Air France - KLM,
A i r TSustainability
r a n , AReporting
l a s k a of2010
A
i
r
the
G rWorld's
o u p , Largest
I n c . ,Airline
A mCompanies
erican
Airlines, British Airways,
Continental Airlines,
ExpressJet Holdings, Japan
Airlines, JetBlue Airways
Corporation, Lufthansa
Group, Northwest
Airlines, Skywest Inc,
Southwest Airlines, UAL,
US Airways Group
Pacific Sustainability Index Scores
A benchmarking tool for online sustainability reporting
Helping Commerce
Help Nature
J. Emil Morhardt, Elgeritte Adidjaja, Juliet Marie Archer, Jeffrey Alan Astor, Owen Black Brewer, Olivea Omalara Fayola Callender-Scott,
Carolyn Hendricks Collins, Jacyln T. D'Arcy, Bukola Jimoh, Teija Campbell Mortvedt, Brittany Nunnink, Caitrin Elise O'Brien, Noah Monte
Proser, Emma Ryland Reese, and Aden Eyob F. Weldegiworgis
Claremont McKenna College
Roberts Environmental Center
Contents
Topics
Company Rankings
Lead Analyst’s Comment
PSI Overview
PSI Scoring in a Nutshell
Environmental Intent Topics
Environmental Reporting Topics
Social Intent Topics
Social Reporting Topics
Environmental Intent Element of the PSI
Scores
Environmental Reporting Element of the PSI
Scores
Social Intent Element of the PSI Scores
Social Reporting Element of the PSI Scores
Environmental Intent Scores Ranking
Environmental Reporting Scores Ranking
Environmental Performance Scores Ranking
Social Intent Scores Ranking
Social Reporting Scores Ranking
Social Performance Scores Ranking
Visual Cluster Analysis
Company Rankings Based on the Number of
Goals Reported
Company Rankings Based on the Better
Performance Reported
Analyst’s Comments, alphabetically listed by
company name
Page
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Questions should be addressed to:
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
Elgeritte Adidjaja, Research Fellow: (909) 621-8698
(eadidjaja@cmc.edu)
Departmental secretaries: (909) 621-8298
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
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 on
this website.
Industrial Sector**
Aerospace and defense
Airlines
Banks, Insurance
Chemicals
Largest Companies in China
Colleges/Universities
Computer, Office Equipment,
and Services
Consumer Food, Food
Production, & Beverages
Electronics and
Semiconductors
Energy
Entertainment
Food Services
Forest and Paper Products
General Merchandiser
Homebuilders
Industrial and Farm
Equipment
Mail, Freight, & Shipping
Medical Products &
Equipment
Metals
Mining, Crude Oil
Motor Vehicle and Parts
Oil and Gas Equipment
Petroleum and Refining
Pharmaceuticals
Scientific, Photo, & Control
Equipment
Telecommunications,
Network, & Peripherals
Utilities, Gas, and Electric
2
0
0
4
2
0
0
5
2
0
0
6
2
0
0
7
2
0
0
8
2
0
0
9
X
2
0
1
0
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1
X
X
X
X
X
X
*
X
X
*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
*
X
*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
*
X
*
X
* Multiple-sector category was separated in later years.
**As of March 2010.
1
Top 50 Liberal Art Colleges.
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 2010 © by J. Emil Morhardt. All rights reserved.
www.roberts.cmc.edu
2010 Sustainability Reporting of World's Largest Airline Companies
2
Claremont McKenna College
Roberts Environmental Center
Airline Sector
Corporate Environmental and Sustainability Reporting
Company Rankings
Japan Airlines
Overall Grade
56.83
Lufthansa Group
48.27
Continental Airlines
37.61
American Airlines
36.43
Southwest Airlines
35.52
UAL
34.33
Air France - KLM
31.42
British Airways
A+
Japan Airlines (Japan)
AB
Lufthansa Group (Germany)
Continental Airlines (USA)
B
American Airlines (USA)
B
Southwest Airlines (USA)
BB-
UAL (USA)
Air France - KLM (France)
C+
British Airways (U.K.)
C
C
Alaska Air Group,Inc. (USA)
AirTran (USA)
C
CC-
JetBlue Airways Corporation
(USA)
Delta Airlines (USA)
ExpressJet Holdings (USA)
C-
US Airways Group (USA)
D-
Skywest Inc (USA)
28.69
Alaska Air Group,Inc.
25.87
AirT ran
23.04
JetBlue Airways
Corporation
21.40
Delta Airlines
21.22
ExpressJet Holdings
17.67
US Airways Group
17.03
Skywest Inc
3.55
0
25
50
75
100
This report is an analysis of the voluntary environmental and social reporting
of companies on the 2008 Fortune Global 500 and Fortune 500 Airline 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. We omitted
Northwest Airlines because it is in the process of merging with Delta Airlines.
Analysis Period:
Draft sector report available for review:
www.roberts.cmc.edu
2/25/2009 through 4/22/2009
10/16/2009 through 2/1/2010
2010 Sustainability Reporting of World's Largest Airline Companies
3
Claremont McKenna College
Roberts Environmental Center
Lead Analyst’s Comments
The sector was led by Japan Airlines (JAL Group) with detailed CSR and extensive
social and environmental initiatives. JAL Group ranked highest in the sector in
enviromental reporting and performance and social intent and performance scores.
Clearly, environmental responsibility is not new to JAL Group. The company has
invested in exploring “ways of flying in an eco-friendly fashion” since 1990, when it
created its fuel efficiency committee. Researching the environment to minimize the
company’s impact on it is a key part of JAL Group’s sustainability initiative.
Furthermore, JAL Group has programs in everything from volunteer tree planting, to
Siberian wildfire reporting, to preventing desertification in inner-Mongolia. JAL
Group has discovered thoughtful, intelligent ways to reduce its fuel consumption
and is a model of environmental reporting for industry as a whole.
Lufthansa, which ranked 2nd in the sector, also provides an impressive corporate responsibility report. Lufthansa
puts particular emphasis on the preservation of biodiversity and ecosystems, supports the International Air
Transport Association’s Fuel Efficiency Goal, and is attempting to reduce the CO2 emissions of its fleet by 25% by
2020. To achieve the same end, Continental Airlines offers a carbon offset program to their customers, has invested
$12 billion in new fuel efficient aircraft, and begun testing biofuels blends.
American Airlines and AirTran both discuss fuel conservation and emissions reduction but, neither company
explicitly mentions climate change. ExpressJet Holdings also does not mention climate change, but has
nonetheless made considerable improvement in its sustainability reporting since last year. Alaska Air Group
discusses climate change very briefly, but expresses interest in adopting environmentally responsible initiatives.
Although it scored lower, JetBlue’s Fuel Challenge Team seeks ways to conserve fuel and reduce overall
consumption. The company, which received a C-, reports savings from new initiatives in both dollars and GHG
emissions.
As airplanes emit considerable amounts of greenhouse gases, greenhouse gas emissions, fuel consumption, and
climate change are critical sustainability topics for airlines. The International Air Transport Association, which
represents 230 airlines (93% of air traffic), focuses almost entirely on emissions in its environmental reports and
web pages, and boasts tremendous strides in fuel efficiency in the past decade, but admits further emission
reductions are necessary and possible (www.iata.org). The majority of the sector’s companies discussed
greenhouse gas emissions to some extent in their sustainability reporting, and top ranked companies received
excellent environmental intent scores as a result. Overall, over 60% of the companies in the sector addressed
climate change.
Unfortunately, many of our airline-specific topics were ignored by these companies. Fewer than 10% of the airlines
we analyzed addressed air quality on board, and only about one-fifth discussed food waste. Large companies with
higher annual revenues performed better on average and covered more sector-specific topics. Although the
majority of the companies scored were based in the United States, the two highest scores were received by a
Japanese and German airline. The nine lowest scoring companies are American, and all airlines based outside the
United States were ranked in the top half of the sector.
Bukola Jimoh, CMC ‘11
Roberts Environmental Center Research Analyst
Claremont, California
February 11, 2010
www.roberts.cmc.edu
2010 Sustainability Reporting of World's Largest Airline Companies
4
Claremont McKenna College
Roberts Environmental Center
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 web site for analysis. Our scoring excludes data independently stored
outside the main corporate web site 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 web site.
We archive these web pages as PDF files for future reference. Our analysts use a
keyword search function to search reporting of specific topics and, they fill out a
PSI scoring sheet (http://www.roberts.cmc.edu/PSI/scoringsheet.asp), and track
the coverage and depths of different sustainability issues mentioned in all online
materials.
scores and ranks
When they are finished scoring, the analysts enter their scoring results into the PSI database. The PSI database
calculates scores and publishes them on the Center’s web site. This sector report provides an in-depth analysis on
sustainability reporting of the largest companies of the sector, as listed in the latest Fortune Global 500 and 1000 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 web site, 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 A+ and any in the bottom 4% get 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 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
2010 Sustainability Reporting of World's Largest Airline Companies
5
Claremont McKenna College
Roberts Environmental Center
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 sectorspecific 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 2 points; 1 point for a discussion of intentions, vision, or plans, and a 1 point for
evidence of specific actions taken to implement them.
2. reporting
The “Reporting” topics are each worth 5 points and are either quantitative (for which we expect numerical data) or
qualitative (for which we don’t).
For quantitative topics, 1 point is available for a discussion, 1 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.), 1 point for the presence of an explicit numerical goal, 1 point
for numerical data from a single year, and 1 point for similar data from a previous year.
For qualitative topics, there are 3 criteria summed to 5 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, 2 performance points are available.
For quantitative topics, 1 point is given for improvement from the previous reporting period, and 1 point for better
performance that the sector average (based on the data used for this sector report normalized by revenue).
For qualitative topics we give 1 point for any indication of improvement from previous reporting periods, and 1 point for
perspective.
The 11 “human rights” topics are scored differently, with 5 “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 2 “performance” points; 1 point
for evidence of actions to reinforce policy and 1 point for a quantitative indication of compliance.
Distribution of Scores by topics
Social,
Qualitative
Data
29%
Social,
Quantitative
Environmental,
Data
Qualitative
8%
Data
24%
Environmental,
Quantitative
Data
24%
Social, Human
Rights Data
15%
www.roberts.cmc.edu
2010 Sustainability Reporting of World's Largest Airline Companies
6
Claremont McKenna College
Roberts Environmental Center
Airline
Environmental Intent Topics
* Accountability
Percent of total possible score for all companies
combined.
4
19
Report contact person
Environmental structure or management
* Management
16
20
21
23
70
Environmental education
Environmental management system
Environmental accounting
Stakeholder consultation
* Policy
60
9
10
11
12
13
50
40
Environmental policy statement
Climate change/global warming
Habitat/ecosystem conservation
Biodiversity
Green Purchasing
* Vision
30
5
6
20
Environmental visionary statement
Environmental impediments and challenges
10
Vision
Policy
Management
Accountability
0
Notes:
* These numbers correspond to the numbers in the PSI questionnaire. Items with numbers higher than 99 are sector
specific questions.
www.roberts.cmc.edu
2010 Sustainability Reporting of World's Largest Airline Companies
7
Claremont McKenna College
Roberts Environmental Center
Airline
Environmental Reporting Topics
* Emissions to air
Percent of total possible score for all companies
combined.
112
117
118
231
232
233
Carbon dioxide (CO2) or equivalents (i.e. GHG)
Nitrous oxide (N2O)
Carbon monoxide (CO)
Air quality on board airplane
Pandemic prevention
Fleet profile
* Energy
30
26
27
Energy used/consumption
Renewable energy consumption
* Management
25
38
39
40
230
20
15
Environmental notices of violation
Environmental expenses and/or investments
Environmental fines
Innovation in air transporation
* Recycling
30
32
10
Waste recycled
Office recycling rate
* Waste
5
Water
Waste
Recycling
Management
Energy
Emissions to air
0
34
35
37
109
228
229
Waste disposed of
Hazardous waste produced
Hazardous waste released
Packaging materials waste
Food Waste
Service Items Waste
* Water
29
Water used
Notes:
* These numbers correspond to the numbers in the PSI questionnaire. Items with numbers higher than 99 are sector
specific questions.
www.roberts.cmc.edu
2010 Sustainability Reporting of World's Largest Airline Companies
8
Claremont McKenna College
Roberts Environmental Center
Airline
Social Intent Topics
*
Percent of total possible score for all companies
combined.
51
Health and Safety, or Social organizational structure
54
Third party validation
*
70
60
Accountability
Management
17
Workforce profile: Ethnicities/Race
18
Workforce profile: Gender
52
Workforce profile: Age
53
Emergency preparedness program
82
Employee training for career development
*
Policy
50
40
45
Social policy statement
47
Code of conduct or business ethics
49
Supplier screening based on social or
environmental performance/ Supplier management.
30
*
20
80
Employment for individuals with disabilities
*
10
Vision
42
Social visionary statement
43
Social impediments and challenges
Vision
Social Demographic
Policy
Management
Accountability
0
Social Demographic
Notes:
* These numbers correspond to the numbers in the PSI questionnaire. Items with numbers higher than 99 are sector
specific questions.
www.roberts.cmc.edu
2010 Sustainability Reporting of World's Largest Airline Companies
9
Claremont McKenna College
Roberts Environmental Center
Airline
Social Reporting Topics
* Human Rights
Percent of total possible score for all companies
combined.
1
7
8
58
59
60
70
61
60
62
63
64
65
50
Sexual harassment
Political Contributions
Bribery
Anti-Corruption practices
Corporal punishment of employees
Equal opportunity, elimination of discrimination,
promotion of diversity, or non-discrimination policy
Free association and collective bargaining of
employees
Fair compensation of employees
Forced labor of employees
Working hours
Use of illegal child labor
40
* Management
2
30
Women in Management
* Qualitative Social
20
10
Quantitative Social
Qualitative Social
Management
Human Rights
0
66
67
68
70
72
226
227
Community Development
Employee Satisfaction Survey
Community Education
Occupational health and safety protection
Employee volunteerism
Noise
Local air quality
* Quantitative Social
3
74
75
76
77
81
Turnover Rate
Recordable incident rate/ Accident indices
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 sector
specific questions.
www.roberts.cmc.edu
2010 Sustainability Reporting of World's Largest Airline Companies
10
Claremont McKenna College
Roberts Environmental Center
Airline
Environmental Intent Element of the PSI Scores
Environmental visionary
statement
Environmental policy
statement
Environmental structure or
management
Environmental education
Environmental impediments
and challenges
Climate change/global
warming
Green Purchasing
Environmental management
system
Stakeholder consultation
Habitat/ecosystem
conservation
Environmental accounting
Report contact person
Biodiversity
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.
www.roberts.cmc.edu
2010 Sustainability Reporting of World's Largest Airline Companies
11
Claremont McKenna College
Roberts Environmental Center
Airline
Environmental Reporting Element of the PSI Scores
Energy used/consumption
Fleet profile
Carbon dioxide (CO2) or equivalents (i.e. GHG)
Waste recycled
Renewable energy consumption
Water used
Waste disposed of
Innovation in air transporation
Nitrous oxide (N2O)
Office recycling rate
Hazardous waste produced
Packaging materials waste
Environmental expenses and/or investments
Service Items Waste
Carbon monoxide (CO)
Hazardous waste released
Food Waste
Pandemic prevention
Air quality on board airplane
Environmental notices of violation
Environmental fines
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.
www.roberts.cmc.edu
2010 Sustainability Reporting of World's Largest Airline Companies
12
Claremont McKenna College
Roberts Environmental Center
Airline
Social Intent Element of the PSI Scores
Code of conduct or business ethics
Social visionary statement
Employee training for career development
Social policy statement
Employment for individuals with disabilities
Health and Safety, or Social organizational structure
Supplier screening based on social or environmental
performance/ Supplier management.
Workforce profile: Ethnicities/Race
Workforce profile: Gender
Emergency preparedness program
Social impediments and challenges
Third party validation
Workforce profile: Age
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
= Percentage of companies addressing the topics
= Percentage of the total possible number of points awarded to all companies combined for each topic,
indicating the depth of reporting coverage measured by PSI criteria for each topic.
www.roberts.cmc.edu
2010 Sustainability Reporting of World's Largest Airline Companies
13
Claremont McKenna College
Roberts Environmental Center
Airline
Social Reporting Element of the PSI Scores
Community Development
Equal opportunity, elimination of discrimination, promotion of
diversity, or non-discrimination policy
Occupational health and safety protection
Community Education
Employee volunteerism
Noise
Sexual harassment
Anti-Corruption practices
Political Contributions
Bribery
Social community investment
Women in Management
Free association and collective bargaining of employees
Fair compensation of employees
Local air quality
Working hours
Recordable incident rate/ Accident indices
Employee Satisfaction Survey
Forced labor of employees
Use of illegal child labor
Corporal punishment of employees
Lost workday case rate
Turnover Rate
Health and safety citations
Health and safety fines
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.
www.roberts.cmc.edu
2010 Sustainability Reporting of World's Largest Airline Companies
14
Claremont McKenna College
Roberts Environmental Center
EI Scores Rankings
Environmental Intent Scores
A+
Lufthansa Group
A
Japan Airlines
B+
UAL
B+
B+
Southwest Airlines
Continental Airlines
Southwest Airlines
B
Air France - KLM
Continental Airlines
B
B-
JetBlue Airways Corporation
Delta Airlines
B-
American Airlines
C+
British Airways
CC-
US Airways Group
Alaska Air Group,Inc.
C-
ExpressJet Holdings
D+
F
AirTran
Skywest Inc
Lufthansa Group
Japan Airlines
UAL
Air France - KLM
JetBlue Airways
Corporation
Delta Airlines
American Airlines
British Airways
US Airways Group
Alaska Air Group,Inc.
ExpressJet Holdings
AirT ran
Skywest Inc
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
2010 Sustainability Reporting of World's Largest Airline Companies
15
Claremont McKenna College
Roberts Environmental Center
ER Scores Rankings
Environmental Reporting Scores
A+
Japan Airlines
B
American Airlines
B
Lufthansa Group
American Airlines
B
C
Southwest Airlines
British Airways
Lufthansa Group
C
Continental Airlines
C
C-
Air France - KLM
UAL
C-
ExpressJet Holdings
C-
AirTran
D+
D
JetBlue Airways Corporation
US Airways Group
D
Delta Airlines
DD-
Alaska Air Group,Inc.
Skywest Inc
Japan Airlines
Southwest Airlines
British Airways
Continental Airlines
Air France - KLM
UAL
ExpressJet Holdings
AirT ran
JetBlue Airways
Corporation
US Airways Group
Delta Airlines
Alaska Air Group,Inc.
Skywest Inc
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
2010 Sustainability Reporting of World's Largest Airline Companies
16
Claremont McKenna College
Roberts Environmental Center
EP Scores Rankings
Environmental Performance Scores
A+
American Airlines
B
Japan Airlines
C
Air France - KLM
Japan Airlines
CD+
Southwest Airlines
Lufthansa Group
Air France - KLM
D+
British Airways
Southwest Airlines
D+
D-
AirTran
JetBlue Airways Corporation
D-
ExpressJet Holdings
D-
Continental Airlines
F
F
US Airways Group
UAL
F
Skywest Inc
F
F
Delta Airlines
Alaska Air Group,Inc.
American Airlines
Lufthansa Group
AirT ran
British Airways
ExpressJet Holdings
JetBlue Airways
Corporation
Continental Airlines
Skywest Inc
Alaska Air Group,Inc.
US Airways Group
Delta Airlines
UAL
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
2010 Sustainability Reporting of World's Largest Airline Companies
17
Claremont McKenna College
Roberts Environmental Center
SI Scores Rankings
Social Intent Scores
A+
Lufthansa Group
B
Southwest Airlines
B+
Continental Airlines
Lufthansa Group
B
B+
Air France - KLM
UAL
Southwest Airlines
C+
JetBlue Airways Corporation
Continental Airlines
C+
B-
British Airways
Alaska Air Group,Inc.
B-
American Airlines
C-
US Airways Group
CC
ExpressJet Holdings
Delta Airlines
C
AirTran
D-
Skywest Inc
Japan Airlines
Air France - KLM
UAL
JetBlue Airways
Corporation
British Airways
Alaska Air Group,Inc.
American Airlines
ExpressJet Holdings
US Airways Group
AirT ran
Delta Airlines
Skywest Inc
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
2010 Sustainability Reporting of World's Largest Airline Companies
18
Claremont McKenna College
Roberts Environmental Center
SR Rankings
Social Reporting Scores
Japan Airlines
Lufthansa Group
Continental Airlines
UAL
Alaska Air Group,Inc.
American Airlines
Southwest Airlines
A+
Japan Airlines
A+
Lufthansa Group
A-
Continental Airlines
B+
B+
UAL
Alaska Air Group,Inc.
B
American Airlines
BB-
Southwest Airlines
British Airways
B-
Air France - KLM
B-
AirTran
C+
C
Delta Airlines
US Airways Group
C
JetBlue Airways Corporation
CD-
ExpressJet Holdings
Skywest Inc
British Airways
Air France - KLM
AirT ran
Delta Airlines
US Airways Group
JetBlue Airways
Corporation
ExpressJet Holdings
Skywest Inc
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
2010 Sustainability Reporting of World's Largest Airline Companies
19
Claremont McKenna College
Roberts Environmental Center
SP Rankings
Social Performance Scores
A+
Japan Airlines
B+
Lufthansa Group
B-
Continental Airlines
Lufthansa Group
BC+
Alaska Air Group,Inc.
UAL
Alaska Air Group,Inc.
C+
American Airlines
C
C
Southwest Airlines
Delta Airlines
C
AirTran
C-
British Airways
CD+
Air France - KLM
ExpressJet Holdings
D
US Airways Group
D
D-
JetBlue Airways Corporation
Skywest Inc
Japan Airlines
Continental Airlines
UAL
American Airlines
Southwest Airlines
AirT ran
Delta Airlines
Air France - KLM
British Airways
ExpressJet Holdings
JetBlue Airways
Corporation
US Airways Group
Skywest Inc
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
2010 Sustainability Reporting of World's Largest Airline Companies
20
Claremont McKenna College
Roberts Environmental Center
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 analysed 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
ER
100
100
100
75
75
75
75
50
EP
EI
50
EP
EI
50
EP
EI
50
EP
EI
50
25
25
25
25
25
0
0
0
0
0
SP
SI
SR
SP
SI
SR
Japan Airlines
SP
SI
SR
Lufthansa Group
ER
SI
SR
Continental Airlines
ER
SP
SR
American Airlines
ER
Southwest Airlines
ER
ER
100
100
100
100
75
75
75
75
75
50
EP
EI
50
EP
EI
50
EP
EI
50
EP
EI
50
25
25
25
25
25
0
0
0
0
0
SP
SI
SR
SP
SI
SR
UAL
SI
SR
Air France - KLM
ER
SP
ER
SP
SI
SR
British Airways
SP
AirTran
ER
ER
100
100
100
100
100
75
75
75
75
75
50
EP
EI
50
EP
EI
50
EP
EI
50
EP
EI
50
25
25
25
25
25
0
0
0
0
0
SI
SP
SR
JetBlue Airways
Corporation
www.roberts.cmc.edu
SI
SP
SR
Delta Airlines
SI
SP
SI
SR
SP
SR
ExpressJet Holdings
EP
SR
Alaska Air
Group,Inc.
ER
EP
SP
100
SI
EI
ER
100
75
SI
EI
ER
100
US Airways Group
SI
EP
SP
SR
Skywest Inc
2010 Sustainability Reporting of World's Largest Airline Companies
21
Claremont McKenna College
Roberts Environmental Center
Number of Explicit numerical goals Reported
Japan Airlines
14
Lufthansa Group
7
British Airways
2
Continental Airlines
2
0
5
10
15
20
25
Explicit Goals Most Frequently Reported
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Carbon dioxide (CO2) or
equivalents (i.e. GHG)
Packaging materials waste
Waste disposed of
Food Waste
Carbon monoxide (CO)
Nitrous oxide (N2O)
Waste recycled
www.roberts.cmc.edu
4
3
3
2
2
2
2
2010 Sustainability Reporting of World's Largest Airline Companies
22
Claremont McKenna College
Roberts Environmental Center
Number of Topics Showing Performance Improvement over Previous Year Data
Japan Airlines
11
AirTran
3
Air France - KLM
2
American Airlines
1
Lufthansa Group
1
0
5
10
15
20
Topics Most Frequently Reported as Having Improvements over previous year data
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Noise
Fleet profile
Innovation in air transporation
Occupational health and safety
protection
Pandemic prevention
Local air quality
Carbon dioxide (CO2) or
equivalents (i.e. GHG)
Recordable incident rate/ Accident
indices
Employee volunteerism
Community Education
Employee Satisfaction Survey
Community Development
Women in Management
www.roberts.cmc.edu
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2010 Sustainability Reporting of World's Largest Airline Companies
23
Claremont McKenna College
B-
Roberts Environmental Center
Air France - KLM
Air France - KLM 2007/2008 Corporate Social Responsibility Report
Air France-KLM’s 2007-2008 Corporate Responsibility Report communicates the company’s awareness of environmental issues, such as global
warming, the preservation of biodiversity, and the conservation of ecosystems. On board its aircraft, it is making small but significant changes
towards becoming more sustainable. It has converted the majority of the paper-based log books and documentation forms used in the cockpit to
electronic log books. It is also using lighter pallets to reduce aircraft weight, and therefore decrease fuel usage. The company is incorporating more
biodegradable packaging materials, and offering fair-trade coffee and chocolate. Including discussion of other environmental and social topics,
explicit numerical goals, and reporting of any improvement between the current and previous year performance would have improved Air FranceKLM’s overall PSI scores.
Olivea Omalara Fayola Callender-Scott
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
40%
ES A
S
65
37
S
60%
SSA
0
25
50
65
EI
75
20
10
ER
EP
20
Air France - KLM
SI
SR
SP
Environmental Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
1
4
25
Needs improvement
Management
6
8
75
Excellent
Policy
7
10
70
Good
Vision
3
4
75
Excellent
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Emissions to air
7
42
17
Needs substantial improvement
Energy
4
14
29
Needs improvement
Management
3
28
11
Needs substantial improvement
Recycling
1
14
7
Needs substantial improvement
Waste
6
42
14
Needs substantial improvement
Water
3
7
43
Needs improvement
Social Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
2
4
50
Good
Management
7
10
70
Good
Policy
3
6
50
Good
Social Demographic
2
2
100
Excellent
Vision
3
4
75
Excellent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
28
77
36
Needs improvement
Needs improvement
Social Reporting
Question Category
Human Rights
Management
2
7
29
Qualitative Social
22
49
45
Needs improvement
Quantitative Social
3
42
7
Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
2010 Sustainability Reporting of World's Largest Airline Companies
24
Claremont McKenna College
C
Roberts Environmental Center
AirTran
AirTran 2007/2008 CSR Report and 2009 Web Pages
AirTran has done an excellent job of providing information on its work with the community through different volunteer organizations such as “Habitat
for Humanity” and the “Make a Wish Foundation.” The report shows exceptional generosity in corporate giving to various community organizations
including the A+ awards program in support of youth education. On the other hand, AirTran does not offer much information on its environmental
commitment. When environmental topics are mentioned, they are vague or brief. It would be beneficial if the company would include discussions of
its environmental actions, policies, and goals. There seems to be no branch or contact person specifically related to environmental wellbeing.
AirTran does provide some information on its airplane emission levels but it is lumped together as one large “emissions” statement, which ought to
be broken down into its various components (CO, CO2, NOX.) AirTran describes its commitment to customers’ health and safety, but it does not go
into much detail about the health and safety of its employees. It would also be helpful if the company discussed some of the facts and figures of its
workforce such as race, gender, and age distributions.
Teija Campbell Mortvedt
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
36
E
30%
ES A
S
19
0
25
50
15
5
S
70%
SSA
22
19
EI
75
ER
EP
AirTran
SI
SR
SP
Environmental Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
0
4
0
Needs substantial improvement
Management
4
8
50
Good
Policy
0
10
0
Needs substantial improvement
Vision
1
4
25
Needs improvement
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Emissions to air
11
42
26
Needs improvement
Energy
2
14
14
Needs substantial improvement
Management
4
28
14
Needs substantial improvement
Recycling
0
14
0
Needs substantial improvement
Waste
0
42
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
4
6
67
Good
Social Demographic
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Vision
1
4
25
Needs improvement
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
28
77
36
Needs improvement
Needs improvement
Social Reporting
Question Category
Human Rights
Management
3
7
43
Qualitative Social
22
49
45
Needs improvement
Quantitative Social
2
42
5
Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
2010 Sustainability Reporting of World's Largest Airline Companies
25
Claremont McKenna College
C
Roberts Environmental Center
Alaska Air Group,Inc.
Alaska Air Group, Inc 2009 Annual Report and 2009 Web Pages
Alaska Air Group has good 2009 social sustainability reporting, demonstrating an awareness of the social impact the company has on the
communities it flies to, and has made a commitment to support these communities by contributing to and investing in programs that promote
education, community development, environmental projects, and employee volunteerism. For instance, Alaska Air Group raised $ 600,000 for the
Make-A-Wish Foundation as well as donating over $100,000 to educational programs recommended by its employees. In addition, Alaska Air Group
has shown dedication to supporting and enhancing the experience of its employees as evidenced in programs such as The Employee Assistant Fund
(EAF). However, its evident commitment to environmental sustainability is very weak. Although the website has a virtual assistance, I found myself
spending several hours searching outside the Alaska Air Group site for any information on the company’s stance on environmental policies. Finally,
after finding a link to the environmental manual, to my dismay it was on a login-in basis. A little more openness is certainly called for, and would
improve the PSI score as well as the company’s image, at least in my eyes.
Aden Eyob F. Weldegiworgis
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
16 %
E
ES A
42
43
32
31
S
S
84%
SSA
0
25
50
75
EI
5
0
ER
EP
Alaska Air
Group,Inc.
SI
SR
SP
Environmental Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
1
4
25
Needs improvement
Management
1
8
13
Needs substantial improvement
Policy
4
10
40
Needs improvement
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Emissions to air
3
42
7
Needs substantial improvement
Energy
2
14
14
Needs substantial improvement
Management
0
28
0
Needs substantial improvement
Recycling
0
14
0
Needs substantial improvement
Waste
0
42
0
Needs substantial improvement
Water
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Social Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
2
4
50
Good
Management
2
10
20
Needs substantial improvement
Policy
4
6
67
Good
Social Demographic
1
2
50
Good
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
56
77
73
Good
Social Reporting
Question Category
Human Rights
Management
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Qualitative Social
12
49
24
Needs substantial improvement
Quantitative Social
1
42
2
Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
2010 Sustainability Reporting of World's Largest Airline Companies
26
Claremont McKenna College
B
Roberts Environmental Center
American Airlines
American Airlines 2009 Web Pages
American Airlines’ has some sustainability reporting on its web site, but no formal sustainability report. Reporting on energy, water, recycling, and
overall waste includes numerical data and is well documented but should include details of hazardous waste releases and should report on
environmental management activities such as fines and investments, food sources and recycling, service items, packaging, and materials waste.
The company has implemented programs to track hazardous waste resulting in a significant reduction in water use and hazardous waste produced
within the past six years. Surprisingly, there is no discussion of climate change, nor any mention of conservation, biodiversity, or environmental
accounting. The qualitative social reporting is detailed in some areas, but needs more reporting on specific activities and initiatives. No quantitative
data about social activities are reported, nor is there any discussion about the various aspects of human rights most good reporters include.
Carolyn Hendricks Collins
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
58
ES A
E
46%
S
SSA
0
25
50
38
31
41
30
21
S
54%
American Airlines
EI
75
ER
EP
SI
SR
SP
Environmental Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
2
4
50
Good
Management
5
8
63
Good
Policy
4
10
40
Needs improvement
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Emissions to air
17
42
40
Needs improvement
Energy
4
14
29
Needs improvement
Management
3
28
11
Needs substantial improvement
Recycling
6
14
43
Needs improvement
Waste
7
42
17
Needs substantial improvement
Water
4
7
57
Good
Social Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
0
4
0
Needs substantial improvement
Management
5
10
50
Good
Policy
4
6
67
Good
Social Demographic
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Vision
1
4
25
Needs improvement
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
35
77
45
Needs improvement
Social Reporting
Question Category
Human Rights
Management
2
7
29
Needs improvement
Qualitative Social
25
49
51
Good
Quantitative Social
4
42
10
Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
2010 Sustainability Reporting of World's Largest Airline Companies
27
Claremont McKenna College
C+
Roberts Environmental Center
British Airways
British Airways 2007/2008 CSR Report and 2009 Web Pages
British Airways’ 2007-2008 Sustainability Report needs more breadth and depth. It demonstrates awareness of the company’s environmental
impacts and documents practices to minimize the contributions to climate change, air quality, noise, waste, and renewable resources, and promises
to protect ecosystems and biodiversity as indicated by its compliance with the Wildlife Trust’s New Biodiversity Benchmark for Land Management,
and Global Canopy Program. But the report lacks quantitative information on environmental expenditures, hazardous waste releases, disposal of
packing materials, food, and service items, and any substantial information on human rights, management, health and safety programs.
Aden Eyob F. Weldegiworgis
E=Total Environmental Score, ESA=Environmental Sector Average Score, EI=Environmental Intent, ER=Environmental Reporting, EP=Environmental Performance, S=Total
Social Score, SSA=Social Sector Average Score, SI=Social Intent, SR=Social Reporting, SP=Social Performance
Comparison with sector averages
Distribution of points
Source of points
E
50
E
38%
ES A
S
S
62%
SSA
0
25
50
46
37
21
20
5
EI
75
ER
EP
British Airways
SI
SR
SP
Environmental Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
2
4
50
Good
Management
2
8
25
Needs improvement
Policy
6
10
60
Good
Vision
3
4
75
Excellent
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Emissions to air
10
42
24
Needs substantial improvement
Energy
2
14
14
Needs substantial improvement
Management
4
28
14
Needs substantial improvement
Recycling
2
14
14
Needs substantial improvement
Waste
4
42
10
Needs substantial improvement
Water
1
7
14
Needs substantial improvement
Social Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
0
4
0
Needs substantial improvement
Management
3
10
30
Needs improvement
Policy
4
6
67
Good
Social Demographic
2
2
100
Excellent
Vision
3
4
75
Excellent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
35
77
45
Needs improvement
Needs substantial improvement
Social Reporting
Question Category
Human Rights
Management
0
7
0
Qualitative Social
18
49
37
Needs improvement
Quantitative Social
3
42
7
Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
2010 Sustainability Reporting of World's Largest Airline Companies
28
Claremont McKenna College
B
Roberts Environmental Center
Continental Airlines
Continental Airlines 2009 Environmental Report, Global Citizenship Report and Web
Pages
Continental Airlines demonstrates its commitment to protecting and preserving the environment through its initiatives to reduce emissions and fuel
consumption using innovative technology and equipment. In 2009, Continental released a publication, "Commitment to Environmental and Social
Responsibility", which details the steps that it has already taken, as well as those that it will take in the near future. Continental outlines its corporate
initiative, Eco-Skies, intended to reduce the company’s own carbon footprint, while encouraging its customers and suppliers to do the same. The
airline’s statements on reducing its carbon footprint lack quantitative data regarding its actual emissions, the company’s improvements, and the
results of certain programs, such as its water conservation and waste recycling programs. Continental engages in efforts of social sustainability as
well. Within the community, Continental invests in local projects as well as sponsorships of organizations that promote and foster health and
medicine, culture, education, and sports. The airline’s cargo division has contributed to humanitarian efforts by transporting provisions, volunteers,
and relief assistance to disaster-torn areas, including communities that have endured hurricanes, wildfires, and earthquakes. Internally, Continental
promotes effective communication and cooperation among its employees. The Commitment to Social Responsibility does not provide any
quantitative data on recordable incident rate, lost workday case rate, health and safety citations, or turnover rate, however.
Emma Ryland Reese
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
32%
ES A
S
69
51
S
68%
SSA
0
25
50
69
32
20
Continental Airlines
2
EI
ER
EP
SI
SR
SP
75
Environmental Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
2
4
50
Good
Management
4
8
50
Good
Policy
8
10
80
Excellent
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Emissions to air
9
42
21
Needs substantial improvement
Energy
2
14
14
Needs substantial improvement
Management
1
28
4
Needs substantial improvement
Recycling
1
14
7
Needs substantial improvement
Waste
8
42
19
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
8
10
80
Excellent
Policy
4
6
67
Good
Social Demographic
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
56
77
73
Good
Needs improvement
Social Reporting
Question Category
Human Rights
Management
2
7
29
Qualitative Social
18
49
37
Needs improvement
Quantitative Social
2
42
5
Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
2010 Sustainability Reporting of World's Largest Airline Companies
29
Claremont McKenna College
C-
Roberts Environmental Center
Delta Airlines
Delta Air Lines 2007 Corporte Responsibility Report and 2009 Web Pages
Delta Airline's provides almost no sustainability reporting this year, despite performing adequately in previous years. The company should expand
on the little information they currently have available.
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
58
E
3 1%
ES A
S
32
SSA
0
25
50
22
19
S
69%
EI
75
7
0
ER
EP
Delta Airlines
SI
SR
SP
Environmental Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
2
4
50
Good
Management
2
8
25
Needs improvement
Policy
7
10
70
Good
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Emissions to air
0
42
0
Needs substantial improvement
Energy
2
14
14
Needs substantial improvement
Management
0
28
0
Needs substantial improvement
Recycling
3
14
21
Needs substantial improvement
Waste
0
42
0
Needs substantial improvement
Water
2
7
29
Needs 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
3
6
50
Good
Social Demographic
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
35
77
45
Needs improvement
Social Reporting
Question Category
Human Rights
Management
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Qualitative Social
12
49
24
Needs substantial improvement
Quantitative Social
3
42
7
Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
2010 Sustainability Reporting of World's Largest Airline Companies
30
Claremont McKenna College
C-
Roberts Environmental Center
ExpressJet Holdings
Express Jet 2009 Web Pages, Principles of Conduct, and Environmental Policy Statement
ExpressJet Holdings shows a marked concern for the environment in its Environmental Policy Statement and on its website. Its use of a newer,
more fuel-efficient fleet of planes and its onboard recycling program are commendable. Unfortunately, only a few other initiatives are documented.
ExpressJet could greatly improve its score by providing quantitative information about its recycling program, CO2 emissions, energy used, fuel
consumption, and water use, and efforts to limit emissions. ExpressJet should also clearly state its stance on global warming. Furthermore, the
report needs to include more information on fair employment practices, and efforts to provide for the upward mobility of its employees and a point of
contact information specifically for sustainability matters.
Noah Monte Proser
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
27
E
43%
ES A
S
S
57%
SSA
0
25
50
23
17
20
16
2
EI
ER
EP
ExpressJet Holdings
SI
SR
SP
75
Environmental Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
2
4
50
Good
Management
0
8
0
Needs substantial improvement
Policy
2
10
20
Needs substantial improvement
Vision
3
4
75
Excellent
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Emissions to air
4
42
10
Needs substantial improvement
Energy
1
14
7
Needs substantial improvement
Management
9
28
32
Needs improvement
Recycling
1
14
7
Needs substantial improvement
Waste
3
42
7
Needs substantial improvement
Water
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Social Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
1
4
25
Needs improvement
Management
1
10
10
Needs substantial improvement
Policy
4
6
67
Good
Social Demographic
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Vision
0
4
0
Needs substantial improvement
Social Reporting
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Human Rights
28
77
36
Needs improvement
Management
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Qualitative Social
5
49
10
Needs substantial improvement
Quantitative Social
0
42
0
Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
2010 Sustainability Reporting of World's Largest Airline Companies
31
Claremont McKenna College
A+
Roberts Environmental Center
Japan Airlines
Japan Airlines 2007 CSR and 2009 Web Pages
Japan Airlines Corporation does a great job outlining its plans and goals to reduce its carbon footprint and impact on the environment. In a
statement to the public, its CEO stated that with the news that the airline industry is responsible for 2% of the world's CO2 emissions, Japan Airlines
would put forth its best possible effort to reduce its own emissions. With a goal of 20% emission reduction by 2010, Japan Airlines has decreased by
17% by the fiscal year 2007. It has also made a significant effort to reduce the amount of packaging and food waste as well as the noise generated in
surrounding areas. The environmental report is thorough and stresses key topics of environmental sustainability. It is also clear that it has produced
a solid effort to benefit neighboring communities.
Jeffrey Alan Astor
E=Total Environmental Score, ESA=Environmental Sector Average Score, EI=Environmental Intent, ER=Environmental Reporting, EP=Environmental Performance, S=Total
Social Score, SSA=Social Sector Average Score, SI=Social Intent, SR=Social Reporting, SP=Social Performance
Comparison with sector averages
Source of points
Distribution of points
E
100
85
E
4 1%
ES A
S
S
59%
SSA
0
25
50
60
48
58
14
EI
75
ER
EP
Japan Airlines
SI
SR
SP
Environmental Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
2
4
50
Good
Management
8
8
100
Excellent
Policy
8
10
80
Excellent
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Emissions to air
23
42
55
Good
Energy
6
14
43
Needs improvement
Management
9
28
32
Needs improvement
Recycling
5
14
36
Needs improvement
Waste
10
42
24
Needs substantial improvement
Water
3
7
43
Needs improvement
Social Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
4
4
100
Excellent
Management
10
10
100
Excellent
Policy
6
6
100
Excellent
Social Demographic
2
2
100
Excellent
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
49
77
64
Good
Social Reporting
Question Category
Human Rights
Management
7
7
100
Excellent
Qualitative Social
42
49
86
Excellent
Quantitative Social
6
42
14
Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
2010 Sustainability Reporting of World's Largest Airline Companies
32
Claremont McKenna College
C
Roberts Environmental Center
JetBlue Airways Corporation
JetBlue 2006 Environmental and Social Report and 2009 Web Pages
JetBlue Airways may be new to the world of sustainability reporting, but since its first flight in 2000, the company has been well aware of what it
means to be an environmentally and socially responsible company. The US Department of Transportation has reported that JetBlue is the most fuelefficient airline in America. As a younger and smaller company, JetBlue was able to start with more current values, ethics and better processes
than most airlines. It makes a strong and apparent effort to interact well with its employees and it customers as it focuses on being transparent, and
it is very willing to engage in dialogue with its customers. In 2006, JetBlue began gathering data to create its first Environmental and Social
Performance Report. Although the report lacks much quantitative data, the efficiency of JetBlue's new fleet and its partnerships with other
responsible companies, show it is on the right path. In the future we should be seeing much more detailed CSR reports from JetBlue, as well as
follow ups on some of its current innovative research to incorporate things such as a nontoxic de-icing system, more efficient engines, and its new
terminal at JFK, which focuses on recycling spilled jet fuel, using paperless tickets, re-using cooking oils, and more.
Brittany Nunnink
E=Total Environmental Score, ESA=Environmental Sector Average Score, EI=Environmental Intent, ER=Environmental Reporting, EP=Environmental Performance, S=Total
Social Score, SSA=Social Sector Average Score, SI=Social Intent, SR=Social Reporting, SP=Social Performance
Comparison with sector averages
Distribution of points
Source of points
E
E
40%
ES A
S
62
S
60%
SSA
0
25
50
EI
75
54
24
11
2
ER
EP
SI
SR
12
JetBlue Airways
Corporation
SP
Environmental Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
2
4
50
Good
Management
6
8
75
Excellent
Policy
6
10
60
Good
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Emissions to air
6
42
14
Needs substantial improvement
Energy
2
14
14
Needs substantial improvement
Management
0
28
0
Needs substantial improvement
Recycling
1
14
7
Needs substantial improvement
Waste
2
42
5
Needs substantial improvement
Water
1
7
14
Needs substantial improvement
Social Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
3
4
75
Excellent
Management
1
10
10
Needs substantial improvement
Policy
4
6
67
Good
Social Demographic
2
2
100
Excellent
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
21
77
27
Needs improvement
Needs substantial improvement
Social Reporting
Question Category
Human Rights
Management
0
7
0
Qualitative Social
14
49
29
Needs improvement
Quantitative Social
0
42
0
Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
2010 Sustainability Reporting of World's Largest Airline Companies
33
Claremont McKenna College
A-
Roberts Environmental Center
Lufthansa Group
Lufthansa Sustainability Report 2008
Lufthansa's 115-page corporate social responsibility report is well-crafted and detailed. The company's dedication to the environment is evident
through its complete reporting of almost all environmental data, and through clear initiatives and programs. The majority of the information about the
company’s social and corporate governance policies is found in the United Nations Global Compact, of which Lufthansa is a signatory. The only
information noticeably missing from Lufthansa’s report are data regarding reported incidents, environmental health and safety violations/fines, and
lost workday case rates. Lufthansa’s report does not follow GRI guidelines and has not been validated by a third party, but it is still very complete
and contains the vast majority of the information included in the PSI.
Caitrin Elise O'Brien
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
85
E
36%
ES A
59
S
S
64%
SSA
0
25
50
44
31
5
EI
75
ER
EP
Lufthansa Group
SI
SR
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
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Emissions to air
15
42
36
Needs improvement
Energy
3
14
21
Needs substantial improvement
Management
6
28
21
Needs substantial improvement
Recycling
2
14
14
Needs substantial improvement
Waste
7
42
17
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
10
10
100
Excellent
Policy
4
6
67
Good
Social Demographic
2
2
100
Excellent
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
63
77
82
Excellent
Social Reporting
Question Category
Human Rights
Management
3
7
43
Needs improvement
Qualitative Social
28
49
57
Good
Quantitative Social
1
42
2
Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
2010 Sustainability Reporting of World's Largest Airline Companies
34
Claremont McKenna College
D-
Roberts Environmental Center
Skywest Inc
SkyWest Inc. 2009 Web Pages
SkyWest Airlines expresses no commitment to bettering its environment or community. It briefly describes its safety policies and employee
diversity, but the information is cursory and shows no initiative. The company seems to be uninterested in community development and its web
pages have no information on sustainability, climate change, or any other environmental issues. SkyWest Inc. should start developing programs that
promote corporate responsibility and sustainable growth if it hopes to score better in the future.
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
5
E
29%
ES A
S
S
71%
SSA
0
25
50
0
EI
75
4
4
3
Skywest Inc
0
ER
EP
SI
SR
SP
Environmental Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
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
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Emissions to air
3
42
7
Needs substantial improvement
Energy
0
14
0
Needs substantial improvement
Management
0
28
0
Needs substantial improvement
Recycling
0
14
0
Needs substantial improvement
Waste
0
42
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
1
6
17
Needs substantial improvement
Social Demographic
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Vision
0
4
0
Needs substantial improvement
Social Reporting
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Human Rights
7
77
9
Needs substantial improvement
Management
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Qualitative Social
2
49
4
Needs substantial improvement
Quantitative Social
0
42
0
Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
2010 Sustainability Reporting of World's Largest Airline Companies
35
Claremont McKenna College
B
Roberts Environmental Center
Southwest Airlines
Southwest Airlines: 2008 Cares Report and 2010 Web Pages
Southwest Airlines states that it is committed to delivering the best for its employees, customers, and the environment, and does discuss a few
important environmental issues such as energy, but provides almost nothing on the company’s own environmental performance. It does, however,
have many commendable social activities that benefit its communities and employees. There seems to be a determination to pursue more
aggressive sustainability initiatives, but there is not much reporting yet.
Jacyln T. D'Arcy
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
69
E
44%
ES A
S
SSA
0
25
50
69
37
30
S
56%
26
7
EI
75
ER
EP
Southwest Airlines
SI
SR
SP
Environmental Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
1
4
25
Needs improvement
Management
7
8
88
Excellent
Policy
8
10
80
Excellent
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Emissions to air
12
42
29
Needs improvement
Energy
4
14
29
Needs improvement
Management
4
28
14
Needs substantial improvement
Recycling
5
14
36
Needs improvement
Waste
8
42
19
Needs substantial improvement
Water
1
7
14
Needs substantial improvement
Social Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
1
4
25
Needs improvement
Management
7
10
70
Good
Policy
5
6
83
Excellent
Social Demographic
1
2
50
Good
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
42
77
55
Good
Social Reporting
Question Category
Human Rights
Management
3
7
43
Needs improvement
Qualitative Social
10
49
20
Needs substantial improvement
Quantitative Social
4
42
10
Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
2010 Sustainability Reporting of World's Largest Airline Companies
36
Claremont McKenna College
B-
Roberts Environmental Center
UAL
UAL 2008-2009 Corporate Responsibility Report and 2010 Web Pages
UAL summarizes its sustainability activities in its 2008-2009 Corporate Responsibility Report. Quantitative social and environmental data are
condensed in one page, making it very easy to analyze. There are, however, no historical data, quantitative numerical goals, or reporting of
performance improvement, likely due to the first attempt to gather all data into one report. The narration provided in the report is comprehensive,
touching the bases of many fundamental sustainability aspects in airline industry. But most of the reporting is positive, leaving out much discussion
about the clear challenges faced by the industry and options of new innovation to overcome them. However, this report is still quite a good start.
Owen Black Brewer
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
32%
ES A
S
69
S
68%
SSA
0
25
50
62
47
30
17
UAL
0
EI
75
ER
EP
SI
SR
SP
Environmental Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
3
4
75
Excellent
Management
5
8
63
Good
Policy
7
10
70
Good
Vision
3
4
75
Excellent
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Emissions to air
6
42
14
Needs substantial improvement
Energy
2
14
14
Needs substantial improvement
Management
4
28
14
Needs substantial improvement
Recycling
2
14
14
Needs substantial improvement
Waste
3
42
7
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
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
42
77
55
Good
Excellent
Excellent
Social Reporting
Question Category
Human Rights
Management
6
7
86
Qualitative Social
23
49
47
Needs improvement
Quantitative Social
2
42
5
Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
2010 Sustainability Reporting of World's Largest Airline Companies
37
Claremont McKenna College
C-
Roberts Environmental Center
US Airways Group
US Airways 2008 Environmental Report
The US Airways 2008 Environmental Report takes a very superficial and basic approach to environmental reporting. Almost no data are provided and
the report is mostly composed of vague statements about the company's environmental initiatives and goals. The company provides the most
substantial information for its LEED-certified buildings, the benefits of which are outlined in detail, and compose the bulk of the sustainability report.
There is no mention of climate change or global warming, which should be a matter of great importance, particularly for a company in an industry
that relies heavily on fossil fuel. It is clear that this environmental report is a hastily thrown-together compilation designed to appease stakeholders
and that US Airway's environmental initiatives are not fully developed, or at least not in a form the company wishes to make public.
Caitrin Elise O'Brien
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
35
E
33%
ES A
23
S
S
67%
SSA
0
25
50
25
12
9
US Airways Group
0
EI
75
ER
EP
SI
SR
SP
Environmental Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
3
4
75
Excellent
Management
0
8
0
Needs substantial improvement
Policy
4
10
40
Needs improvement
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Emissions to air
4
42
10
Needs substantial improvement
Energy
1
14
7
Needs substantial improvement
Management
0
28
0
Needs substantial improvement
Recycling
2
14
14
Needs substantial improvement
Waste
2
42
5
Needs substantial improvement
Water
1
7
14
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
2
6
33
Needs improvement
Social Demographic
2
2
100
Excellent
Vision
0
4
0
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
21
77
27
Needs improvement
Needs substantial improvement
Social Reporting
Question Category
Human Rights
Management
3
7
43
Needs improvement
Qualitative Social
12
49
24
Needs substantial improvement
Quantitative Social
0
42
0
Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
2010 Sustainability Reporting of World's Largest Airline Companies
38
39
Air France - KLM,
AirTran, Alaska Air
Group,Inc., American
Airlines, British Airways,
Continental Airlines,
ExpressJet Holdings, Japan
Airlines, JetBlue Airways
Corporation, Lufthansa
Group, Northwest
Airlines, Skywest Inc,
Southwest Airlines, UAL,
US Airways Group
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.