4.35
Eaton 4.35
Vestas W ind Systems 0.00
Illinois T ool W orks 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
22
Capital Goods: Industrial & Farm Equipment Sector 2012
Capital Goods (Industrial and Farm Equipment)
Human Rights Reporting Elements of the PSI Scores
Percent of companies reporting*
Human Rights Topics
adoption
reinforcement
monitoring
53.3%
26.7%
6.7%
3.3%
46.7%
20.0%
3.3%
3.3%
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
36.7%
6.7%
0.0%
0.0%
56.7%
13.3%
0.0%
0.0%
50.0%
20.0%
6.7%
0.0%
80.0%
33.3%
6.7%
0.0%
50.0%
26.7%
13.3%
3.3%
53.3%
10.0%
3.3%
0.0%
46.7%
13.3%
0.0%
3.3%
26.7%
10.0%
0.0%
0.0%
43.3%
26.7%
3.3%
0.0%
Basis of Scores
Adoption
We assign one point for adoption of a policy standard or for an explicit discussion of an organization’s stance on each of
11 human rights principles.
Reinforcement
We assign one point for a description of reinforcement actions to make a policy stronger, such as providing educational
programs, training, or other activities to promote awareness.
Monitoring
We assign one point for a description of monitoring measures including mechanisms to detect violations at an early
stage, providing systematic reporting, or establishment of committee structure to oversee risky activities.
Compliance
We assign one point for a quantitative indication of compliance, such as a description of incidences of failure of
compliance, or a statement that there were no such incidences.
www.roberts.cmc.edu
23
Capital Goods: Industrial & Farm Equipment Sector 2012
Capital Goods (Industrial and Farm Equipment)
Average Overall, Environmental, and Social PSI Scores Performance
by Country
This graph illustrates the average
PSI in three categories--overall,
environmental, and social-breakdown by countries. Since
our sample size follows the
world's largest companies from
the Fortune list, several countries
have only one company score to
represent the whole country's
sustainability reporting in the
sector.
USA
Switzerland
Sweden
South Korea
Japan
Overall
India
Germany
France
Finland
China
Country
N
China
1
Finland
1
France
4
Switzerland
Germany
India
1
1
Sweden
Japan
7
South Korea
South Korea
Sweden
2
2
Switzerland
2
USA
10
USA
Japan
Environmental
India
Germany
France
Finland
China
USA
Switzerland
Sweden
South Korea
Japan
Social
India
Germany
France
Finland
China
0
www.roberts.cmc.edu
10
20
30
40
50
24
60
70
Capital Goods: Industrial & Farm Equipment Sector 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
Mitsubishi Electric
SI
SR
Sandvik
ER
SP
SR
Schneider Electric
ER
Komatsu
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
Sumitomo Electric
Industries
SI
SR
Kubota
ER
SP
ER
SP
SI
SR
ABB
SP
Mitsubishi Heavy
Industries
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
LeGrand
SI
SR
Vallourec
ER
SP
ER
SP
SI
SR
Atlas Copco
SP
MAN Group
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
Deere & Company
SI
SR
WW Grainger
ER
SP
ER
SP
SI
SR
Cooper Industries
SP
Cummins
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
Nidec
SI
SR
Eaton
ER
SP
ER
SP
SI
SR
Hyundai Heavy
Industries
SP
Bharat Heavy
Electricals
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
Paccar Inc.
www.roberts.cmc.edu
SI
SP
SR
Parker Hannifin
SI
SP
SR
Shanghai Electric
Group
25
SI
SP
SR
Fanuc
EP
SR
Illinois Tool Works
ER
EP
SR
Schindler Holding
ER
EP
SR
Samsung Heavy
Industries
ER
EP
SR
Caterpillar Inc.
ER
EP
SP
100
SI
EI
EP
25
0
ER
EI
50
25
SR
EI
ER
100
75
Wärtsilä
EI
ER
100
75
SI
EI
ER
100
SI
EP
SP
SR
Vestas Wind
Systems
Capital Goods: Industrial & Farm Equipment Sector 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
ABB
Atlas Copco
35.47
31.20
31800
1.50
2900
0.46
33680
1.53
46460
1.67
Bharat Heavy Electri
16.09
5160
0.71
610
-0.21
8960
0.95
25240
1.40
Caterpillar Inc.
Cooper Industries
34.22
24.69
32400
1.51
900
-0.05
60040
1.78
36140
1.56
5070
0.71
440
-0.36
5980
0.78
7770
0.89
Cummins
Deere & Company
22.76
26.25
10800
1.03
430
-0.37
8820
0.95
11870
1.07
22800
1.36
910
-0.04
40780
1.61
24630
1.39
Eaton
21.46
11870
1.07
380
-0.42
16280
1.21
11610
1.06
Fanuc
Hyundai Heavy Indus
0.00
20.10
3990
0.60
1000
0.00
9830
0.99
23390
1.37
22040
1.34
1810
0.26
30360
1.48
13530
1.13
Illinois Tool Works
19.84
13880
1.14
950
-0.02
16080
1.21
23160
1.36
Komatsu
Kubota
40.44
36.35
20760
1.32
810
-0.09
19570
1.29
19360
1.29
11370
1.06
490
-0.31
13860
1.14
11310
1.05
LeGrand
32.76
5130
0.71
420
-0.38
7940
0.90
8480
0.93
MAN Group
Mitsubishi Electric
29.58
48.70
17230
1.24
-390
21550
1.33
10650
1.03
37640
1.58
120
-0.92
30400
1.48
17790
1.25
Mitsubishi Heavy Ind
Nidec
33.49
22.76
34670
1.54
250
-0.60
45730
1.66
12530
1.10
6300
0.80
290
-0.54
7000
0.85
14380
1.16
Paccar Inc.
15.07
8090
0.91
110
-0.96
14570
1.16
13120
1.12
Parker Hannifin
Samsung Heavy Indu
13.28
30.26
9150
0.96
280
-0.55
9790
0.99
9920
1.00
8570
0.93
480
-0.32
21090
1.32
4910
0.69
Sandvik
41.20
2020
0.31
180
-0.74
2020
0.31
7220
0.86
Schindler Holding
Schneider Electric
23.23
40.52
12380
1.09
600
-0.22
6710
0.83
9590
0.98
22020
1.34
1190
0.08
34610
1.54
28050
1.45
1.98
8430
0.93
370
-0.43
11910
1.08
14240
1.15
Sumitomo Electric In
Vallourec
36.93
31.46
21790
1.34
180
-0.74
18650
1.27
9520
0.98
6410
0.81
740
-0.13
8850
0.95
10760
1.03
Vallourec
31.46
8900
0.95
870
-0.06
9170
0.96
17410
1.24
Vestas Wind System
Wärtsilä
0.00
63.39
9510
0.98
830
-0.08
9080
0.96
9890
1.00
7540
0.88
560
-0.25
6550
0.82
4780
0.68
WW Grainger
25.36
6220
0.79
430
-0.37
3730
0.57
7550
0.88
Shanghai Electric Gr
Source:
www.roberts.cmc.edu
26
2010 Forbes List
Capital Goods: Industrial & Farm Equipment Sector 2012
70
6 3 .3 9
60
Overall PSI Scores
50
4 8 .7 0
4 1.2 0
40
04
.5 2
4 04.4
3 6 .9 3
3 6 .3 5
3 2 .7 6
3 1.4 6
30
3 1.4 6
3 0 .2 6
3 5 .4 7
3 4 3.232.4 9
2 9 .5 8
2 6 .2 5
2 4 .6 9 2 5 .3 6
2 2 .7 6
2 3 .2 3
2 2 .7 6
2 1.4 6
19 .8 4
20
16 .0 9
2 0 .10
15 .0 7
13 .2 8
10
1.9 8
0
0 .0 0
0
0.2
0.4
0 .0 0
0.6
0.8
1
1. 2
1. 4
2
1. 6
1. 8
R = 0.0789
Revenue
Log10 $M
70
63.39
60
50
Overall PSI Scores
48.70
4 1. 2 0
40.44
40
36.93
40.52
36.35
33.49
22.76
35.47
34.22
3 1. 4 63 1. 4 6
32.76
30.26
30
26.25
2254..3669
22.76
2 1. 4 6
23.23
20
2 0 . 10
19 . 8 4
16 . 0 9
15 . 0 7
13 . 2 8
10
2
1. 9 8
- 1.2
-1
- 0.8
- 0.6
00. 0 0 0 . 0 0
- 0.4
- 0.2
0
R = 0.008
0.2
0.4
0.6
Profits
Log10 $M
www.roberts.cmc.edu
27
Capital Goods: Industrial & Farm Equipment Sector 2012
70
63.39
60
Overall PSI Scores
50
48.70
4 1. 2 0
40
40.52
40.44
36.93
36.35
32.76
331.1.4466
30
25.36
35.47
33.49 34.22
3209..2568
26.25
24.69
2 23 2. 2. 73 6 2 2 . 7 6
2 1. 4 6
19 . 8 4
20
16 . 0 9
13 . 2 8
2 0 . 10
15 . 0 7
2
10
R = 0.0173
0
0.00
.00
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1. 9 8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
Asset
Log10 $M
70
63.39
60
Overall PSI Scores
50
48.70
4 1. 2 0
40
40.52
40.44
3 6 . 9 33 6 . 3 5
32.76
30.26
30
2254. 3. 669
20
33.49
3 1. 4 6
29.58
34.22
35.47
3 1. 4 6
26.25
2 3 . 2 3 2 2 . 7 62 2 . 7 6
2 1. 4 6
2 0 . 10
13 . 2 8
19 . 8 4
16 . 0 9
15 . 0 7
10
0
0.00
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1. 9 8
1.2
2
R
= 0.019
0.00
1.4
1.6
1.8
Market Value
Log10 $M
www.roberts.cmc.edu
28
Capital Goods: Industrial & Farm Equipment Sector 2012
Number of Explicit numerical goals Reported
Samsung Heavy Industries
11
Mitsubishi Electric
9
Caterpillar Inc.
7
LeGrand
6
Komatsu
6
Sandvik
5
Schneider Electric
4
Sumitomo Electric Industries
4
Vallourec
4
Eaton
3
Wärtsilä
3
Nidec
3
Kubota
3
Hyundai Heavy Industries
2
Atlas Copco
2
Deere & Company 1
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries 1
Cummins 1
0
5
10
15
20
25
Explicit Goals Most Frequently Reported
1
Greenhouse gases (or CO2 equivalents), total
2
Lost workday case rate
8
3
Waste (solid) disposed of
7
4
Recordable incident/accident rate
7
5
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
6
6
Energy used (total)
5
7
Energy used (renewable)
4
www.roberts.cmc.edu
15
29
Capital Goods: Industrial & Farm Equipment Sector 2012
Number of Topics Showing Performance Improvement over Previous Year Data
Wärtsilä
14
Sumitomo Electric Industries
10
Kubota
9
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries
9
Mitsubishi Electric
8
Schneider Electric
8
ABB
8
WW Grainger
8
Caterpillar Inc.
6
Eaton
6
Komatsu
6
Parker Hannifin
6
Vallourec
5
Sandvik
5
LeGrand
5
MAN Group
5
Cummins
4
Atlas Copco
4
Hyundai Heavy Industries
3
Nidec
2
Deere & Company
2
Cooper Industries
2
Samsung Heavy Industries 1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Topics Most Frequently Reported as Having Improvements over previous year data
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Greenhouse gases (or CO2 equivalents), total
Water used
Energy used (total)
Lost workday case rate
Occupational health and safety protection
Recordable incident/accident rate
Waste recycled: solid waste
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
Waste (solid) disposed of
Waste (hazardous) produced
Nitrogen oxides (NOx)
Environmental expenses and investments
Community development
Community education
Employee satisfaction surveys
Women in management
www.roberts.cmc.edu
16
13
12
12
11
11
9
7
7
7
4
3
3
3
3
2
30
Capital Goods: Industrial & Farm Equipment Sector 2012
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Waste (hazardous) released to the environment
Employee volunteerism
Social community investment
Particulate matter (dust)
Employee turnover rate
Product performance, emissions
Health and safety citations
Logistics emissions
www.roberts.cmc.edu
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
31
Capital Goods: Industrial & Farm Equipment Sector 2012
Number of Topics in which Performance was Better than Sector Average*
Schindler Holding
4
ABB
3
Komatsu
3
Wärtsilä
3
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries
2
Eaton
1
Hyundai Heavy Industries
1
Kubota
1
LeGrand
1
MAN Group
1
Mitsubishi Electric
1
Schneider Electric
1
Vallourec
1
0
1
2
3
4
5
*Sector averages are calculated from the materials scored for this report.
www.roberts.cmc.edu
32
Capital Goods: Industrial & Farm Equipment Sector 2012
B-
ABB Group 2009 Sustainability Performance Report
and 2011 Web Pages
ABB
ABB Group does a decent job of reporting its sustainability practices through its Sustainability Performance Report and web pages. The company covers
all of the standard environmental policy statements but often fails to provide examples of how its plans to implement these policies. For example, with
regard to the environmental management system, there is mention of the adoption of the ISO 14001 but no details about its implementation within the
company. ABB does a good job with quantitative data by information about energy use, waste disposal of and even nitrogen oxide emissions. However, it
states that much the data is estimated so it is difficult to know if the company has improved performance from previous years. In addition, the company
should work to lower the number of employee injuries to demonstrate that they it is a safe place to work. For social sustainability reporting, the company
provides the basic policies against discrimination and child labor but it should go into more detail to show that these polices are implemented and enforced
to protect workers’ rights.
Analyst(s): Eric Robert King
Bukola Jimoh
E=Total Environmental Score, ESA=Environmental Sector Average Score, EI=Environmental Intent, ER=Environmental Reporting, EP=Environmental Performance, S=Total Social
Score, SSA=Social Sector Average Score, SI=Social Intent, SR=Social Reporting, SP=Social Performance
Comparison with sector averages
Distribution of points
Source of points
E
58
ES A
38
E
47%
S
SSA
0
25
50
28
S
53%
44
24
13
ABB
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
7
10
70
Good
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
13
35
37
Needs improvement
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
4
14
29
Needs improvement
Management
1
21
5
Needs substantial improvement
Materials Usage
2
7
29
Needs improvement
Recycling
0
14
0
Needs substantial improvement
Waste
8
21
38
Needs improvement
Water
4
7
57
Good
Social Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
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
20
77
26
Needs improvement
Social Reporting
Question Category
Human Rights
Management
4
7
57
Good
Qualitative Social
15
35
43
Needs improvement
Quantitative Social
13
42
31
Needs improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
33
Capital Goods: Industrial & Farm Equipment Sector 2012
C+
Atlas Copco Sustainable Productivity Report, 2009
Sustainability Report, Business Code of Practices
and 2011 Web Pages
Atlas Copco
Atlas Copco does a decent job of reporting its sustainability practices through its Sustainability Report, Sustainable Productivity Report and web pages;
stating its basic environmental polices and explaining how it will implement them in a clear concise manner. Atlas Copco thoroughly reports quantitative
performance data, including energy use and greenhouse gasses. Additionally, its explanation of the measures taken to decrease greenhouse gas
emissions is impressive. A problem of its reporting is that the graphs do not give the exact data values of each data set; one can only see that they are in
between a range of fifty. The company should include these exact values on the graph. Also it would do well to include more information about its specific
emissions, and the specific types of waste produced. For social sustainability reporting, the company provides basic policies against discrimination, but it
should go into more detail to show that these polices are implemented and enforced to protect workers’ rights.
Analyst(s): Eric Robert King
Erin Franks
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
S
25
50
24
S
55%
SSA
0
58
39
E
45%
ES A
9
EI
75
ER
EP
4
SI
SR
Atlas Copco
SP
Environmental Intent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
Question Category
2
4
50
Good
Management
5
8
63
Good
Policy
6
10
60
Good
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
3
35
9
Needs substantial improvement
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
5
14
36
Needs improvement
Management
2
21
10
Needs substantial improvement
Materials Usage
3
7
43
Needs improvement
Recycling
5
14
36
Needs improvement
Waste
1
21
5
Needs substantial improvement
Water
4
7
57
Good
Social Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
2
4
50
Good
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
14
77
18
Needs substantial improvement
Social Reporting
Question Category
Human Rights
Management
3
7
43
Needs improvement
Qualitative Social
12
35
34
Needs improvement
Quantitative Social
13
42
31
Needs improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
34
Capital Goods: Industrial & Farm Equipment Sector 2012
D+
Bharat Heavy Electricals 2011 Web Pages
Bharat Heavy
Electricals
Although quantitative reporting by Bharat Heavy Electricals is limited, the company participates in various progressive initiatives. These include medical
camps, efforts to eradicate child labor, village adoptions, and acting in accordance with the UN Global Compact. But while the company does not report its
own energy consumption, it is engaged in the development of sustainable technologies for its customers.
Analyst(s): Ashley Scott
Erin Franks
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
35%
ES A
20
S
S
65%
SSA
0
25
50
46
42
EI
75
5
0
ER
EP
4
SI
SR
Bharat Heavy
Electricals
SP
Environmental Intent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
Question Category
1
4
25
Needs improvement
Management
4
8
50
Good
Policy
4
10
40
Needs improvement
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
2
35
6
Needs substantial improvement
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
2
14
14
Needs substantial improvement
Management
0
21
0
Needs substantial improvement
Materials Usage
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Recycling
0
14
0
Needs substantial improvement
Waste
0
21
0
Needs substantial improvement
Water
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Social Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
3
4
75
Excellent
Management
1
10
10
Needs substantial improvement
Policy
4
6
67
Good
Social Demographic
2
2
100
Excellent
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
8
77
10
Needs substantial improvement
Needs substantial improvement
Social Reporting
Question Category
Human Rights
Management
0
7
0
Qualitative Social
11
35
31
Needs improvement
Quantitative Social
5
42
12
Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
35
Capital Goods: Industrial & Farm Equipment Sector 2012
C+
Caterpillar 2009 Sustainability Report and 2011
Web Pages
Caterpillar Inc.
Caterpillar provides substantial information in its 2009 Sustainability Report and web pages; however, much of the information reported and does not
demonstrate transparency in its environmental and social initiatives. There is little quantitative data to substantiate Caterpillar’s environmental initiatives.
When provided, the data is reported in the form of percentages of an unknown initial amount. It is notable that Caterpillar reports a commitment to sending
zero waste to landfills. Additionally, Caterpillar manufactures machines that utilize methane gas released into the air from areas such as landfills with
decomposing waste. Yet, the company does not report using these machines in its production process.••Social responsibility is emphasized at Caterpillar.
Caterpillar demonstrates a clear commitment to reducing its recordable incident rate, as well as it lost time case frequency rate. Additionally, Caterpillar
emphasizes the importance of community development by encouraging employees to volunteer by offering awards such as the Chairman’s Community
Service Awards.
Analyst(s): Hilary Haskell
Erin Franks
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
ES A
E
52%
S
SSA
0
25
50
50
S
48%
35
31
15
9
EI
75
ER
EP
SI
SR
Caterpillar Inc.
SP
Environmental Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
2
4
50
Good
Management
6
8
75
Excellent
Policy
8
10
80
Excellent
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
10
35
29
Needs improvement
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
6
14
43
Needs improvement
Management
0
21
0
Needs substantial improvement
Materials Usage
2
7
29
Needs improvement
Recycling
5
14
36
Needs improvement
Waste
2
21
10
Needs substantial improvement
Water
5
7
71
Good
Social Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
3
4
75
Excellent
Management
2
10
20
Needs substantial improvement
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
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Qualitative Social
13
35
37
Needs improvement
Quantitative Social
11
42
26
Needs improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
36
Capital Goods: Industrial & Farm Equipment Sector 2012
C
Cooper Industries 2009 Corporate Social
Sustainability Report, Code of Conduct, and 2011
Web Pages
Cooper Industries
Cooper Industries provides a 2009 Corporate Social Sustainability Report, Code of Conduct, and information on its 2011 web pages to demonstrate
environmental and social responsibility. Cooper Industries recently started considering the environmental impacts of its operations. Now, the company is
attaining baseline values for future evaluation of environmental performance. These areas include waste disposal, water usage, and greenhouse gas
emissions. However, Cooper Industries’ recycling efforts were never mentioned in the report at all, and there was no indication that recycling efforts would
be considered in the future. A notable effort reported by the company is its commitment to providing renewable energy products and services to its
consumers.
Cooper Industries’ commitment to occupational health and safety is evident in its decreasing recordable incident and lost workday case trends. The
company invested in community development in the past, but contributed considerably less in 2009.
Analyst(s): Karen de Wolski
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
35%
ES A
46
S
S
65%
SSA
0
25
50
42
35
13
9
0
EI
75
ER
EP
SI
SR
Cooper Industries
SP
Environmental Intent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
Question Category
2
4
50
Good
Management
3
8
38
Needs improvement
Policy
4
10
40
Needs improvement
Vision
3
4
75
Excellent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
3
35
9
Needs substantial improvement
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
2
14
14
Needs substantial improvement
Management
0
21
0
Needs substantial improvement
Materials Usage
3
7
43
Needs improvement
Recycling
0
14
0
Needs substantial improvement
Waste
2
21
10
Needs substantial improvement
Water
1
7
14
Needs substantial improvement
Social Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
4
4
100
Excellent
Management
2
10
20
Needs substantial improvement
Policy
2
6
33
Needs improvement
Social Demographic
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Vision
3
4
75
Excellent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
14
77
18
Needs substantial improvement
Social Reporting
Question Category
Human Rights
Management
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Qualitative Social
17
35
49
Needs improvement
Quantitative Social
11
42
26
Needs improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
37
Capital Goods: Industrial & Farm Equipment Sector 2012
C-
Cummins 2010 Sustainability Report, Code of
Business Conduct, and 2011 Web Pages
Cummins
Cummins’ webpages suggest it is clearly dedicated to not only sustainability but to ethical business practices as well. The extensive questions and answer
section in the Business Code of Conduct models the company’s dedication to these ethical business practices. For both ethics and sustainability, the
company gives examples and qualitative information of how its decisions have been implemented. •Much of this information, however, is unclear about
many of its sustainable practices. The company focuses too much on its business practices and does not focus enough on sustainability. A great deal of
extraneous information must be sifted through to find the meaningful sustainability information. Much of the 115 page report is dedicated to the efforts of
the company’s individual operations rather than focusing on the business practices of the company as a whole. Additionally, very little quantitative
sustainability information is given. There is no mention of energy use and emissions other than carbon dioxide. The environmental report could be greatly
improved by balancing the given environmental and ethics data and providing more quantitative information.
Analyst(s): Sam Kahr
Erin Franks
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
ES A
E
50%
S
SSA
0
25
50
35
S
50%
25
18
6
EI
75
ER
EP
7
SI
SR
Cummins
SP
Environmental Intent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
Question Category
2
4
50
Good
Management
5
8
63
Good
Policy
4
10
40
Needs improvement
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
5
35
14
Needs substantial improvement
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
0
14
0
Needs substantial improvement
Management
2
21
10
Needs substantial improvement
Materials Usage
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Recycling
3
14
21
Needs substantial improvement
Waste
3
21
14
Needs substantial improvement
Water
4
7
57
Good
Social Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
2
4
50
Good
Needs substantial improvement
Management
0
10
0
Policy
5
6
83
Excellent
Social Demographic
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
12
77
16
Needs substantial improvement
Needs substantial improvement
Social Reporting
Question Category
Human Rights
Management
0
7
0
Qualitative Social
13
35
37
Needs improvement
Quantitative Social
4
42
10
Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
38
Capital Goods: Industrial & Farm Equipment Sector 2012
C
Deere & Co 2009-2010 Citizen Summary Report, 2009
Business Conduct Guidelines, 2011 Web Pages
Deere & Company
Deere & Co.’s 2009-2010 Citizenship Summary Report and 2011 Web Pages demonstrate a lack of commitment to environmental sustainability. The Citizen
Summary Report is only 6 pages long and no past reports are provided. Deere & Co. does claim to be committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but
there is no reporting of how this is being done, only that Deere & Co. is a part of the U.S. EPA Climate Leader’s Program. It is in the process of developing a
sustainable system for woody biomass-fueled power generation, there is no reporting about the use of renewable energy. Quantitative data is only
provided for waste and greenhouse gas emissions. The data given for waste and greenhouse gas emission are in the unit kilograms per metric ton of
production, but the total amount produced is not provided. There is also no sustainability contact provided. In order to achieve greater transparency, Deere
& Co. needs to provide more quantitative data and more specific initiatives instead of brief general descriptions of visions. For example, they have an
environmental policy, but it is not adequately explained. • Deere & Co. does show a strong commitment to social responsibility through its Citizenship
Summary Report, 2009 Business Conduct Guidelines, and 2011 Web Pages. Incident rates and lost workdays are quantitatively reported, but reporting of
fines or citations is missing.
Analyst(s): Simone Berkovitz
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
54
E
29%
ES A
S
36
23
S
71%
SSA
0
25
50
20
16
Deere & Company
0
EI
75
ER
EP
SI
SR
SP
Environmental Intent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
Question Category
0
4
0
Needs substantial improvement
Management
2
8
25
Needs improvement
Policy
3
10
30
Needs improvement
Vision
1
4
25
Needs improvement
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
7
35
20
Needs substantial improvement
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
1
14
7
Needs substantial improvement
Management
0
21
0
Needs substantial improvement
Materials Usage
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Recycling
0
14
0
Needs substantial improvement
Waste
6
21
29
Needs improvement
Water
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
2
4
50
Good
Management
8
10
80
Excellent
Policy
2
6
33
Needs improvement
Social Demographic
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
24
77
31
Needs improvement
Social Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Social Reporting
Question Category
Human Rights
Management
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Qualitative Social
15
35
43
Needs improvement
Quantitative Social
13
42
31
Needs improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
39
Capital Goods: Industrial & Farm Equipment Sector 2012
C-
Eaton 2009 Annual Report, Ethics Guide, and 2011
Web Pages
Eaton
In its 2009 Sustainability Report, Eaton states that it is “helping to create a more sustainable world.” Yet, Eaton’s failure to report much quantitative data
along with mediocre reporting of environmental intent does not support its visionary statement. Quantitative reporting on topics such as waste and
emissions would improve Eaton’s score greatly. •Socially, Eaton’s performance is stronger with ample reporting of its human rights practices along with
thorough reporting of certain pieces of qualitative data such as community investment. Reporting on fines and violations will help improve Eaton’s score in
the social categories.
Analyst(s): Jordan Lieberman
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
35
E
42%
ES A
S
25
50
15
S
58%
SSA
0
28
27
15
4
EI
75
ER
EP
SI
SR
Eaton
SP
Environmental Intent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
Question Category
0
4
0
Needs substantial improvement
Management
2
8
25
Needs improvement
Policy
2
10
20
Needs substantial improvement
Vision
3
4
75
Excellent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
6
35
17
Needs substantial improvement
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
4
14
29
Needs improvement
Management
0
21
0
Needs substantial improvement
Materials Usage
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Recycling
4
14
29
Needs improvement
Waste
0
21
0
Needs substantial improvement
Water
4
7
57
Good
Social Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
1
4
25
Needs improvement
Management
2
10
20
Needs substantial improvement
Policy
4
6
67
Good
Social Demographic
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Social Reporting
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Human Rights
16
77
21
Needs substantial improvement
Management
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Qualitative Social
2
35
6
Needs substantial improvement
Quantitative Social
13
42
31
Needs improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
40
Capital Goods: Industrial & Farm Equipment Sector 2012
F
Fanuc 2011 Web Pages
Fanuc
Fanuc fails to report its commitment to corporate sustainability. There is no information provided regarding its environmental or social efforts.
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
S
1%
E
1%
ES A
S
0
0
0
0
0
0
EI
ER
EP
SI
SR
SP
Fanuc
SSA
0
25
50
75
Environmental Intent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
Question Category
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
35
0
Needs substantial improvement
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
0
14
0
Needs substantial improvement
Management
0
21
0
Needs substantial improvement
Materials Usage
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Recycling
0
14
0
Needs substantial improvement
Waste
0
21
0
Needs substantial improvement
Water
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Social Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
0
4
0
Needs substantial improvement
Management
0
10
0
Needs substantial improvement
Policy
0
6
0
Needs substantial improvement
Social Demographic
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Vision
0
4
0
Needs substantial improvement
Social Reporting
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Human Rights
0
77
0
Needs substantial improvement
Management
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Qualitative Social
0
35
0
Needs substantial improvement
Quantitative Social
0
42
0
Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
41
Capital Goods: Industrial & Farm Equipment Sector 2012
C-
Hyundai Heavy Industries 2010 Environmental
Report and 2011 Web Pages
Hyundai Heavy
Industries
For the largest shipbuilding company in the world, Hyundai Heavy Industries has a relatively limited environmental report. The small, but concise, 35 page
Toward a Sustainable Future environmental report includes relevant qualitative information but provides little quantitative data. The sustainability report
includes little information on the company’s social policy and vision. Additionally, the Code of Conduct consists only of a bulleted list and does not elaborate
at all on the social integrity of the company’s policy. There is also no report contact for the environmental report. By adding additional qualitative
information to the Code of Conduct and quantitative information to the environmental report, both could be improved.
Analyst(s): Sam Kahr
Erin Franks
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
S
26%
ES A
S
65
SSA
0
25
50
38
28
9
E
74%
EI
75
ER
EP
SI
8
2
SR
SP
Hyundai Heavy
Industries
Environmental Intent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
Question Category
2
4
50
Good
Management
6
8
75
Excellent
Policy
7
10
70
Good
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
13
35
37
Needs improvement
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
2
14
14
Needs substantial improvement
Management
3
21
14
Needs substantial improvement
Materials Usage
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Recycling
4
14
29
Needs improvement
Waste
3
21
14
Needs substantial improvement
Water
2
7
29
Needs improvement
Social Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
3
4
75
Excellent
Management
4
10
40
Needs improvement
Policy
1
6
17
Needs substantial improvement
Social Demographic
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Social Reporting
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Human Rights
0
77
0
Needs substantial improvement
Management
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Qualitative Social
8
35
23
Needs substantial improvement
Quantitative Social
2
42
5
Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
42
Capital Goods: Industrial & Farm Equipment Sector 2012
C-
Illinois Tool Works
Illinois Tool Works 2009 Corporate Social
Responsibility Report, Code of Ethics, Statement of
Principles of Conduct, and 2011 Web Pages
Illinois Tool Works (ITW) is relatively new when it comes to corporate sustainability reporting and consequently, it has much room for improvement. In 2009,
ITW initiated a web-based data collection site designed to measure the amount of electricity, natural gas, oil, and propane consumption as a way to
determine greenhouse gas emissions. Once ITW obtains this baseline data, it can proceed to set reduction targets to lessen its environmental impact.
However, this information has not yet been released. •Although the Go Green Initiatives program was responsible for multiple lighting retrofit projects, it
currently addresses energy consumption only. ITW is in the process of implementing a formal sustainability program which also incorporates a waste
management and recycling program. Despite participating in the Carbon Disclosure Project for the past five years and reporting an annual increase in
scores, ITW provides no quantitative data to back up its claim. Similarly, ITW reports reducing its Toxic Release Inventory based air emission by 30 percent
from 2004 through 2008; however, there is no concrete data indicating the total amount produced each year. •ITW’s commitment to social responsibility is
reflected by the level of support it lends to a number of charitable organizations. The ITW Foundation provides financial support to several non-profit
organizations seeking to enhance the local community.
Analyst(s): Daniel Olmsted
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
25%
ES A
S
39
23
8
S
75%
SSA
0
25
50
23
0
EI
75
ER
0
EP
SI
SR
Illinois Tool W orks
SP
Environmental Intent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
Question Category
1
4
25
Needs improvement
Management
1
8
13
Needs substantial improvement
Policy
0
10
0
Needs substantial improvement
Vision
4
4
100
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
0
35
0
Needs substantial improvement
Energy
0
14
0
Needs substantial improvement
Management
6
21
29
Needs improvement
Materials Usage
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Recycling
0
14
0
Needs substantial improvement
Waste
1
21
5
Needs substantial improvement
Water
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Excellent
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Social Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
0
4
0
Needs substantial improvement
Management
0
10
0
Needs substantial improvement
Policy
2
6
33
Needs improvement
Social Demographic
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Vision
4
4
100
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
14
77
18
Needs substantial improvement
Excellent
Social Reporting
Question Category
Human Rights
Management
2
7
29
Needs improvement
Qualitative Social
12
35
34
Needs improvement
Quantitative Social
12
42
29
Needs improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
43
Capital Goods: Industrial & Farm Equipment Sector 2012
B
Komatsu CSR 2011
Komatsu
Komatsu’s 2010 Environmental and Social Report: Global Teamwork demonstrated strong corporate sustainability reporting through inclusion of flow charts
detailed with quantitative data. Additionally, Komatsu effectively reported the management systems responsible for overseeing its global environmental
impact. Thorough reporting of Komatsu’s environmental accounting and a clear awareness of issues pertinent to the environmental intent aspect of
corporate sustainability reporting enhanced Komatsu’s report. One area of potential improvement that Komatsu might consider in future reports is the
geographic completeness of quantitative data reported. Although Komatsu included significant amounts of quantitative data, much of the quantitative data
was specific to domestic business operations. Seeing as Komatsu is a multinational corporation, only reporting domestic quantitative data is an incomplete
description of the company’s environmental and social impacts. As such, points could not be awarded for quantitative data of this nature, and including
geographically complete quantitative data could improve future reports.
Analyst(s): Michael Handler Shoemaker
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
E
40%
ES A
S
58
SSA
0
25
50
53
34
S
60%
35
7
EI
75
ER
EP
Komatsu
SI
SR
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
3
4
75
Excellent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
12
42
29
Needs improvement
Energy
4
21
19
Needs substantial improvement
Management
6
21
29
Needs improvement
Materials Usage
3
14
21
Needs substantial improvement
Products
9
21
43
Needs improvement
Recycling
9
35
26
Needs improvement
Waste
7
35
20
Needs substantial improvement
Water
2
7
29
Needs improvement
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
3
4
75
Excellent
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Social Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Management
4
10
40
Needs improvement
Policy
4
6
67
Good
Social Demographic
2
2
100
Excellent
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
46
77
60
Good
Social Reporting
Question Category
Human Rights
Management
4
7
57
Good
Qualitative Social
29
56
52
Good
Quantitative Social
11
42
26
Needs improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
44
Capital Goods: Industrial & Farm Equipment Sector 2012
B-
Kubota 2011 Web Pages
Kubota
Kubota is a tractor corporation that demonstrates global social investments and environmental concern. Kubota reports its environmental consciousness
through its efforts to conserve and protect wildlife habitats. It has recently proposed a Medium-Term Environmental Conservation plan to set goals and
initiatives towards environmental preservation and reduction of greenhouse gasses. Kubota began an initiative to reduce chemical substances in products
and eliminate PRTR designated substances. To combat global water issues, Kubota has developed new iron pipes for water services and has contributed
to global improvement of water resources. Its social investments are evident in its natural disaster relief funds, community development and education, and
global support for extracurricular activities and sports in schools. It is thorough in its Material Safety Data Sheets for products and customer safety
guidelines and has implemented a management team to address accidents and employee safety. Kubota adheres to the Universal Declaration of human
rights reporting.
Analyst(s): Jaclyn T. D'Arcy
Erin Franks
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
45%
ES A
S
S
55%
SSA
0
25
50
65
37
27
26
9
EI
75
ER
EP
Kubota
SI
SR
SP
Environmental Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
3
4
75
Excellent
Management
2
8
25
Needs improvement
Policy
10
10
100
Excellent
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
8
35
23
Needs substantial improvement
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
6
14
43
Needs improvement
Management
0
21
0
Needs substantial improvement
Materials Usage
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Recycling
2
14
14
Needs substantial improvement
Waste
5
21
24
Needs substantial improvement
Water
5
7
71
Good
Social Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
4
4
100
Excellent
Management
5
10
50
Good
Policy
4
6
67
Good
Social Demographic
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Vision
4
4
100
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
14
77
18
Needs substantial improvement
Excellent
Social Reporting
Question Category
Human Rights
Management
3
7
43
Needs improvement
Qualitative Social
28
35
80
Excellent
Quantitative Social
7
42
17
Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
45
Capital Goods: Industrial & Farm Equipment Sector 2012
B-
LeGrand 2011 Webpages, Environmental,
Prevention, Fair Competition, and Fundamental
Principles Charters, 2009 Reference Document,
2009-2010 LeGrand and Sustainable Development
Document, 2010 Registration Document, and 2011
Web Pages
LeGrand
The various documents provided by LeGrand, including its webpages, charters, 2009 Reference Document, 2009-2010 LeGrand and Sustainable
Development document, and 2010 Registration Document, demonstrate the company’s dedication to reporting its environmental and social impact. LeGrand
presents a significant amount of detailed information on social sustainability. For example, it provides the breakdown of its employee population by age and
gender. It also reports a program for hiring persons with disabilities. Employee satisfaction is ensured through periodic employee reviews of managers.
Additionally, the report presents both current and past year accident rates. LeGrand shows a commitment to the community in the regions where it
operates by contributing to programs such as “Electricians Without Borders.” LeGrand provides less information on environmental sustainability. Current
year quantitative data on energy used, waste disposed of, waste produced, waste released, water used, and GHG emissions are mentioned. LeGrand has
shown initiative in maintaining an extensive supplier screening program. LeGrand presents its sustainability information in many documents and charters,
mostly titled with words uncommon to the sustainability words, such as Registration Document, which makes finding sustainability information much harder
for those not familiar with the company. Plus, much of the information is repetitive. For example, the Environmental Charter is included in the Fundamental
Principles Charter and much of the information presented in the 2009-2010 LeGrand and Sustainable Development document is also presented in the 2009
Reference Document. It would be more efficient to organize all the relevant information LeGrand presents as a single document to avoid such repetition of
information and to increase overall accessibility.
Analyst(s): Alan Hu
Erin Franks
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
43%
ES A
S
58
S
57%
SSA
0
25
50
41
27
EI
75
15
ER
EP
9
SI
SR
LeGrand
SP
Environmental Intent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
Question Category
3
4
75
Excellent
Management
4
8
50
Good
Policy
7
10
70
Good
Vision
1
4
25
Needs improvement
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
9
35
26
Needs improvement
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
4
14
29
Needs improvement
Management
0
21
0
Needs substantial improvement
Materials Usage
3
7
43
Needs improvement
Recycling
2
14
14
Needs substantial improvement
Waste
7
21
33
Needs improvement
Water
3
7
43
Needs improvement
Social Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
4
4
100
Excellent
Management
9
10
90
Excellent
Policy
6
6
100
Excellent
Social Demographic
2
2
100
Excellent
Vision
1
4
25
Needs improvement
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
20
77
26
Needs improvement
Excellent
Social Reporting
Question Category
Human Rights
Management
6
7
86
Qualitative Social
12
35
34
Needs improvement
Quantitative Social
9
42
21
Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
46
Capital Goods: Industrial & Farm Equipment Sector 2012
C+
MAN 2010 CR Strategy, 2010 Code of Conduct, and
2011 Web Pages
MAN Group
The MAN group publishes a CR Strategy Report and Code of Conduct each year. The CR Strategy report is a short summary of the company’s progress,
initiatives, and goals with respect to environmental and social impact. It contains no quantitative data. Under the Corporate Responsibility section of its
website, MAN publishes some quantitative data in graphical displays. However, no concrete values are given for various points on the graphs; rather the
reader can see only general trends from year to year and is left to speculate about the actual values of the data points. •MAN is very thorough in the
publication of its responsibility goals for both short-term and long-term initiatives. One of the company’s goals is to publish a full length corporate
responsibility report at the conclusion of 2011 that includes quantitative data and more in-depth information and to continue to publish one such report at
the conclusion of each subsequent year. A more detailed report will help increase the level of transparency with which the company relays information to
the public and further cement its reputation as a responsible corporation. •The Code of Conduct MAN publishes is quite lengthy and includes multiple
scenarios that offer employees instruction in what to do when a branch of the company’s ethical standard is violated. While these scenarios offer concrete
advice, the Code of Conduct lacks statements regarding employee compensation, reasonable working hours, degrading treatment of employees, and the
elimination of forced labor. In addition, the code does not offer any information about how it is reinforced, how the company monitors potentially unethical
situations or any quantitative indication of how well, or poorly, the code is followed by MAN employees. Moreover, MAN does not publish any information
regarding the profile of its workforce with respect to age, gender or race. It would be beneficial to the company to publish these workforce profiles in the
more complete corporate responsibility report to offer concrete evidence that it is abiding by its non-discrimination pledge.
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
ES A
S
77
S
42%
E
58%
46
27
29
18
0
MAN Group
SSA
0
25
50
EI
75
ER
EP
SI
SR
SP
Environmental Intent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
Question Category
4
4
100
Excellent
Management
6
8
75
Excellent
Policy
6
10
60
Good
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
13
35
37
Needs improvement
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
4
14
29
Needs improvement
Management
2
21
10
Needs substantial improvement
Materials Usage
3
7
43
Needs improvement
Recycling
1
14
7
Needs substantial improvement
Waste
2
21
10
Needs substantial improvement
Water
4
7
57
Good
Social Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
4
4
100
Excellent
Management
2
10
20
Needs substantial improvement
Policy
4
6
67
Good
Social Demographic
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
17
77
22
Needs substantial improvement
Needs substantial improvement
Social Reporting
Question Category
Human Rights
Management
0
7
0
Qualitative Social
13
35
37
Needs improvement
Quantitative Social
0
42
0
Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
47
Capital Goods: Industrial & Farm Equipment Sector 2012
B+
Mitsubishi Electric 2021 Environmental Vision, 2010
CSR Policy, 2010 Green Accreditation Guidelines,
2011 Web Pages
Mitsubishi Electric
Mitsubishi Electric demonstrates transparency by providing reports that are detailed and address almost all the aspects of the PSI. Through the twenty
page, 2021 Environmental Vision, Mitsubishi Electric demonstrates clear plans in environmental sustainability in the company’s future. The vision is divided
into three sections -preventing global warming, recycling, and social responsibility- each of which are investigated and future solutions are presented.
Mitsubishi Electric is not only investing in energy efficiency devices, but they are also investing in photovoltaic systems. Mitsubishi not only demonstrates
environmental awareness within the company, but also ensures that suppliers must follow the “Green Accreditation Guidelines” which is discussed in
detail in a ten page report. One flaw is that Mitsubishi Electric fails to identify a specific contact person to answer questions regarding reporting, but
questions are encouraged via a form on the website. • Mitsubishi Electric demonstrates a commitment to social responsibility as well, but there is less data
and emphasis compared to the environmental aspects addressed. A Social Responsibility Policy is provided and data for accident rates is also given.
Various volunteer and community development projects, in which the company spent 550 million yen, are also described in detail.
Analyst(s): Simone Berkovitz
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
ES A
S
SSA
0
25
50
85
54
S
45%
E
55%
42
22
21
Mitsubishi Electric
EI
75
ER
EP
SI
SR
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
16
35
46
Needs improvement
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
7
14
50
Good
Management
5
21
24
Needs substantial improvement
Materials Usage
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Recycling
9
14
64
Good
Waste
11
21
52
Good
Water
5
7
71
Good
Social Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
4
4
100
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
22
77
29
Needs improvement
Social Reporting
Question Category
Human Rights
Management
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Qualitative Social
28
35
80
Excellent
Quantitative Social
8
42
19
Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
48
Capital Goods: Industrial & Farm Equipment Sector 2012
C+
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries 2011 Web Pages
Mitsubishi Heavy
Industries
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) 2010 Corporate Social Responsibility report presents relatively detailed social and environmental sustainability
information including data on energy use, solid waste recycled and disposed of, water use, greenhouse gas emissions, organochloride emissions, and
accident rate. MHI only presents hazardous waste release data for 2009; easy points can be earned if information from previous years were published as
well. The report includes a well-developed environmental accounting section that is broken down into detailed segments. While Mitsubishi Corporation
presents an online Code of Conduct, neither Mitsubishi Heavy Industries nor its parent Mitsubishi Group has a Code of Conduct. MHI presents interesting
third-party opinions in its CSR report, but does not have any actual third-party validation of its report.
Analyst(s): Alan Hu
Erin Franks
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
73
S
42%
E
58%
S
33
24
35
32
13
SSA
0
25
50
EI
75
ER
EP
SI
SR
Mitsubishi Heavy
Industries
SP
Environmental Intent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
Question Category
1
4
25
Needs improvement
Management
7
8
88
Excellent
Policy
7
10
70
Good
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
12
35
34
Needs improvement
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
5
14
36
Needs improvement
Management
5
21
24
Needs substantial improvement
Materials Usage
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Recycling
4
14
29
Needs improvement
Waste
6
21
29
Needs improvement
Water
4
7
57
Good
Social Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
2
4
50
Good
Management
1
10
10
Needs substantial improvement
Policy
2
6
33
Needs improvement
Social Demographic
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Vision
4
4
100
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
16
77
21
Needs substantial improvement
Good
Excellent
Social Reporting
Question Category
Human Rights
Management
4
7
57
Qualitative Social
12
35
34
Needs improvement
Quantitative Social
10
42
24
Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
49
Capital Goods: Industrial & Farm Equipment Sector 2012
C-
Nidec Code of Conduct and 2011 Web Pages
Nidec
Nidec did a good job in stating its environmental and social policies on its website. Its Code of Conduct provided crucial information about the company’s
anti-discrimination and anti-corruption policies. However, Nidec did not have a corporate sustainability report listed on its website. It would be useful for
the company to create such a report that had information on its energy use, greenhouse gas emissions and workforce data.
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
Distribution of points
Source of points
E
ES A
69
E
47%
S
SSA
0
25
50
38
S
53%
EI
75
12
6
ER
EP
25
9
SI
SR
Nidec
SP
Environmental Intent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
Question Category
1
4
25
Needs improvement
Management
8
8
100
Excellent
Policy
7
10
70
Good
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
3
35
9
Needs substantial improvement
Energy
0
14
0
Needs substantial improvement
Management
6
21
29
Needs improvement
Materials Usage
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Recycling
0
14
0
Needs substantial improvement
Waste
3
21
14
Needs substantial improvement
Water
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Social Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
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
14
77
18
Needs substantial improvement
Needs substantial improvement
Social Reporting
Question Category
Human Rights
Management
0
7
0
Qualitative Social
15
35
43
Needs improvement
Quantitative Social
3
42
7
Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
50
Capital Goods: Industrial & Farm Equipment Sector 2012
D+
Paccar 2009 Annual Report and 2011 Web Pages
Paccar Inc.
Paccar has a formal policy of closely adhering to current environmental laws and regulations in all aspects of its operations. Paccar also states that its
“global leadership includes addressing the environmental challenges facing our own and future generations” but does not discuss the reasons behind this
commitment or the environmental challenges facing this and the next generation. Paccar does reason that, “it is more environmentally prudent and cost
effective to identify a problem before it occurs, than to connect or clean it up afterwards.” ••The context behind the decisions Paccar makes are not
frequently nor explicitly given throughout Paccar’s web pages and 2009 annual report. Paccar does not provide data on any aspects of its energy and water
usage nor the emissions and wastes that the company releases. Paccar has a commitment to its employees which it displays by agreeing to abide by all
U.S. labor laws and regulations, but it does not explicitly elaborate on these laws and regulations in the context of the company operations.
Analyst(s): Danielle L. Manning
Carolyn Campbell
E=Total Environmental Score, ESA=Environmental Sector Average Score, EI=Environmental Intent, ER=Environmental Reporting, EP=Environmental Performance, S=Total Social
Score, SSA=Social Sector Average Score, SI=Social Intent, SR=Social Reporting, SP=Social Performance
Comparison with sector averages
Distribution of points
Source of points
E
38
E
3 1%
ES A
35
17
11
S
S
69%
SSA
0
25
50
EI
75
2
0
ER
EP
Paccar Inc.
SI
SR
SP
Environmental Intent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
Question Category
1
4
25
Needs improvement
Management
3
8
38
Needs improvement
Policy
2
10
20
Needs substantial improvement
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
0
35
0
Needs substantial improvement
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
0
14
0
Needs substantial improvement
Management
0
21
0
Needs substantial improvement
Materials Usage
2
7
29
Needs improvement
Recycling
0
14
0
Needs substantial improvement
Waste
0
21
0
Needs substantial improvement
Water
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Social Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
0
4
0
Needs substantial improvement
Management
2
10
20
Needs substantial improvement
Policy
3
6
50
Good
Social Demographic
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
Social Reporting
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Human Rights
22
77
29
Needs improvement
Management
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Qualitative Social
5
35
14
Needs substantial improvement
Quantitative Social
0
42
0
Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
51
Capital Goods: Industrial & Farm Equipment Sector 2012
D+
Parker-Hannifin Environmental, Health, and Safety
Policy and 2011 Web Pages
Parker Hannifin
Parker-Hannifin’s unclearly conveys its commitment to environmental and social responsibility through its Environment, Health, and Safety Policy and web
pages. Much of the information provided is only a brief discussion of the issue, or lacks transparency. Parker-Hannifin bases its environmental
performance report off of only two areas: energy use and per unit of sales employee injury rate. The company only provides substantiating quantitative
data for per unit of sales employee injury rate. There is quantitative data for energy use, but it is presented as a percent reduction of an unknown initial
amount. Other indicators of performance are considered, but they are not reported. Furthermore, Parker-Hannifin omitted the performance indicators of
recycling rate, industrial waste, and a compliance index because the company found these areas to be of inconsequential importance or no longer germane
to its performance. Parker -Hannifin does not include a Code of Conduct, and thus considerably lacks indication of social responsibility. Also, there are no
explicit examples of the company’s philanthropic initiatives. A notable aspect of Parker-Hannifin’s sustainability efforts is its creation of a Renewable
Energy Team that researches and develops renewable energy projects.
Analyst(s): Hilary Haskell
Carolyn Campbell
E=Total Environmental Score, ESA=Environmental Sector Average Score, EI=Environmental Intent, ER=Environmental Reporting, EP=Environmental Performance, S=Total Social
Score, SSA=Social Sector Average Score, SI=Social Intent, SR=Social Reporting, SP=Social Performance
Comparison with sector averages
Distribution of points
Source of points
E
46
ES A
E
5 1%
S
S
49%
SSA
0
25
50
27
8
EI
75
ER
15
EP
9
SI
SR
2
Parker Hannifin
SP
Environmental Intent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
Question Category
1
4
25
Needs improvement
Management
2
8
25
Needs improvement
Policy
2
10
20
Needs substantial improvement
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
1
35
3
Needs substantial improvement
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
3
14
21
Needs substantial improvement
Management
0
21
0
Needs substantial improvement
Materials Usage
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Recycling
2
14
14
Needs substantial improvement
Waste
6
21
29
Needs improvement
Water
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Social Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
2
4
50
Good
Management
3
10
30
Needs improvement
Policy
4
6
67
Good
Social Demographic
1
2
50
Good
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Social Reporting
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Human Rights
2
77
3
Needs substantial improvement
Management
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Qualitative Social
5
35
14
Needs substantial improvement
Quantitative Social
4
42
10
Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
52
Capital Goods: Industrial & Farm Equipment Sector 2012
C+
Samsung Heavy Industries 2011 Web Pages
Samsung Heavy
Industries
Samsung Heavy Industries did a great job in discussing stainability and how they've worked toward maintaining the global welfare of both people and the
environment, but that is where they stopped. Their reporting was purely qualitative, with 0 environmental or social numbers to show for their efforts. If
their claims of environmental and social stainability being a main concern are actually true, then they should have no issues with releasing a report that
corroborates that story. As one of the largest shipping companies in the world, they had some conscientious distinguishable features that set them apart
from other firms in the industry, and releasing a comprehensive report could help them immensely. The most deficient part of their reporting was in their
employee relations. There was virtually no mention of minority, women, or disabled worker policies, no mention of employee-employer relations, employee
turnover, etc. To start they would be benefitted by releasing a workplace profile of their employees, and build from there.
Analyst(s): Quentin Jones
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
81
ES A
E
5 1%
S
SSA
0
25
50
65
S
49%
28
25
9
3
EI
75
ER
EP
SI
SR
Samsung Heavy
Industries
SP
Environmental Intent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
Question Category
2
4
50
Good
Management
8
8
100
Excellent
Policy
7
10
70
Good
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
7
35
20
Needs substantial improvement
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
2
14
14
Needs substantial improvement
Management
2
21
10
Needs substantial improvement
Materials Usage
3
7
43
Needs improvement
Recycling
0
14
0
Needs substantial improvement
Waste
6
21
29
Needs improvement
Water
2
7
29
Needs improvement
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
4
4
100
Excellent
Social Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Management
3
10
30
Needs improvement
Policy
6
6
100
Excellent
Social Demographic
0
2
0
Vision
4
4
100
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
14
77
18
Needs substantial improvement
Needs substantial improvement
Needs substantial improvement
Excellent
Social Reporting
Question Category
Human Rights
Management
0
7
0
Qualitative Social
17
35
49
Needs improvement
Quantitative Social
5
42
12
Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
53
Capital Goods: Industrial & Farm Equipment Sector 2012
B
Sandvik 2009 Sustainability Report and 2011 Web
Pages
Sandvik
Sandvik touched upon most topics in its environmental and social reporting. The company aims to train all employees in environmental and social
responsibility and business ethics. By 2009, 84% of employees had received this training. Sandvik is a member of the FTSE4Good Index, DJSI World, and
DJSI STOXX. Where the company operates in Africa, it is implementing HIV/AIDS education and alleviation programs. However, the topic of recycling was
mostly ignored. In addition, nearly all qualitative and quantitative measures could be greatly improved by increasing the depth of provided information.
Analyst(s): Ashley Scott
Karen de Wolski
E=Total Environmental Score, ESA=Environmental Sector Average Score, EI=Environmental Intent, ER=Environmental Reporting, EP=Environmental Performance, S=Total Social
Score, SSA=Social Sector Average Score, SI=Social Intent, SR=Social Reporting, SP=Social Performance
Comparison with sector averages
Distribution of points
Source of points
E
ES A
62
E
50%
S
SSA
0
25
50
46
S
50%
46
46
20
9
EI
75
ER
EP
Sandvik
SI
SR
SP
Environmental Intent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
Question Category
2
4
50
Good
Management
6
8
75
Excellent
Policy
4
10
40
Needs improvement
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
12
35
34
Needs improvement
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
6
14
43
Needs improvement
Management
6
21
29
Needs improvement
Materials Usage
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Recycling
2
14
14
Needs substantial improvement
Waste
11
21
52
Good
Water
5
7
71
Good
Social Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
3
4
75
Excellent
Management
1
10
10
Needs substantial improvement
Policy
4
6
67
Good
Social Demographic
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Vision
4
4
100
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
32
77
42
Needs improvement
Excellent
Social Reporting
Question Category
Human Rights
Management
6
7
86
Excellent
Qualitative Social
11
35
31
Needs improvement
Quantitative Social
13
42
31
Needs improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
54
Capital Goods: Industrial & Farm Equipment Sector 2012
C-
Schindler Group 2011 Code of Conduct and 2011
Web Pages
Schindler Holding
The Schindler Group does a decent job of reporting its environmental sustainability practices on its web pages, but could improve significantly by creating a
comprehensive sustainability report. The web pages have basic environmental policies but there is no mention of anything specific such as policies on
biodiversity and ecosystem conservation. In addition, the company has a lot of quantitative data on energy used, waste produced and greenhouse gas
emissions. However, there is not enough detail about what the company is doing to reduce these numbers. Also, many of these categories do not show
improvement from the previous year and the Schindler Group does not explain the reason for these increases. For social sustainability reporting, there is no
information about basic ethics and human rights policies such as sexual harassment and bribery. The company could improve by expanding its code of
conduct, discussing more topics and better organizing its sustainability information.
Analyst(s): Eric Robert King
Erin Franks
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
46
ES A
S
45%
E
55%
S
SSA
0
25
50
31
27
20
9
EI
75
ER
7
EP
SI
SR
Schindler Holding
SP
Environmental Intent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
Question Category
1
4
25
Needs improvement
Management
1
8
13
Needs substantial improvement
Policy
3
10
30
Needs improvement
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
8
35
23
Needs substantial improvement
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
6
14
43
Needs improvement
Management
0
21
0
Needs substantial improvement
Materials Usage
6
7
86
Excellent
Recycling
3
14
21
Needs substantial improvement
Waste
5
21
24
Needs substantial improvement
Water
1
7
14
Needs substantial improvement
Social Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
2
4
50
Good
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
10
77
13
Needs substantial improvement
Needs substantial improvement
Social Reporting
Question Category
Human Rights
Management
0
7
0
Qualitative Social
12
35
34
Needs improvement
Quantitative Social
2
42
5
Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
55
Capital Goods: Industrial & Farm Equipment Sector 2012
B+
Schneider Electric 2010 Business and Sustainable
Development Report and 2011 Web Pages
Schneider Electric
Schneider Electric’s 2010 Business and Sustainable Development Report outlines its energy production system, detailing its goals for efficiency, safety,
renewable sources, and access to communities in need. Schneider Electric has a thoroughly presented environmental policy statement, and is clearly
committed to reducing its own carbon footprint. The company has global goals as well, such as increasing renewable energy use. Schneider takes part in
achieving these larger goals through participation in the Copenhagen Climate Change discussions and partnering in the Masdar’s carbon neutral project in
the Middle East. •Schneider Electric has a priority of allowing energy access to low income societies through its “base of the pyramid” program, helping
them to reach their potential with innovation and education opportunities. Employees of the company are increasingly satisfied and receive substantial
training for electrical career development. Workplace safety is of high value at Schneider Electric. •Schneider Electric’s Business and Sustainable
Development report does not cover much of the quantitative data and the code of ethics that we score, however, this information are available in its 2010
Annual Report. The whole second chapter of the company’s annual report discusses sustainable development topics, down to the quantifications of
indicators monitored by the company, including GRI topics which is also verified by third party. Overall, Schnneider-Electric presents an excellent, highly
commendable sustainable reporting, absolutely one of the best in Capital Good sector.
Analyst(s): Whitney Ellen Dawson
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
ES A
E
52%
S
S
48%
SSA
0
25
50
92
47
44
21
EI
75
ER
17
EP
SI
SR
Schneider Electric
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
10
14
71
Good
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
7
14
50
Good
Management
3
21
14
Needs substantial improvement
Materials Usage
2
7
29
Needs improvement
Recycling
4
14
29
Needs improvement
Waste
7
21
33
Needs improvement
Water
4
7
57
Good
Social Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
4
4
100
Excellent
Management
8
10
80
Excellent
Policy
6
6
100
Excellent
Social Demographic
2
2
100
Excellent
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
18
77
23
Needs substantial improvement
Social Reporting
Question Category
Human Rights
Management
2
7
29
Needs improvement
Qualitative Social
24
35
69
Good
Quantitative Social
13
42
31
Needs improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
56
Capital Goods: Industrial & Farm Equipment Sector 2012
F
Shanghai Electric Company 2011 Web Pages
Shanghai Electric
Group
Shanghai Electric Company does not provide any evidence demonstrating its commitment to environmental or social responsibility on its web pages.
Analyst(s): Alan Hu
Erin Franks
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
19 %
ES A
8
4
S
S
81%
SSA
0
25
50
EI
75
3
0
0
0
ER
EP
SI
SR
Shanghai Electric
Group
SP
Environmental Intent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
Question Category
0
4
0
Needs substantial improvement
Management
0
8
0
Needs substantial improvement
Policy
0
10
0
Needs substantial improvement
Vision
1
4
25
Needs improvement
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
0
35
0
Needs substantial improvement
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
0
14
0
Needs substantial improvement
Management
0
21
0
Needs substantial improvement
Materials Usage
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Recycling
0
14
0
Needs substantial improvement
Waste
0
21
0
Needs substantial improvement
Water
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Social Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
0
4
0
Needs substantial improvement
Management
2
10
20
Needs substantial improvement
Policy
0
6
0
Needs substantial improvement
Social Demographic
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Vision
0
4
0
Needs substantial improvement
Social Reporting
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Human Rights
0
77
0
Needs substantial improvement
Management
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Qualitative Social
3
35
9
Needs substantial improvement
Quantitative Social
0
42
0
Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
57
Capital Goods: Industrial & Farm Equipment Sector 2012
B-
Sumitomo Electric 2011 Web Pages
Sumitomo Electric
Industries
As seen through Sumitomo’s 2010 CSR report, the company is dedicated to its socially and environmentally sustainable operations. The amount of
transparency the company offers should be applauded, for the company discusses a large portion of the topics included in the Pacific Sustainability Index
through its five foci: relationships with global environment, relationships with customers, relationships with suppliers, relationships with employees, and
relationships with society. The company has a clear environmental and social visionary and policy statement that it adheres to through various initiatives,
including environmental education for its employees, screening of suppliers based on environmental awareness, and community involvement through its
SEI Group CSR Foundation. Additionally, Sumitomo provides quantitative figures sowing the stride s it has taken towards strengthening its dedication to
maintaining an environmentally friendly corporation. It reports that its energy usage and waste generation have both steadily declined over the past few
years.•While the company provides strong evidence of its adherence to its social and environmental commitments, there is certainly room for improvement
of its CSR report. For instance, Sumitomo Electric fails to disclose any information about environmental expense and fines or information about health and
safety fines and citations. Moreover, while the company states its strong stance against sexual harassment and anti-corruption practices, the CSR does not
include a Code o Conduct that outlines company regulations regarding topics like political contributions, bribery, and forced labor. Thus it is advised that the
company quantify fines incurred from environmental and social infractions, and included a detailed Code o Conduct in its CSR report.
Analyst(s): Michael Handler Shoemaker
Erin Franks
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
S
49%
SSA
0
25
50
73
65
E
5 1%
S
35
EI
75
ER
34
21
15
EP
SI
SR
Sumitomo Electric
Industries
SP
Environmental Intent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
Question Category
1
4
25
Needs improvement
Management
8
8
100
Excellent
Policy
4
10
40
Needs improvement
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
11
35
31
Needs improvement
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
3
14
21
Needs substantial improvement
Management
1
21
5
Needs substantial improvement
Materials Usage
3
7
43
Needs improvement
Recycling
5
14
36
Needs improvement
Waste
9
21
43
Needs improvement
Water
4
7
57
Good
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
2
4
50
Good
Management
6
10
60
Good
Policy
5
6
83
Excellent
Social Demographic
2
2
100
Excellent
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
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
20
35
57
Good
Quantitative Social
9
42
21
Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
58
Capital Goods: Industrial & Farm Equipment Sector 2012
B-
Vallourec 2010 Sustainability Report and 2011 Web
pages
Vallourec
Vallourec has a well-outlined sustainable development management structure. The multi-disciplinary Continuous Improvement Teams were established to
address health, safety, and environmental issues. In addition, the Company restores mining area landscapes. However, Vallourec provides minimal
quantitative environmental data. Vallourec could further improve its transparency by reporting social initiatives and information regarding social and
environmental infractions and fines in more depth.
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
Distribution of points
Source of points
E
73
ES A
E
53%
S
S
47%
SSA
0
25
50
50
38
40
21
EI
75
ER
EP
17
SI
SR
Vallourec
SP
Environmental Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
2
4
50
Good
Management
4
8
50
Good
Policy
9
10
90
Excellent
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Emissions to Air
8
35
23
Needs substantial improvement
Energy
10
14
71
Good
Management
0
21
0
Needs substantial improvement
Materials Usage
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Recycling
1
14
7
Needs substantial improvement
Waste
15
21
71
Good
Water
5
7
71
Good
Social Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
4
4
100
Excellent
Management
2
10
20
Needs substantial improvement
Policy
5
6
83
Excellent
Social Demographic
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
18
77
23
Needs substantial improvement
Social Reporting
Question Category
Human Rights
Management
2
7
29
Needs improvement
Qualitative Social
17
35
49
Needs improvement
Quantitative Social
14
42
33
Needs improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
59
Capital Goods: Industrial & Farm Equipment Sector 2012
F
Vestas Wind Systems
Vestas Wind Systems 2010 Sustainability Report and
2011 Web Pages
Analyst(s): Gracie Beck
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
S
1%
E
1%
ES A
S
0
0
0
0
0
0
EI
ER
EP
SI
SR
SP
SSA
0
25
50
75
Vestas W ind
Systems
Environmental Intent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
Question Category
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
35
0
Needs substantial improvement
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
0
14
0
Needs substantial improvement
Management
0
21
0
Needs substantial improvement
Materials Usage
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Recycling
0
14
0
Needs substantial improvement
Waste
0
21
0
Needs substantial improvement
Water
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Social Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
0
4
0
Needs substantial improvement
Management
0
10
0
Needs substantial improvement
Policy
0
6
0
Needs substantial improvement
Social Demographic
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Vision
0
4
0
Needs substantial improvement
Social Reporting
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Human Rights
0
77
0
Needs substantial improvement
Management
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Qualitative Social
0
35
0
Needs substantial improvement
Quantitative Social
0
42
0
Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
60
Capital Goods: Industrial & Farm Equipment Sector 2012
A+
Wartsila 2010 Annual Report, Code of Conduct, and
2011 Web Pages
Wärtsilä
Wartsila’s devotion to environmental sustainability is apparent in its environmental management system and its policies outlined in the 2010 Annual Report,
Code of Conduct, and 2011 web pages. Wartsila’s products help other companies to develop and maintain environmentally conscious production processes
and facilities, but it also ensures that its own processes have minimal impacts on the environment. This is achieved through a clear environmental policy
and management structure. Wartsila also has a very detailed report of its business practices, particularly communication with shareholders and the use of
a Code of Conduct to prevent harmful behavior such as bribery, fraud, and degrading punishment of employees. • Wartsila’s report lacks information
about its efforts in ecosystem conservation. The company includes data regarding how much it invests in the community, but provides few details about
how that money is specifically spent. • Wartsila emphasizes that environmental impact is considered strongly in its business procedures. While the
report and web pages are extensive, more information regarding community involvement and workforce profile could be included.
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
ES A
77
E
46%
S
SSA
0
25
50
61
58
S
54%
70
57
26
W ärtsilä
EI
75
ER
EP
SI
SR
SP
Environmental Intent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
Question Category
4
4
100
Excellent
Management
6
8
75
Excellent
Policy
6
10
60
Good
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
21
35
60
Good
Energy
7
14
50
Good
Management
10
21
48
Needs improvement
Materials Usage
6
7
86
Excellent
Needs improvement
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Recycling
4
14
29
Waste
9
21
43
Needs improvement
Water
4
7
57
Good
Social Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
2
4
50
Good
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
44
77
57
Good
Social Reporting
Question Category
Human Rights
Management
4
7
57
Good
Qualitative Social
33
35
94
Excellent
Quantitative Social
26
42
62
Good
www.roberts.cmc.edu
61
Capital Goods: Industrial & Farm Equipment Sector 2012
C
WW Grainger 2011 Web Pages
WW Grainger
WW Grainger has partnered with many environmental organizations to further its commitment to environmental protection and conservation. It has
partnered with US Green Building, ENERGY STAR, and Water Sense. Grainger has LEED certified facilities that have decreased energy costs by 30%, water
usage by 35%-50%, and waste by 90%. The cleaning management switched to using green cleaning products. Grainger is EPA SmartWay certified;
carriers, shippers, and logistic companies deliver products in a more environmentally responsible manner. One hundred percent of its electronic equipment
is now recycled and diverted from landfills. Grainger also uses FSC paper to print its catalogs. Grainger is a socially responsible company as well. It has a
matching charitable gifts program and donates $2500 annually. In 2009, Grainger donated $16 million in money and products. Its partnership with the Red
Cross enabled Grainger to donate $6 million in cash, products, and employee volunteerism. Employee volunteers are trained and have responded to more
than 24 natural disasters worldwide. The Grainger Tools for Tomorrow Scholarship program dedicated time and resources to educating students and
employees in skill trade jobs and technical education. Grainger needs to report energy used, emissions, and waste produced. More information on human
rights reporting is also necessary.
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
Source of points
Distribution of points
E
E
3 1%
ES A
S
62
42
S
69%
SSA
0
25
50
EI
75
28
8
9
ER
EP
26
W W Grainger
SI
SR
SP
Environmental Intent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
Question Category
1
4
25
Needs improvement
Management
2
8
25
Needs improvement
Policy
6
10
60
Good
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
0
35
0
Needs substantial improvement
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
1
14
7
Needs substantial improvement
Management
1
21
5
Needs substantial improvement
Materials Usage
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Recycling
4
14
29
Needs improvement
Waste
2
21
10
Needs substantial improvement
Water
2
7
29
Needs improvement
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
2
4
50
Good
Management
6
10
60
Good
Policy
6
6
100
Social Demographic
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
12
77
16
Needs substantial improvement
Social Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Excellent
Social Reporting
Question Category
Human Rights
Management
2
7
29
Needs improvement
Qualitative Social
28
35
80
Excellent
Quantitative Social
4
42
10
Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
62
Capital Goods: Industrial & Farm Equipment Sector 2012
Capital Goods: Industrial and Farm Equipment
Environmental visionary statement
Environmental management structure
5
-Discussion: includes a clear visionary statement expressing an organizational
commitment to good environmental performance.
-Initiatives/actions: include measures to fulfill that commitment.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
Initiatives/actions
Initiatives Pg#
Environmental impediments and challenges
Initiatives/actions
6
Initiatives/actions
42
43
Initiatives/actions
Discussion: of impediments and challenges faced by the organization in
attempting to realize its social vision and commitments.
Initiatives/actions: include measures taken to overcome them.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
Initiatives/actions
9
Initiatives/actions
Initiatives/actions
45
21
-Discussion: of environmental expenditures.
-Initiatives/actions: include detailed accounting of such expenditures.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
Initiatives/actions
4
Initiatives Pg#
Third-party validation
-Discussion: identifies the person specifically designated to answer questions
about the report or sustainability issues. Investor relations or public relations
contact representatives are not valid contacts for this question.
-Initiatives/actions: to facilitate such contact, i.e. providing email address,
phone number, or a link for feedback and questions.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
Initiatives/actions
Initiatives Pg#
Environmental accounting
Initiatives Pg#
Report contact person
16
-Discussion: of efforts to promote environmental education and awareness of
employees, the general public, or children.
-Initiatives/actions: taken to provide such education.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
-Discussion: includes a formal statement of the company's social policy or plan.
-Initiatives/actions: include a description of how the policy is being
implemented.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
Initiatives/actions
Initiatives Pg#
Environmental education
Initiatives Pg#
Social policy statement
23
-Discussion: of consultation and dialogue with stakeholders about the
organization's environmental aspects or impacts.
-Initiatives/actions: include identification of specific consultation activities.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
-Discussion: includes a formal statement of the organization's environmental
policy or plan.
-Initiatives/actions: include a description of how the policy is being
implemented.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
Initiatives/actions
Initiatives Pg#
Stakeholder consultation
Initiatives Pg#
Environmental policy statement
51
-Discussion: of organizational structure or staffing for ensuring health and
safety or social responsibility.
-Initiatives/actions: include identification of the individuals currently holding
the staff positions.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
Initiatives Pg#
Social impediments and challenges
Initiatives Pg#
Health and safety, or social organizational structure
-Discussion: includes a clear visionary statement expressing an organizational
commitment to good social performance.
-Initiatives/actions: include measures taken to fulfill that commitment.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
Initiatives/actions
20
-Discussion: includes a statement of adoption of ISO 14001 or other formal
environmental management system.
-Initiatives/actions: include information on the extent to which the system has
been implemented.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
Initiatives Pg#
Social visionary statement
Initiatives Pg#
Environmental management system
-Discussion: of impediments and challenges faced by the organization in
attempting to realize its environmental vision and commitments.
-Initiatives/actions: include measures to overcome them.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
Initiatives/actions
19
-Discussion: of the organization's environmental management structure or
staffing.
-Initiatives/actions: include identification of individuals currently holding the
staff positions.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
54
-Discussion: of the value (or lack thereof) of third-party auditing or validation.
-Initiatives/actions: include formal auditing or validation by a qualified
external third-party source.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
Initiatives/actions
Initiatives Pg#
Initiatives Pg#
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
63
Initiatives Pg#
Capital Goods: Industrial & Farm Equipment Sector 2012
Capital Goods: Industrial and Farm Equipment
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
Initiatives/actions
Initiatives Pg#
Biodiversity
Initiatives Pg#
Initiatives/actions
Initiatives/actions
49
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#
Energy used (total)
-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#
Code of conduct or business ethics
13
-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
Green purchasing
Initiatives Pg#
Employee training for career development
12
Initiatives/actions
53
-Discussion: of emergency preparedness programs to prepare employees or the
public to cope with potential emergencies at the organization's facilities.
-Initiatives/actions: include measures taken to implement such programs.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
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
64
Capital Goods: Industrial & Farm Equipment Sector 2012
Capital Goods: Industrial and Farm Equipment
Waste recycled: solid waste
Waste (hazardous) produced
30
Sum of all solid waste recycled, including hazardous waste.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Context
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
Year
Data Values
35
Sum of all hazardous materials remaining after production, irrespective of
final disposition. Hazardous wastes include items identified as TRI, PRTR,
HAP (Hazardous Air Pollutants), and similar indices, and may include
mercury or lead. Depending on the nationality of the organization, this could
be labeled "TRI" (Toxic Release Inventory,) "substance releases" , or
something else.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Context Pg#:
Context
Context Pg#:
Goal Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
Units
Year
Waste (office) recycled
Data Values
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#:
Waste (hazardous) released to the environment
Goal Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Units
Waste (solid) disposed of
Context
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
34
Year
Includes solid hazardous and non-hazardous waste landfilled, incinerated, or
transferred.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Context
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
Year
Data Values
Data Values
Context Pg#:
Goal Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Units
Context Pg#:
Goal Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Water used
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
29
Sum of all water used during operations.
Units
Discussion
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
65
Data Values
Discussion Pg#:
Context Pg#:
Goal Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Units
Capital Goods: Industrial & Farm Equipment Sector 2012
Capital Goods: Industrial and Farm Equipment
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
Particulate matter (dust)
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
"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
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
123
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
Employee turnover rate
Methane (CH4)
Annual employee turnover rate.
115
Discussion
Context
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
Methane (CH4) released to air.
Discussion
Context
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
Year
Data Values
3
Discussion Pg#:
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
66
Capital Goods: Industrial & Farm Equipment Sector 2012
Capital Goods: Industrial and Farm Equipment
Recordable incident/accident rate
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
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
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
Goal Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
39
Year
Data Values
Goal Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Units
Units
Fines (environmental)
81
Context
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
40
Government imposed fines for environmental infractions.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Context Pg#:
Context
Amount of money spent on community outreach, including education grants,
donations, and relief effort funds.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Data Values
Improve Pg#
An accounting of money spent or invested specifically to decrease
environmental damage or to benefit the environment.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Context Pg#:
Context
Context Pg#:
Social community investment
Year
Goal Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Environmental expenses and investments
75
Number of employee injuries or illnesses that resulted in one or more lost
workdays.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Data Values
Data Values
Context Pg#:
Units
Lost workday case rate
Year
38
Notices of violation (NOVs) for environmental infractions.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
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
Goal Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Units
Units
www.roberts.cmc.edu
67
Capital Goods: Industrial & Farm Equipment Sector 2012
Capital Goods: Industrial and Farm Equipment
Health and safety citations
Occupational health and safety protection
76
Number of health and safety citations or notices of violation. If it is stated that
there were none, check lines 1,2,3, 4, and 6.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Context
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
Year
Data Values
70
Efforts to provide a safe and healthy working environment at all sites.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Initiative Pg#:
Initiatives/Action
Context Pg#:
Context
Improvement Over Previous Improve Pg#:
Context Pg#:
Goal Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Employee volunteerism
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
72
Efforts to promote employee volunteerism in social or environmental projects.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Units
Initiative Pg#:
Initiatives/Action
Context Pg#:
Context
Improvement Over Previous Improve Pg#:
Community development
Health and safety fines
77
Fines levied against a company for health and safety violations.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Context
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
Year
Data Values
66
Efforts to participate in social activities that improve the quality of life of
communities including that of indigenous people, where the organization operates.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Initiative Pg#:
Initiatives/Action
Context Pg#:
Context
Improvement Over Previous Improve Pg#:
Context Pg#:
Goal Pg#:
Community education
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
68
Efforts to support education in the communities where the company is located.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Improve Pg#
Initiative Pg#:
Initiatives/Action
Context Pg#:
Context
Improvement Over Previous Improve Pg#:
Units
Sexual harassment
1
Rejection of any form of sexual harassment.
Life Cycle Analysis (LCA)
Adoption of Policy
Action to Reinforce Policy
Monitoring
Quant. Indication of Compliance
147
Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) is a formal procedure that examines the environmental
aspects and impacts of a process or product from "cradle to grave". To get credit
here, it must be referred to as life cycle analyses or planning.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Initiative Pg#:
Initiatives/Action
Adoption of Policy
Action to Reinforce Policy
Monitoring
Quant. Indication of Compliance
2
Discussion Pg#:
www.roberts.cmc.edu
Policy Adopt Pg#:
Initiative Pg#:
Monitoring Pg#:
Qty Perf Pg#:
8
Rejection of bribery
Context Pg#:
Improve Pg#:
Adoption of Policy
Action to Reinforce Policy
Monitoring
Quant. Indication of Compliance
67
Surveys to monitor employee satisfaction.
Discussion
Initiatives/Action
Context
Improvement Over Previous
7
Bribery
Initiative Pg#:
Employee satisfaction surveys
Qty Perf Pg#:
Policy about political contributions.
Relative numbers of women in management.
Discussion
Initiatives/Action
Context
Improvement Over Previous
Initiative Pg#:
Monitoring Pg#:
Political contributions
Context Pg#:
Context
Improvement Over Previous Improve Pg#:
Women in management
Policy Adopt Pg#:
Policy Adopt Pg#:
Initiative Pg#:
Monitoring Pg#:
Qty Perf Pg#:
Discussion Pg#:
Initiative Pg#:
Context Pg#:
Improve Pg#:
68
Capital Goods: Industrial & Farm Equipment Sector 2012
Capital Goods: Industrial and Farm Equipment
Anti-corruption practices
Elimination of all forms of forced and compulsory labor
58
Efforts to uphold the highest standards of business ethics and integrity. May be found
under a Code of Conduct.
Adoption of Policy
Action to Reinforce Policy
Monitoring
Quant. Indication of Compliance
Adoption of Policy
Action to Reinforce Policy
Monitoring
Quant. Indication of Compliance
Policy Adopt Pg#:
Initiative Pg#:
Monitoring Pg#:
Qty Perf Pg#:
Fair compensation of employees
Initiative Pg#:
Monitoring Pg#:
Qty Perf 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
Policy Adopt Pg#:
Initiative Pg#:
Monitoring Pg#:
Qty Perf Pg#:
Reasonable working hours
Policy Adopt Pg#:
Effective abolition of child labor
62
Assurance that wages paid meet or exceed legal or industry minimum standard.
Adoption of Policy
Action to Reinforce Policy
Monitoring
Quant. Indication of Compliance
63
Assurance that all employees enter employment with the company of their own free
will, not by compulsion.
Policy Adopt Pg#:
Initiative Pg#:
Monitoring Pg#:
Qty Perf Pg#:
64
Compliance with applicable laws and industry standards on working hours, including
overtime.
Adoption of Policy
Action to Reinforce Policy
Monitoring
Quant. Indication of Compliance
Policy Adopt Pg#:
Initiative Pg#:
Monitoring Pg#:
Qty Perf Pg#:
Degrading treatment or punishment of employees
59
Commitment to oppose any corporal/hard labor punishment, mental/physical
coercion, or verbal abuse.
Adoption of Policy
Action to Reinforce Policy
Monitoring
Quant. Indication of Compliance
Policy Adopt Pg#:
Initiative Pg#:
Monitoring Pg#:
Qty Perf Pg#:
Elimination of discrimination in respect to employment and
occupation
60
Commitment not to engage in any kind of discrimination based on ethnicity, caste,
religion, disability, sex, age, sexual orientation, union membership, or political
affiliation in hiring practices or employee treatment.
Adoption of Policy
Action to Reinforce Policy
Monitoring
Quant. Indication of Compliance
Policy Adopt Pg#:
Initiative Pg#:
Monitoring Pg#:
Qty Perf Pg#:
Free association and collective bargaining of employees
61
Efforts to respect the right of employees to form and join trade unions of their choice
and to bargain collectively.
Adoption of Policy
Action to Reinforce Policy
Monitoring
Quant. Indication of Compliance
www.roberts.cmc.edu
Policy Adopt Pg#:
Initiative Pg#:
Monitoring Pg#:
Qty Perf Pg#:
69
Capital Goods: Industrial & Farm Equipment Sector 2012
ABB, Atlas Copco, Bharat Heavy
Electricals, Caterpillar Inc., Cooper
Industries, Cummins, Deere &
Company, Eaton, Fanuc, Hyundai
Heavy Industries, Illinois Tool Works,
Komatsu, Kubota, LeGrand, MAN
Group, Mitsubishi Electric, Mitsubishi
Heavy Industries, Nidec, Paccar Inc.,
Parker Hannifin, Samsung Heavy
Industries, Sandvik, Schindler Holding,
Schneider Electric, Shanghai Electric
Group, Sumitomo Electric Industries,
Vallourec, Vestas Wind Systems,
Wärtsilä, and WW Grainger
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.