Dept. of Agriculture, Dept. of Defense - Roberts Environmental Center

roberts.cmc.edu

Dept. of Agriculture, Dept. of Defense - Roberts Environmental Center

Dept. of Agriculture, Dept.

of Defense--Air Force, Dept.

2010 Sustainability Reporting of

of Defense--Army, Dept. of

Largest U.S. Federal Agencies

Defense--Navy, Dept. of

Pacific Sustainability Index Scores: A benchmarking tool for online sustainability reporting

Energy, Dept. of Homeland

S e c u r i t y , D e p t . o f t h e

I n t e r i o r , D e p t . o f

T r a n s p o r t a t i o n ,

Dept.Housing and Urban

D e v . , G e n e r a l S e r v i c e s

Administration, NASA,

U S E P A

J. Emil Morhardt, Elgeritte Adidjaja, Ryan Anderson, Virginia Anton, Juliet Marie Archer, Dante Lamarr Benson, Sara

Morgan Caldwell, Emily Aiko Coleman, Francisco Covarrubias, Jr., Blake Crawford, Kristin Almaz Dessie, Salif Doubare,

Asha Nicole Gipson, Alexander Glassmann, Starrisha Marche Godfrey-Canada, Karina Gomez, Pooja Reddy Kanipakam,

Rebecca Enid Lofchie, Jesse Maximilliano Madrigal, Natalya Ratan, Ravindra Wayne Reddy, Andre Garland Shepley,

Timothy Kareem Smedley, and Alyson Noelle Stark, and Sabrina Nicole Williams


Contents

Topics

Page

Company Rankings 3

Lead Analyst’s Commentary 4

PSI Overview 5

PSI Scoring in a Nutshell 6

Environmental Intent Topics 7

Environmental Reporting Topics 8

Social Intent Topics 9

Social Reporting Topics 10

Environmental Intent Element of the PSI Scores 11

Environmental Reporting Element of the PSI 12

Scores

Social Intent Element of the PSI Scores 13

Social Reporting Element of the PSI Scores 14

Environmental Intent Scores Ranking 15

Environmental Reporting Scores Ranking 16

Environmental Performance Scores Ranking 17

Social Intent Scores Ranking 18

Social Reporting Scores Ranking 19

Social Performance Scores Ranking 20

Human Rights Reporting Element 21

Visual Cluster Analysis 22

Company Rankings Based on the Number of 23

Goals Reported

Analyst’s Comments, alphabetically listed by 24

company name

Appendix: PSI Questionnaire 36

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

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

2

0

0

6

2

0

0

7

2

0

0

8

2

0

0

9

2

0

1

0

Aerospace and defense X X

Airlines X X

Banks, Insurance

X

Chemicals X X X

Largest Companies in China

X

Colleges/Universities X 1 X

Computer, Office Equipment,

X

and Services

Consumer Food, Food

X X

Production, & Beverages

Electronics and

X X X

Semiconductors

Energy X * X * X

Entertainment

X

Federal Agencies

Food Services

X

Forest and Paper Products X X X

General Merchandiser

X

Homebuilders

X

X

Industrial and Farm

X

X

Equipment

Mail, Freight, & Shipping

X

Medical Products &

X

Equipment

Metals X * X X

Mining, Crude Oil X * X X

Motor Vehicle and Parts X X X

Municipalities

X

Oil and Gas Equipment

X

Petroleum and Refining X X X

Pharmaceuticals X X X X

Scientific, Photo, & Control

X

Equipment

Telecommunications,

X

Network, & Peripherals

Utilities, Gas, and Electric X * X * X

* Multiple-sector category was separated in later years.

**As of January 2011.

1

Top 50 Liberal Art Colleges.

2

0

1

1

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 2 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal Agencies


US Government Agencies

U.S. Largest Government Agencies Sustainability Reporting

Agency Rankings

Overall Grade

Dept. of Energy

Dept. of Homeland

Security

Dept. of Defense--Navy

Dept. of Transportation

General Services

Administration

41.30

39.61

39.43

32.07

30.80

A+

A+

A

B+

B+

B+

B

B

B-

B-

B-

C+

Dept. of Energy (USA)

Dept. of Homeland Security (USA)

Dept. of Defense--Navy (USA)

Dept. of Transportation (USA)

General Services Administration

(USA)

NASA (USA)

Dept. of Agriculture (USA)

Dept. of Defense--Army (USA)

USEPA (USA)

Dept. of the Interior (USA)

Dept. of Defense--Air Force (USA)

Dept.Housing and Urban Dev. (USA)

NASA

30.31

Dept. of Agriculture

28.99

Dept. of Defense--Army

28.68

USEPA

25.66

Dept. of the Interior

24.09

Dept. of Defense--Air

Force

23.73

Dept.Housing and Urban

Dev.

21.14

0 25 50 75 100

This report is an analysis of the voluntary environmental and social reporting of U.S.

largest goverment agencies. Data were collected from the agencies' websites

during the Spring of 2010.

www.roberts.cmc.edu 3 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal Agencies


Lead Analyst’s Commentary

By Karina Gomez, CMC ‘12

The sector was led by the Department

of Energy with a stronger focus in social

reporting and social performance scores,

which are mostly ethical and human rights

topics.

topics. Environmental reporting, however,

was particularly low with over half of the

agencies receiving a C or lower. Only a

fourth of the agencies addressed any

amount of quantitative data on emissions,

waste, water usage, energy usage, and

environmental incidents and violations.

The Department of Homeland Security

comes second with its intentions of

conducting operations in an

environmentally sound manner and

dedication to social accountability.

Particularly notable were efforts to reduce

environmental impact at operation sites

using the most efficient means possible.

DHS led the group in environmental intent.

The department also tied with Department

of Defense—Navy with most number of

explicit numerical goals reported.

Department of Defense – Navy ranked

third in the sector, but ranked first for

environmental reporting, presenting much

information on environmental initiatives

throughout its website.

The Department of Transportation,

ranking first in social intent, and the Navy,

following second in environmental intent,

complete the four top performing agencies.

Social intent and reporting scores

were relatively high for the federal

agencies sector with only a third of the

agencies receiving lower than a B. The

social categories with the lowest reporting

were human rights and health and safety

www.roberts.cmc.edu 4 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal Agencies


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 government agencies.

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 government agencies’ website for analysis. Our scoring

excludes data independently stored outside the main city website or

available only in hard copy. 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 website. This sector report provides an indepth

analysis on sustainability reporting of the largest government agencies of the United States.

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 agency analyzed in the report. Government agencies 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 underrepresented

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 5 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal Agencies


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 a 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 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 that 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 6 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal Agencies


U.S. Government Agencies

Environmental Intent Topics

Average percent of maximum possible points.

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

79.17 83.33

77.08

77.08

65.63

33.33

Accountability

GRI 2005 Social Indicator for Public Agencies

Management

Policy

Urban Environmental Accords

Vision

Two possible points for each topic:

Accountability

4 * Report contact person

19 * Environmental management structure

GRI 2005 Social Indicator for Public Agencies

323 * Administrative Efficiency

Management

16 * Environmental education

20 * Environmental management system

21 * Environmental accounting

23 * Stakeholder consultation

Policy

9 * Environmental policy statement

10 * Climate change/global warming

11 * Habitat/ecosystem conservation

12 * Biodiversity

13 * Green purchasing

1E+ Participation in External Sustainability-Related

04 Programs

Urban Environmental Accords

306 * Green Building

Vision

5 * Environmental visionary statement

6 * Environmental impediments and challenges

Notes:

* These numbers correspond to the numbers in the PSI questionnaire. Items with numbers higher than 99 are sector

specific questions. Appendix 1 has the complete questionnaire.

www.roberts.cmc.edu 7 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal Agencies


U.S. Government Agencies

Environmental Reporting Topics

Seven possible points for each topic:

Percent of total possible score for all companies

combined.

25

25.00

Energy

26 * Energy used (total)

27 * Energy used (renewable)

Management

38 * Notices of violation (environmental)

39 * Environmental expenses and investments

40 * Fines (environmental)

20

16.67

Recycling

30 * Waste recycled: Solid waste

32 * Waste (office) recycled

Waste

15

12.50

13.33

34 * Waste (solid) disposed of

35 * Waste (hazardous) produced

37 * Waste (hazardous) released to the environment

Water

10

29 * Water used

7.22

5

0

Energy

Management

Recycling

Waste

Water

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 8 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal Agencies


U.S. Government Agencies

Social Intent Topics

Average percent of maximum possible points.

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

87.50

72.50

58.33

56.25

54.17

37.50

Accountability

Management

Policy

Public Sector

Social Demographic

Vision

Two possible points for each topic:

Accountability

51 * Health and Safety, or Social organizational

structure

54 * Third-party validation

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

45 * Social policy statement

47 * Code of conduct or business ethics

49 * Supplier screening based on social or

environmental performance/ Supplier

management

321 * Disclosure Policy

322 * Grievance Mechanism

Social Demographic

80 * Employment for individuals with disabilities

Vision

42 * Social visionary statement

43 * Social impediments and challenges

Notes:

* These numbers correspond to the numbers in the PSI questionnaire. Items with numbers higher than 99 are sector

specific questions. Appendix 1 has the complete questionnaire.

www.roberts.cmc.edu 9 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal Agencies


U.S. Government Agencies

Social Reporting Topics

Average percent of maximum possible points.

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

43.00

35.00

31.52

7.22

Human Rights

Management

Qualitative Social

Quantitative Social

Seven possible points for each topic:

Human Rights

1 * Sexual harassment

7 * Political contributions

8 * Bribery

58 * Anti-corruption practices

59 * Degrading treatment or punishment of employees

60 * Elimination of discrimination in respect to

employment and occupation

61 * Free association and collective bargaining of

employees

62 * Fair compensation of employees

63 * Elimination of all forms of forced and compulsory

labor

64 * Reasonable working hours

65 * Effective abolition of child labor

Management

2 * Women in Management

Qualitative Social

66 * Community development

67 * Employee satisfaction surveys

68 * Community education

70 * Occupational health and safety protection

72 * Employee volunteerism

Quantitative Social

3 * Employee turnover rate

74 * Recordable incident/accident rate

75 * Lost workday case rate

76 * Health and safety citations

77 * Health and safety fines

81 * Social community investment

Notes:

* These numbers correspond to the numbers in the PSI questionnaire. Items with numbers higher than 99 are sector

specific questions. Appendix 1 has the complete questionnaire.

www.roberts.cmc.edu 10 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal Agencies


U.S. Government Agencies

Environmental Intent Elements of the PSI Scores

Environmental policy statement

Report contact person

Green purchasing

Environmental visionary statement

Habitat/ecosystem conservation

Green Building

Environmental management structure

Environmental education

Climate change/global warming

Environmental management system

Stakeholder consultation

Environmental impediments and challenges

Biodiversity

Participation in External Sustainability-Related Programs

Environmental accounting

Administrative Efficiency

100.0%

91.7%

100.0%

83.3%

100.0%

91.7%

100.0%

91.7%

91.7%

91.7%

91.7%

83.3%

91.7%

70.8%

83.3%

79.2%

83.3%

70.8%

83.3%

79.2%

75.0%

70.8%

75.0%

62.5%

75.0%

66.7%

66.7%

62.5%

50.0%

33.3%

33.3%

33.3%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

= Percentage of institutions addressing the topics

= Percentage of the total possible number of points awarded to all institutions 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 institutions reporting on a topic got all the possible points.

www.roberts.cmc.edu 11 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal Agencies


U.S. Government Agencies

Environmental Reporting Elements of the PSI Scores

Energy used (total)

20.2%

100.0%

Energy used (renewable)

15 . 5 %

83.3%

Waste (solid) disposed of

11. 9 %

66.7%

Waste recycled: Solid waste

13 . 1%

66.7%

Environmental expenses and

investments

8.3%

58.3%

Water used

11. 9 %

58.3%

Waste (hazardous) produced

9.5%

50.0%

Waste (hazardous) released to

the environment

7.1%

33.3%

Waste (office) recycled

4.8%

33.3%

Notices of violation

(environmental)

4.8%

25.0%

Fines (environmental)

2.4%

16 . 7 %

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

= Percentage of institutions addressing the topics

= Percentage of the total possible number of points awarded to all institutions 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 institutions reporting on a topic got all the possible points.

www.roberts.cmc.edu 12 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal Agencies


U.S. Government Agencies

Social Intent Elements of the PSI Scores

Employment for individuals with disabilities

100.0%

87.5%

Emergency preparedness program

91.7%

87.5%

Employee training for career development

91.7%

79.2%

Social visionary statement

83.3%

79.2%

Workforce profile: Ethnicities/Race

83.3%

66.7%

Workforce profile: Gender

83.3%

66.7%

Social policy statement

75.0%

70.8%

Workforce profile: Age

75.0%

62.5%

Health and Safety, or Social organizational structure

66.7%

58.3%

Third-party validation

66.7%

50.0%

Code of conduct or business ethics

58.3%

58.3%

Grievance Mechanism

50.0%

41.7%

Supplier screening based on social or environmental

performance/ Supplier management

50.0%

45.8%

Disclosure Policy

41.7%

33.3%

Social impediments and challenges

41.7%

33.3%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

= Percentage of institutions addressing the topics

= Percentage of the total possible number of points awarded to all institutions 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 institutions reporting on a topic got all the possible points.

www.roberts.cmc.edu 13 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal Agencies


U.S. Government Agencies

Social Reporting Elements of the PSI Scores

Sexual harassment

Elimination of discrimination in respect to employment and

occupation

Community development

Community education

Employee volunteerism

Occupational health and safety protection

52.4%

52.4%

33.3%

35.7%

31.0%

29.8%

100.0%

100.0%

83.3%

83.3%

75.0%

75.0%

Bribery

Women in Management

Social community investment

Employee satisfaction surveys

Anti-corruption practices

Political contributions

Free association and collective bargaining of employees

28.6%

25.0%

10 . 7 %

23.8%

21.4%

19 . 0 %

19 . 0 %

66.7%

66.7%

58.3%

58.3%

58.3%

50.0%

50.0%

Employee turnover rate

7.1%

33.3%

Reasonable working hours

Degrading treatment or punishment of employees

Fair compensation of employees

Lost workday case rate

Recordable incident/accident rate

Health and safety citations

Health and safety fines

Elimination of all forms of forced and compulsory labor

Effective abolition of child labor

33.3%

19 . 0 %

33.3%

14 . 3 %

33.3%

14 . 3 %

25.0%

6.0%

25.0%

4.8%

8.3%

1. 2 %

8.3%

1. 2 %

8.3%

7.1%

0.0%

0.0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

= Percentage of institutions addressing the topics

= Percentage of the total possible number of points awarded to all institutions 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 institutions reporting on a topic got all the possible points.

www.roberts.cmc.edu 14 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal Agencies


Environmental Intent Scores

Dept. of Homeland

Security

General Services

Administration

Dept. of Energy

USEPA

Dept. of Transportation

81.3

81.3

78.1

90.6

84.4

A+

A

A

A

A-

A-

A-

B+

B+

B

B

C+

EI Scores Rankings

Dept. of Homeland Security

General Services Administration

Dept. of Energy

USEPA

Dept. of Transportation

Dept. of Agriculture

Dept. of Defense--Navy

Dept. of Defense--Air Force

Dept. of Defense--Army

Dept. of the Interior

Dept.Housing and Urban Dev.

NASA

Dept. of Agriculture

75.0

Dept. of Defense--Navy

71.9

Dept. of Defense--Air

Force

68.8

Dept. of Defense--Army

68.8

Dept. of the Interior

62.5

Dept.Housing and

Urban Dev.

62.5

NASA

46.9

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 15 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal Agencies


Environmental Reporting Scores

Dept. of Defense--Navy

Dept. of Defense--Army

Dept. of Homeland

Security

USEPA

Dept. of Agriculture

14.55

25.45

23.64

23.64

18.18

A+

A

A

B+

B-

C+

C

C-

C-

D+

D+

D+

ER Scores Rankings

Dept. of Defense--Navy

Dept. of Defense--Army

Dept. of Homeland Security

USEPA

Dept. of Agriculture

Dept. of Transportation

Dept. of the Interior

Dept. of Defense--Air Force

NASA

General Services Administration

Dept.Housing and Urban Dev.

Dept. of Energy

Dept. of Transportation

12.73

Dept. of the Interior

10.91

Dept. of Defense--Air

Force

9.09

NASA

9.09

General Services

Administration

7.27

Dept.Housing and

Urban Dev.

7.27

Dept. of Energy

5.45

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 16 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal Agencies


Environmental Performance Scores

General Services

Administration

0.00

Dept. of the Interior

0.00

Dept. of Energy

0.00

Dept. of Transportation

0.00

Dept. of Defense--Air

Force

0.00

Dept. of Defense--Navy

0.00

Dept. of Defense--Army

0.00

Dept. of Homeland

Security

0.00

Dept. of Agriculture

0.00

Dept.Housing and

Urban Dev.

0.00

USEPA

0.00

NASA

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 17 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal Agencies


Social Intent Scores

Dept. of Transportation

96.67

Dept. of Defense--Navy

86.67

Dept. of Agriculture

70.00

Dept. of Energy

66.67

NASA

66.67

A+

A

B+

B

B

B

B-

B-

C+

C+

C

C-

SI Scores Rankings

Dept. of Transportation

Dept. of Defense--Navy

Dept. of Agriculture

Dept. of Energy

NASA

Dept. of Homeland Security

General Services Administration

Dept. of the Interior

Dept. of Defense--Air Force

Dept.Housing and Urban Dev.

USEPA

Dept. of Defense--Army

Dept. of Homeland

Security

63.33

General Services

Administration

60.00

Dept. of the Interior

56.67

Dept. of Defense--Air

Force

46.67

Dept.Housing and

Urban Dev.

46.67

USEPA

43.33

Dept. of Defense--Army

33.33

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 18 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal Agencies


Social Reporting Scores

Dept. of Energy

Dept. of Homeland

Security

Dept. of Defense--Navy

NASA

General Services

Administration

31.30

40.29

38.12

32.75

50.43

A+

A-

B+

B

B-

B-

C+

C

C

C

C

C-

SR Rankings

Dept. of Energy

Dept. of Homeland Security

Dept. of Defense--Navy

NASA

General Services Administration

Dept. of Defense--Army

Dept. of Agriculture

Dept. of Transportation

Dept. of the Interior

Dept. of Defense--Air Force

USEPA

Dept.Housing and Urban Dev.

Dept. of Defense--Army

28.84

Dept. of Agriculture

23.48

Dept. of Transportation

23.04

Dept. of the Interior

20.43

Dept. of Defense--Air

Force

20.43

USEPA

18.99

Dept.Housing and

Urban Dev.

17.68

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 19 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal Agencies


Social Performance Scores

Dept. of Energy

NASA

Dept. of Defense--Navy

Dept. of Homeland

Security

Dept. of Transportation

15.22

13.04

4.35

4.35

2.17

A+

A-

D+

D+

D

D

D

F

F

F

F

F

F

SP Rankings

Dept. of Energy

NASA

Dept. of Defense--Navy

Dept. of Homeland Security

Dept. of Transportation

Dept. of Defense--Air Force

Dept. of Defense--Army

General Services Administration

Dept. of the Interior

Dept. of Agriculture

Dept. of Agriculture

Dept.Housing and Urban Dev.

USEPA

Dept. of Defense--Air

Force

2.17

Dept. of Defense--Army

2.17

General Services

Administration

0.00

Dept. of the Interior

0.00

Dept. of Agriculture

0.00

Dept.Housing and

Urban Dev.

0.00

USEPA

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 20 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal Agencies


U.S. Government Agencies

Human Rights Reporting Elements of the PSI Scores

Percent of companies reporting*

Human Rights Topics

adoption reinforcement monitoring compliance

Anti-corruption practices 58.3% 8.3% 8.3% 0.0%

Bribery 66.7% 16.7% 16.7% 0.0%

Degrading treatment or punishment of employees 33.3% 8.3% 8.3% 0.0%

Effective abolition of child labor 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Elimination of all forms of forced and compulsory labor 8.3% 8.3% 8.3% 0.0%

Elimination of discrimination in respect to employment 100.0% 41.7% 41.7% 0.0%

and occupation

Fair compensation of employees 33.3% 8.3% 8.3% 0.0%

Free association and collective bargaining of

50.0% 8.3% 8.3% 0.0%

employees

Political contributions 50.0% 8.3% 8.3% 0.0%

Reasonable working hours 33.3% 16.7% 16.7% 0.0%

Sexual harassment 100.0% 41.7% 41.7% 0.0%

* Description of scoring

Adoption

We assign one point for adoption of a policy standard or for an explicit discussion of a company's stance on a particular

human rights principle or its participation to the UN Global Compact,

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 committtee structure to oversee risky activities.

Compliance

We assign one point for a quantitative indication of compliance, including the frequency of instances of being in out of

compliance with the principles of the company, it's subsidiaries, or supply-chain affiliates. Describing full compliance

with a broad-brushed statement such as "we are in full compliance of the local and international law" is too general in

our opinion and does not count.

www.roberts.cmc.edu 21 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal Agencies


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

100

ER

100

ER

100

ER

100

ER

100

EI

75

50

EP

EI

75

50

EP

EI

75

50

EP

EI

75

50

EP

EI

75

50

EP

25

25

25

25

25

0

0

0

0

0

SI

SP

SI

SP

SI

SP

SI

SP

SI

SP

SR

SR

SR

SR

SR

Dept. of Energy

Dept. of Homeland

Security

Dept. of Defense--

Navy

Dept. of

Transportation

General Services

Administration

ER

100

100

ER

100

ER

100

ER

100

ER

EI

75

50

EP

EI

75

50

EP

EI

75

50

EP

EI

75

50

EP

EI

75

50

EP

25

25

25

25

25

0

0

0

0

0

SI

SP

SI

SP

SI

SP

SI

SP

SI

SP

SR

SR

SR

SR

SR

NASA

Dept. of Agriculture

Dept. of Defense--

Army

USEPA

Dept. of the Interior

ER

100

ER

100

EI

75

50

EP

EI

75

50

EP

25

25

0

0

SI

SP

SI

SP

SR

Dept. of Defense--

Air Force

SR

Dept.Housing and

Urban Dev.

www.roberts.cmc.edu 22 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal Agencies


Number of Explicit numerical goals Reported

Dept. of Defense--

Navy

Dept. of Homeland

Security

5

5

Dept. of Defense--

Army

4

USEPA

2

Dept. of Energy

1

Dept. of

Transportation

1

0 5 10 15 20 25

Explicit Goals Most Frequently Reported

1 Energy used (total)

4

2 Waste (solid) disposed of

2

3 Waste recycled: Solid waste

2

4 Water used

2

5 Energy used (renewable)

2

6 Lost workday case rate

1

7 Recordable incident/accident rate

1

www.roberts.cmc.edu 23 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal Agencies


B

Dept. of

Agriculture

Dept. of Agriculture 2010 Web Pages

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s sustainability webpages note that its mission is to advance its sustainable development through partnerships,

collaboration, and outreach. As a result, the USDA has implemented a number of programs that encourage green purchasing, implement fleet efficiency

through the use of alternative fuels, promote energy efficiency and water conservation, and encourage recycling and waste prevention. For example, the

agency’s green purchasing program established by the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act 2002, BioPreferred, promotes the purchasing of biological

products such as renewable agricultural and forestry materials. The USDA provides many links for the public to learn more about its other programs;

however, many of these links are not functioning. The site would benefit from updating of its links and providing more quantitative data on the progress of

USDA's environmental initiatives.

Analyst(s): Alyson Noelle Stark

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

ESA

S

SSA

0 25 50 75

E

54%

S

46%

75

70

15

23

0

0

EI ER EP SI SR SP

Dept. of Agriculture

Environmental Intent

Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment

Accountability 4 4 100 Excellent

GRI 2005 Social Indicator for Public Agencies 0 2 0 Needs substantial improvement

Management 4 8 50 Good

Policy 11 12 92 Excellent

Urban Environmental Accords 2 2 100 Excellent

Vision 3 4 75 Excellent

Environmental Reporting

Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment

Energy 4 14 29 Needs improvement

Management 1 21 5 Needs substantial improvement

Recycling 2 14 14 Needs substantial improvement

Waste 0 21 0 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 8 10 80 Excellent

Policy 5 6 83 Excellent

Public Sector 4 4 100 Excellent

Social Demographic 2 2 100 Excellent

Vision 2 4 50 Good

Social Reporting

Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment

Human Rights 12 77 16 Needs substantial improvement

Management 0 7 0 Needs substantial improvement

Qualitative Social 9 35 26 Needs improvement

Quantitative Social 2 42 5 Needs substantial improvement

www.roberts.cmc.edu 24 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal Agencies


B-

Dept. of Defense--

Air Force

Dept. of Defense--Air Force 2010 Web Pages

The US Air Force website was lacking significant information in a number of the environmental and social categories we score. Many issues that the

department surely addresses, such as a code of conduct and fair compensation, were also impossible to locate on the site. The information that is there is

poorly labeled and difficult to find. My impression from navigating the Air Force website was that the accessibility of this information is not a priority. Some

links that looked promising led to pages that were un-locatable. Compared to the quality of the Air Force’s recruitment website, their environmental and

social pages are lacking and definitely in need of a major overhaul.

Analyst(s): Rebecca Enid Lofchie

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

ESA

S

SSA

0 25 50 75

E

55%

S

45%

69

47

9

20

0

2

EI ER EP SI SR SP

Dept. of Defense--Air

Force

Environmental Intent

Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment

Accountability 3 4 75 Excellent

GRI 2005 Social Indicator for Public Agencies 0 2 0 Needs substantial improvement

Management 6 8 75 Excellent

Policy 9 12 75 Excellent

Urban Environmental Accords 1 2 50 Good

Vision 3 4 75 Excellent

Environmental Reporting

Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment

Energy 2 14 14 Needs substantial improvement

Management 0 21 0 Needs substantial 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 0 4 0 Needs substantial improvement

Management 7 10 70 Good

Policy 4 6 67 Good

Public Sector 0 4 0 Needs substantial improvement

Social Demographic 1 2 50 Good

Vision 2 4 50 Good

Social Reporting

Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment

Human Rights 8 77 10 Needs substantial improvement

Management 3 7 43 Needs improvement

Qualitative Social 11 35 31 Needs improvement

Quantitative Social 1 42 2 Needs substantial improvement

www.roberts.cmc.edu 25 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal Agencies


B

Dept. of Defense--

Army

Dept. of Defense--Army 2010 Web Pages

The US Army’s first and second (2007 and 2009) sustainability reports are the first from any US Government agency. The Army's sustainability website has

more figures and data than found on most other agency sustainability websites as well. Future sustainability goals were highly detailed in the webpages

and abundant numerical data made it easy to chart progress over time.

Analyst(s): Starrisha Marche Godfrey-Canada

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

ESA

S

SSA

0 25 50 75

E

58%

S

42%

69

24

33 29

0

2

EI ER EP SI SR SP

Dept. of Defense--

Army

Environmental Intent

Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment

Accountability 2 4 50 Good

GRI 2005 Social Indicator for Public Agencies 0 2 0 Needs substantial improvement

Management 6 8 75 Excellent

Policy 9 12 75 Excellent

Urban Environmental Accords 2 2 100 Excellent

Vision 3 4 75 Excellent

Environmental Reporting

Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment

Energy 3 14 21 Needs substantial improvement

Management 3 21 14 Needs substantial improvement

Recycling 1 14 7 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 1 4 25 Needs improvement

Management 4 10 40 Needs improvement

Policy 0 6 0 Needs substantial improvement

Public Sector 1 4 25 Needs improvement

Social Demographic 1 2 50 Good

Vision 3 4 75 Excellent

Social Reporting

Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment

Human Rights 16 77 21 Needs substantial improvement

Management 3 7 43 Needs improvement

Qualitative Social 8 35 23 Needs substantial improvement

Quantitative Social 4 42 10 Needs substantial improvement

www.roberts.cmc.edu 26 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal Agencies


A

Dept. of Defense--

Navy

Dept. of Defense--Navy 2010 Web Pages

The US Navy's sustainability information is well done, but is scattered throughout their website and difficult to navigate to. If they could compile all their

sustainability information into one page, it would be one of the most informative and complete sustainability websites of any agency., but it was still above

average.

Analyst(s): Timothy Kareem Smedley

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

ESA

S

SSA

0 25 50 75

E

47%

S

53%

87

72

38

25

0

4

EI ER EP SI SR SP

Dept. of Defense--

Navy

Environmental Intent

Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment

Accountability 4 4 100 Excellent

GRI 2005 Social Indicator for Public Agencies 2 2 100 Excellent

Management 4 8 50 Good

Policy 9 12 75 Excellent

Urban Environmental Accords 2 2 100 Excellent

Vision 2 4 50 Good

Environmental Reporting

Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment

Energy 4 14 29 Needs improvement

Management 4 21 19 Needs substantial improvement

Recycling 3 14 21 Needs substantial improvement

Waste 3 21 14 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 10 10 100 Excellent

Policy 6 6 100 Excellent

Public Sector 2 4 50 Good

Social Demographic 2 2 100 Excellent

Vision 4 4 100 Excellent

Social Reporting

Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment

Human Rights 22 77 29 Needs improvement

Management 3 7 43 Needs improvement

Qualitative Social 14 35 40 Needs improvement

Quantitative Social 3 42 7 Needs substantial improvement

www.roberts.cmc.edu 27 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal Agencies


A+

Dept. of Energy

Dept. of Energy 2010 Web Pages

The Department of Energy's website indicates significant effort towards making its facilities and business management environmentally sustainable. The

“Sustainability Outreach Program” is an in-depth and overarching program that guides the Department of Energy’s environmental strategies such as, green

purchasing, green buildings, energy saving products and education. Also, this organization effectively displays worker demographics and sentiment. Oddly,

the Department of Energy falls short in providing quantitative data on energy and water consumption, as well as on hazardous waste production and

disposal, all items that are no doubt extremely carefully monitored by them.

Analyst(s):

Emily Aiko Coleman

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

ESA

S

SSA

0 25 50 75

E

37%

S

63%

81

67

50

15

5 0

EI ER EP SI SR SP

Dept. of Energy

Environmental Intent

Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment

Accountability 4 4 100 Excellent

GRI 2005 Social Indicator for Public Agencies 2 2 100 Excellent

Management 6 8 75 Excellent

Policy 8 12 67 Good

Urban Environmental Accords 2 2 100 Excellent

Vision 4 4 100 Excellent

Environmental Reporting

Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment

Energy 1 14 7 Needs substantial improvement

Management 0 21 0 Needs substantial improvement

Recycling 2 14 14 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 2 4 50 Good

Management 10 10 100 Excellent

Policy 4 6 67 Good

Public Sector 2 4 50 Good

Social Demographic 2 2 100 Excellent

Vision 0 4 0 Needs substantial improvement

Social Reporting

Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment

Human Rights 42 77 55 Good

Management 3 7 43 Needs improvement

Qualitative Social 15 35 43 Needs improvement

Quantitative Social 3 42 7 Needs substantial improvement

www.roberts.cmc.edu 28 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal Agencies


A+

Dept. of Homeland

Security

Dept. of Homeland Security 2010 Web Pages

The Department of Homeland Security conducts numerous operations to protect the nation’s borders. In its web pages, DHS notes its 2008 policy aimed to

develop and implement sustainable practices programs to ensure its operations are carried out in an environmentally sound manner. As a result, the DHS

has been active in investigating the environmental impact of its actions, especially those of the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility, and has

implemented reasonable alternatives to help mitigate environmental damage. For example, the agency addresses facility nighttime lighting affects on

wildlife and surrounding residents, and has adjusted operation boundaries to protect natural biodiversity. The Department of Homeland Security, however,

provides little quantitative workforce data such as turnover rate, lost workday, accident indices, and information on employee health and safety.

Analyst(s): Karina Gomez

E=Total Environmental Score, ESA=Environmental Sector Average Score, EI=Environmental Intent, ER=Environmental Reporting, EP=Environmental Performance, S=Total Social

Score, SSA=Social Sector Average Score, SI=Social Intent, SR=Social Reporting, SP=Social Performance

Comparison with sector averages

Source of points

Distribution of points

E

ESA

S

SSA

0 25 50 75

E

52%

S

48%

91

63

40

24

0

4

EI ER EP SI SR SP

Dept. of Homeland

Security

Environmental Intent

Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment

Accountability 3 4 75 Excellent

GRI 2005 Social Indicator for Public Agencies 2 2 100 Excellent

Management 6 8 75 Excellent

Policy 12 12 100 Excellent

Urban Environmental Accords 2 2 100 Excellent

Vision 4 4 100 Excellent

Environmental Reporting

Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment

Energy 4 14 29 Needs improvement

Management 0 21 0 Needs substantial improvement

Recycling 3 14 21 Needs substantial improvement

Waste 4 21 19 Needs substantial improvement

Water 2 7 29 Needs improvement

Social Intent

Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment

Accountability 2 4 50 Good

Management 8 10 80 Excellent

Policy 3 6 50 Good

Public Sector 3 4 75 Excellent

Social Demographic 2 2 100 Excellent

Vision 1 4 25 Needs improvement

Social Reporting

Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment

Human Rights 24 77 31 Needs improvement

Management 2 7 29 Needs improvement

Qualitative Social 15 35 43 Needs improvement

Quantitative Social 3 42 7 Needs substantial improvement

www.roberts.cmc.edu 29 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal Agencies


B-

Dept. of the Interior

Dept. of the Interior 2010 Web Pages

The U.S. Department of the Interior’s FY 2008 Annual Environmental Management Systems Report, FY 2008-2012 Workforce and Succession Plan, Green

Purchasing Plan, Strategic Sustainability Performance Plan, and 2010 web pages contain much information on the department’s environmental and social

programs and goals. The department has numerous energy and water conservation projects including the implementation of solar panels. Although the

department has a good discussion of these programs and initiatives, and states that data are collected and reported, not much of the data is provided;

lacking are data on environmental issues such as energy use, water conservation, and waste production; and on employee data such as turnover and

accident rate. The Department of the Interior has a number of initiatives that show its dedication to the country’s Native American population; however, it

does not report similar initiatives on its responsibility to its workforce, nor does it provide a code of ethics.

Analyst(s):

Karina Gomez

E=Total Environmental Score, ESA=Environmental Sector Average Score, EI=Environmental Intent, ER=Environmental Reporting, EP=Environmental Performance, S=Total Social

Score, SSA=Social Sector Average Score, SI=Social Intent, SR=Social Reporting, SP=Social Performance

Comparison with sector averages

Source of points

Distribution of points

E

ESA

S

SSA

0 25 50 75

E

53%

S

47%

63

57

11

20

0

0

EI ER EP SI SR SP

Dept. of the Interior

Environmental Intent

Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment

Accountability 2 4 50 Good

GRI 2005 Social Indicator for Public Agencies 0 2 0 Needs substantial improvement

Management 6 8 75 Excellent

Policy 7 12 58 Good

Urban Environmental Accords 1 2 50 Good

Vision 4 4 100 Excellent

Environmental Reporting

Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment

Energy 2 14 14 Needs substantial improvement

Management 1 21 5 Needs substantial improvement

Recycling 1 14 7 Needs substantial improvement

Waste 1 21 5 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 8 10 80 Excellent

Policy 0 6 0 Needs substantial improvement

Public Sector 2 4 50 Good

Social Demographic 1 2 50 Good

Vision 4 4 100 Excellent

Social Reporting

Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment

Human Rights 10 77 13 Needs substantial improvement

Management 2 7 29 Needs improvement

Qualitative Social 8 35 23 Needs substantial improvement

Quantitative Social 1 42 2 Needs substantial improvement

www.roberts.cmc.edu 30 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal Agencies


B+

Dept. of

Transportation

Dept. of Transportation 2010 Web Pages

The U.S. Department of Transportation is a huge agency and provides a large amount of sustainability information on its website, but it is not centralized,

nor is there a central sustainability index for it, so it is difficult to sort out. Rather the information is provided piecemeal as it has come in from various

divisions. Similar to the sustainability issue, it is difficult to find overall departmental procedures, guidelines, and employment information for the entire

Department of Transportation. The next iteration of DOT's website should provide a more integrated approach.

Analyst(s): Jesse Maximilliano Madrigal

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

ESA

S

SSA

0 25 50 75

E

50%

S

50%

97

78

13

23

0

2

EI ER EP SI SR SP

Dept. of

Transportation

Environmental Intent

Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment

Accountability 2 4 50 Good

GRI 2005 Social Indicator for Public Agencies 2 2 100 Excellent

Management 4 8 50 Good

Policy 11 12 92 Excellent

Urban Environmental Accords 2 2 100 Excellent

Vision 4 4 100 Excellent

Environmental Reporting

Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment

Energy 1 14 7 Needs substantial improvement

Management 2 21 10 Needs substantial improvement

Recycling 0 14 0 Needs substantial improvement

Waste 4 21 19 Needs substantial improvement

Water 0 7 0 Needs substantial 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

Public Sector 3 4 75 Excellent

Social Demographic 2 2 100 Excellent

Vision 4 4 100 Excellent

Social Reporting

Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment

Human Rights 12 77 16 Needs substantial improvement

Management 2 7 29 Needs improvement

Qualitative Social 8 35 23 Needs substantial improvement

Quantitative Social 4 42 10 Needs substantial improvement

www.roberts.cmc.edu 31 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal Agencies


C+

Dept.Housing and

Urban Dev.

Dept.Housing and Urban Dev. 2010 Web Pages

The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) does not appear to have developed a comprehensive environmental department, though it has

established environmental coordinators for each region with appropriate contact information. Most environmentally related topics can be found through

direct searches on the home web page, but are typically addressed as complementary issues and rarely acknowledged as the primary target of any of the

Department's activities. For example, water and energy conservation initiatives are coordinated through housing development and community education

which may be fine, but the presentation makes it difficult to ascertain their importance to HUD. HUD could improve its website by coordinating its

environment-related topics to a single domain that is user-friendly.

Analyst(s): Ryan Anderson

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

ESA

S

SSA

0 25 50 75

E

55%

S

45%

63

47

18

7 0

0

EI ER EP SI SR SP

Dept.Housing and

Urban Dev.

Environmental Intent

Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment

Accountability 3 4 75 Excellent

GRI 2005 Social Indicator for Public Agencies 0 2 0 Needs substantial improvement

Management 4 8 50 Good

Policy 10 12 83 Excellent

Urban Environmental Accords 2 2 100 Excellent

Vision 1 4 25 Needs improvement

Environmental Reporting

Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment

Energy 2 14 14 Needs substantial improvement

Management 1 21 5 Needs substantial improvement

Recycling 0 14 0 Needs substantial improvement

Waste 1 21 5 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

Public Sector 1 4 25 Needs improvement

Social Demographic 2 2 100 Excellent

Vision 3 4 75 Excellent

Social Reporting

Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment

Human Rights 4 77 5 Needs substantial improvement

Management 0 7 0 Needs substantial improvement

Qualitative Social 12 35 34 Needs improvement

Quantitative Social 2 42 5 Needs substantial improvement

www.roberts.cmc.edu 32 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal Agencies


B+

General Services

Administration

General Services Administration 2010 Web Pages

The GSA expresses a commitment to improving its sustainability stance as well as aiding other actors in doing the same. The use of renewable energy and

adopting LEED guidelines for its buildings illustrates the move towards a more sustainable relationship with the environment. The GSA website does not

provide information on specific policies it has adopted, however, nor any quantitative performance data. It is also silent on human rights policy issues and

measures taken to insure compliance. The GSA could easily improve its PSI rating simply by posting quantitative data it surely has.

Analyst(s): Natalya Ratan

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

ESA

S

SSA

0 25 50 75

E

50%

S

50%

84

60

31

7

0

0

EI ER EP SI SR SP

General Services

Administration

Environmental Intent

Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment

Accountability 4 4 100 Excellent

GRI 2005 Social Indicator for Public Agencies 0 2 0 Needs substantial improvement

Management 7 8 88 Excellent

Policy 10 12 83 Excellent

Urban Environmental Accords 2 2 100 Excellent

Vision 4 4 100 Excellent

Environmental Reporting

Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment

Energy 2 14 14 Needs substantial improvement

Management 0 21 0 Needs substantial improvement

Recycling 1 14 7 Needs substantial improvement

Waste 0 21 0 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 6 10 60 Good

Policy 4 6 67 Good

Public Sector 0 4 0 Needs substantial improvement

Social Demographic 2 2 100 Excellent

Vision 2 4 50 Good

Social Reporting

Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment

Human Rights 12 77 16 Needs substantial improvement

Management 3 7 43 Needs improvement

Qualitative Social 15 35 43 Needs improvement

Quantitative Social 1 42 2 Needs substantial improvement

www.roberts.cmc.edu 33 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal Agencies


B+

NASA

NASA 2010 Web Pages

NASA has a very user-friendly website which lists many sustainability initiatives. Although this is great, there were no data whatsoever on actual

environmental performance.

Analyst(s):

Dante Lamarr Benson

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

ESA

S

SSA

0 25 50 75

E

36%

S

64%

67

47

33

9

13

0

EI ER EP SI SR SP

NASA

Environmental Intent

Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment

Accountability 3 4 75 Excellent

GRI 2005 Social Indicator for Public Agencies 0 2 0 Needs substantial improvement

Management 3 8 38 Needs improvement

Policy 7 12 58 Good

Urban Environmental Accords 0 2 0 Needs substantial improvement

Vision 2 4 50 Good

Environmental Reporting

Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment

Energy 2 14 14 Needs substantial improvement

Management 0 21 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

Social Intent

Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment

Accountability 4 4 100 Excellent

Management 10 10 100 Excellent

Policy 2 6 33 Needs improvement

Public Sector 0 4 0 Needs substantial improvement

Social Demographic 2 2 100 Excellent

Vision 2 4 50 Good

Social Reporting

Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment

Human Rights 36 77 47 Needs improvement

Management 0 7 0 Needs substantial improvement

Qualitative Social 6 35 17 Needs substantial improvement

Quantitative Social 1 42 2 Needs substantial improvement

www.roberts.cmc.edu 34 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal Agencies


B-

USEPA

USEPA 2010 Web Pages

Unsurprisingly, the EPA appears to be the environmental leader in this group of US federal agencies. It was the first federal agency to purchase green

power equal to one-hundred percent of its estimated annual electricity use, either through direct delivery or renewable energy certificates and it reports a

lot of information about its agency-wide environmental initiative, Greening EPA. The website provides information about its programs to address energy and

water conservation, green power and buildings, recycling, waste reduction and stormwater management. Other practices, like “green meetings” and

“green janitorial services,” aimed at reducing the agency’s environmental footprint are also addressed. Quantitative data are only provided for agency-wide

energy and water use, but the EPA does outline many goals for decreasing energy and water consumption and for increasing recycling rates and

renewable energy use. Besides charged with protecting the natural environment, the EPA mission also includes protecting human health. However, only a

small amount of information about the health and human rights of its employees is presented on its website. For example, it does not report metrics such as

employee turnover, lost workday case rates, or accident rates, and no information is provided about EPA policies for employee volunteerism, fair

compensation, free association, forced labor, or working hours. The website does give a detailed report of the gender and racial distribution of its

workforce in aggregate and office-specific terms, a thing uncommon on the sites of most other agencies. Other highlights of the EPA’s social reporting are

its Environmental Education Department and its Federal Women’s Program.

Analyst(s):

Juliet Marie Archer

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

ESA

S

SSA

0 25 50 75

E

64%

S

36%

81

43

18

19

0

0

EI ER EP SI SR SP

USEPA

Environmental Intent

Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment

Accountability 3 4 75 Excellent

GRI 2005 Social Indicator for Public Agencies 0 2 0 Needs substantial improvement

Management 7 8 88 Excellent

Policy 11 12 92 Excellent

Urban Environmental Accords 2 2 100 Excellent

Vision 3 4 75 Excellent

Environmental Reporting

Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment

Energy 3 14 21 Needs substantial improvement

Management 1 21 5 Needs substantial improvement

Recycling 2 14 14 Needs substantial improvement

Waste 1 21 5 Needs substantial improvement

Water 3 7 43 Needs improvement

Social Intent

Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment

Accountability 2 4 50 Good

Management 5 10 50 Good

Policy 4 6 67 Good

Public Sector 0 4 0 Needs substantial improvement

Social Demographic 2 2 100 Excellent

Vision 0 4 0 Needs substantial improvement

Social Reporting

Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment

Human Rights 10 77 13 Needs substantial improvement

Management 0 7 0 Needs substantial improvement

Qualitative Social 8 35 23 Needs substantial improvement

Quantitative Social 1 42 2 Needs substantial improvement

www.roberts.cmc.edu 35 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal Agencies


Environmental visionary statement

-Discussion: includes a clear visionary statement expressing an organizational

commitment to good environmental performance.

-Initiatives/actions: include measures to fulfill that commitment.

Discussion

Discussion Pg#

Initiatives/Actions Initiatives Pg#

Environmental impediments and challenges

-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

Discussion Pg#

Initiatives/Actions Initiatives Pg#

Social visionary statement

42

-Discussion: includes a clear visionary statement expressing an organizational

commitment good social performance.

-Initiatives/actions: include measures taken to fulfill that commitment.

Discussion

Discussion Pg#

Initiatives/Actions Initiatives Pg#

Social impediments and challenges

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

Discussion Pg#

Initiatives/Actions Initiatives Pg#

Environmental policy statement

9

-Discussion: includes a formal statement of the organization's environmental

policy or plan.

-Initiatives/actions: include a description of how the policy is being

implemented.

Discussion

Discussion Pg#

Initiatives/Actions Initiatives Pg#

Social policy statement

45

-Discussion: includes a formal statement of the company's social policy or plan.

-Initiatives/actions: include a description of how the policy is being

implemented.

Discussion

Discussion Pg#

Initiatives/Actions Initiatives Pg#

Report contact person

4

-Discussion: identifies the person specifically designated to answer questions

about the report or sustainability issues. Investor relations or public relations

contact representatives are not valid contacts for this question.

-Initiatives/actions: to facilitate such contact, i.e. providing email address,

phone number, or a link for feedback and questions.

Discussion

Discussion Pg#

Initiatives/Actions Initiatives Pg#

Environmental management structure

19

-Discussion: of the organization's environmental management structure or

staffing.

-Initiatives/actions: include identification of individuals currently holding the

staff positions

Discussion

Discussion Pg#

Initiatives/Actions Initiatives Pg#

Government Institutions

5

6

43

Environmental management system

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

Discussion Pg#

Initiatives/Actions Initiatives Pg#

Health and Safety, or Social organizational structure 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

Discussion Pg#

Initiatives/Actions Initiatives Pg#

Stakeholder consultation

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

Discussion Pg#

Initiatives/Actions Initiatives Pg#

Environmental education

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

Discussion Pg#

Initiatives/Actions Initiatives Pg#

Environmental accounting

-Discussion: of environmental expenditures

-Initiatives/actions: include detailed accounting of such expenditures.

Discussion

Discussion Pg#

Initiatives/Actions Initiatives Pg#

Third-party validation

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

Discussion Pg#

Initiatives/Actions 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

Discussion Pg#

Initiatives/Actions Initiatives Pg#

Habitat/ecosystem conservation

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

Discussion Pg#

Initiatives/Actions Initiatives Pg#

21

www.roberts.cmc.edu 36 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal Agencies


Biodiversity

-Discussion: of the organization's position on biodiversity.

-Initiatives/actions: taken by to the organization to foster biodiversity.

Discussion

Discussion Pg#

Initiatives/Actions Initiatives Pg#

Green purchasing

-Discussion: about preferential purchasing of eco-friendly (non-polluting,

recycled, recyclable, etc.) products.

-Initiatives/actions: taken to implement such purchasing.

Discussion

Discussion Pg#

Initiatives/Actions Initiatives Pg#

Supplier screening based on social or environmental 49

performance/ Supplier management

-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

Discussion Pg#

Initiatives/Actions Initiatives Pg#

Workforce profile: Ethnicities/Race

-Discussion: of racial or ethnic distribution of workforce.

-Initiatives/actions: taken to avoid racial or ethnic discrimination.

Discussion

Discussion Pg#

Initiatives/Actions Initiatives Pg#

Workforce profile: Gender

-Discussion: of gender distribution of workforce.

-Initiatives/actions: taken to avoid gender discrimination and achieve

appropriate balance

Discussion

Discussion Pg#

Initiatives/Actions Initiatives Pg#

Workforce profile: Age

52

-Discussion: of age distribution of workforce.

-Initiatives/actions: include measures taken to avoid age discrimination or to

encourage a balanced age structure.

Discussion

Discussion Pg#

Initiatives/Actions Initiatives Pg#

Employment for individuals with disabilities

80

-Discussion: of appropriate actions to accommodate employees with disabilities.

-Initiatives/actions: taken to implement such accommodations.

Discussion

Discussion Pg#

Initiatives/Actions Initiatives Pg#

Emergency preparedness program

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

Discussion Pg#

Initiatives/Actions Initiatives Pg#

Government Institutions

12

13

17

18

Employee training for career development

82

-Discussion: of training, skills and learning programs appropriate to support

employees' upward mobility.

-Initiatives/actions: taken to implement such training.

Discussion

Discussion Pg#

Initiatives/Actions Initiatives Pg#

Code of conduct or business ethics

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

Discussion Pg#

Initiatives/Actions Initiatives Pg#

Energy used (total)

Sum of the energy used by the organization in all different forms, including

electricity, fuel, natural gas and others.

Discussion

Discussion Pg#:

Context

Context Pg#:

Goal

Goal Pg#:

Current Period Quantitative Data Quant Pg#:

Previous Quantitative Data

Prev QuantPg#:

Improvement Over Previous

ImproveP#:

Year Data Values Units

Energy used (renewable)

Energy used from renewable sources such as wind, solar, hydroelectric, or

other renewable sources.

Discussion

Discussion Pg#:

Context

Context Pg#:

Goal

Goal Pg#:

Current Period Quantitative Data Quant Pg#:

Previous Quantitative Data

Prev QuantPg#:

Improvement Over Previous

ImproveP#:

Year Data Values Units

26

27

www.roberts.cmc.edu 37 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal Agencies


Waste recycled: Solid waste

Sum of all solid waste recycled, including hazardous waste.

Discussion

Discussion Pg#:

Context

Context Pg#:

Goal

Goal Pg#:

Current Period Quantitative Data Quant Pg#:

Previous Quantitative Data

Prev QuantPg#:

Improvement Over Previous

ImproveP#:

Year Data Values Units

Government Institutions

30

Waste (hazardous) produced

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

Discussion Pg#:

Context

Context Pg#:

Goal

Goal Pg#:

Current Period Quantitative Data Quant Pg#:

Previous Quantitative Data

Prev QuantPg#:

Improvement Over Previous

ImproveP#:

Year Data Values Units

35

Waste (office) recycled

Office recycling of paper, cardboard, metal, or plastic

Discussion

Context

Goal

Current Period Quantitative Data

Previous Quantitative Data

Improvement Over Previous

Year Data Values Units

Waste (solid) disposed of

Discussion Pg#:

Context Pg#:

Goal Pg#:

Quant Pg#:

Prev QuantPg#:

ImproveP#:

Includes solid hazardous and non-hazardous waste landfilled, incinerated, or

transferred.

Discussion

Discussion Pg#:

Context

Context Pg#:

Goal

Goal Pg#:

Current Period Quantitative Data Quant Pg#:

Previous Quantitative Data

Prev QuantPg#:

Improvement Over Previous

ImproveP#:

Year Data Values Units

32

34

Waste (hazardous) released to the environment

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

Discussion Pg#:

Context

Context Pg#:

Goal

Goal Pg#:

Current Period Quantitative Data Quant Pg#:

Previous Quantitative Data

Prev QuantPg#:

Improvement Over Previous

ImproveP#:

Year Data Values Units

Water used

Sum of all water used during operations.

Discussion

Context

Goal

Current Period Quantitative Data

Previous Quantitative Data

Improvement Over Previous

Year Data Values Units

Discussion Pg#:

Context Pg#:

Goal Pg#:

Quant Pg#:

Prev QuantPg#:

ImproveP#:

37

29

www.roberts.cmc.edu 38 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal Agencies


Carbon dioxide (CO2) or equivalents (i.e. GHG)

CO2 emissions (or CO2 equivalents from CO2 + other greenhouse gases)

resulting from all company operations including generating electricity.

Discussion

Discussion Pg#:

Context

Context Pg#:

Goal

Goal Pg#:

Current Period Quantitative Data Quant Pg#:

Previous Quantitative Data

Prev QuantPg#:

Improvement Over Previous

ImproveP#:

Year Data Values Units

Government Institutions

112

Recordable incident/accident rate

Number of employee incidents or accidents, such as: “total case incident

rate”, “incident rate”, or "accident rate".

Discussion

Discussion Pg#:

Context

Context Pg#:

Goal

Goal Pg#:

Current Period Quantitative Data Quant Pg#:

Previous Quantitative Data

Prev QuantPg#:

Improvement Over Previous

ImproveP#:

Year Data Values Units

74

Ozone depleting substances from refrigerant

Total ozone-depleting substances include CFCs (Class I); and halons, carbon

tetrachloride, methyl chloroform, and HCFCs (Class II), not a CO2 emission.

Discussion

Discussion Pg#:

Context

Context Pg#:

Goal

Goal Pg#:

Current Period Quantitative Data Quant Pg#:

Previous Quantitative Data

Prev QuantPg#:

Improvement Over Previous

ImproveP#:

Year Data Values Units

119

Lost workday case rate

Number of employee injuries or illnesses that resulted in one or more lost

workdays

Discussion

Discussion Pg#:

Context

Context Pg#:

Goal

Goal Pg#:

Current Period Quantitative Data Quant Pg#:

Previous Quantitative Data

Prev QuantPg#:

Improvement Over Previous

ImproveP#:

Year Data Values Units

75

Employee turnover rate

Annual employee turnover rate.

Discussion

Context

Goal

Current Period Quantitative Data

Previous Quantitative Data

Improvement Over Previous

Year Data Values Units

Discussion Pg#:

Context Pg#:

Goal Pg#:

Quant Pg#:

Prev QuantPg#:

ImproveP#:

3

Social community investment

Amount of money spent on community outreach, including education grants,

donations, and relief effort funds.

Discussion

Discussion Pg#:

Context

Context Pg#:

Goal

Goal Pg#:

Current Period Quantitative Data Quant Pg#:

Previous Quantitative Data

Prev QuantPg#:

Improvement Over Previous

ImproveP#:

Year Data Values Units

81

www.roberts.cmc.edu 39 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal Agencies


Notices of violation (environmental)

Notices of violation (NOVs) for environmental infractions.

Discussion

Discussion Pg#:

Context

Context Pg#:

Goal

Goal Pg#:

Current Period Quantitative Data Quant Pg#:

Previous Quantitative Data

Prev QuantPg#:

Improvement Over Previous

ImproveP#:

Year Data Values Units

Government Institutions

38

Health and safety citations

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

Discussion Pg#:

Context

Context Pg#:

Goal

Goal Pg#:

Current Period Quantitative Data Quant Pg#:

Previous Quantitative Data

Prev QuantPg#:

Improvement Over Previous

ImproveP#:

Year Data Values Units

76

Environmental expenses and investments

An accounting of money spent or invested specifically to decrease

environmental damage or to benefit the environment

Discussion

Discussion Pg#:

Context

Context Pg#:

Goal

Goal Pg#:

Current Period Quantitative Data Quant Pg#:

Previous Quantitative Data

Prev QuantPg#:

Improvement Over Previous

ImproveP#:

39

Health and safety fines

Fines levied against a company for health and safety violations.

Discussion

Discussion Pg#:

Context

Context Pg#:

Goal

Goal Pg#:

Current Period Quantitative Data Quant Pg#:

Previous Quantitative Data

Prev QuantPg#:

Improvement Over Previous

ImproveP#:

77

Year Data Values Units

Year Data Values Units

Fines (environmental)

Government imposed fines for environmental infractions.

Discussion

Discussion Pg#:

Context

Context Pg#:

Goal

Goal Pg#:

Current Period Quantitative Data Quant Pg#:

Previous Quantitative Data

Prev QuantPg#:

Improvement Over Previous

ImproveP#:

Year Data Values Units

40

Emulating best practices

164

Organization looks for industry "best practices" or performance of peer organizations

as a guide to its reporting

Discussion

Discussion Pg#:

Initiatives/Action

Initiative Pg#:

Context Pg#:

Context

Improve Pg#:

Improvement Over Previous

Women in Management

Relative numbers of women in management.

Discussion

Discussion Pg#:

Initiatives/Action

Initiative Pg#:

Context

Context Pg#:

Improvement Over Previous

Improve Pg#:

Employee satisfaction surveys

Surveys to monitor employee satisfaction.

Discussion

Discussion Pg#:

Initiatives/Action

Initiative Pg#:

Context

Context Pg#:

Improvement Over Previous

Improve Pg#:

2

67

www.roberts.cmc.edu 40 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal Agencies


Occupational health and safety protection

Efforts to provide a safe and healthy working environment at all sites.

Discussion

Discussion Pg#:

Initiatives/Action

Initiative Pg#:

Context

Context Pg#:

Improvement Over Previous

Improve Pg#:

Employee volunteerism

Efforts to promote employee volunteerism in social or environmental projects.

Discussion

Discussion Pg#:

Initiatives/Action

Initiative Pg#:

Context

Context Pg#:

Improvement Over Previous

Improve Pg#:

Green transportation initiatives

Programs to encourage carpooling, mass transit or other reductions in total

commuting.

Discussion

Discussion Pg#:

Initiatives/Action

Initiative Pg#:

Context Pg#:

Context

Improve Pg#:

Improvement Over Previous

Community development

Government Institutions

70

72

163

Efforts to participate in social activities that improve the quality of life of

communities including that of indigenous people, where the organization operates.

Discussion

Discussion Pg#:

Initiatives/Action

Initiative Pg#:

Context Pg#:

Context

Improve Pg#:

Improvement Over Previous

Community education

Efforts to support education in the communities where the company is located.

Discussion

Discussion Pg#:

Initiatives/Action

Initiative Pg#:

Context

Context Pg#:

Improvement Over Previous

Improve Pg#:

Sexual harassment

1

Rejection of any form of sexual harassment.

Adoption of Policy

Policy Adopt Pg#:

Action to Reinforce Policy Initiative Pg#:

Monitoring

Monitoring Pg#:

Quant. Indication of Compliance Qty Perf Pg#:

Political contributions

Policy about political contributions

Adoption of Policy

Action to Reinforce Policy

Monitoring

Quant. Indication of Compliance

Bribery

Rejection of bribery

Adoption of Policy

Action to Reinforce Policy

Monitoring

Quant. Indication of Compliance

Policy Adopt Pg#:

Initiative Pg#:

Monitoring Pg#:

Qty Perf Pg#:

Policy Adopt Pg#:

Initiative Pg#:

Monitoring Pg#:

Qty Perf Pg#:

66

68

7

8

Anti-corruption practices

58

Efforts to uphold the highest standards of business ethics and integrity. May be found

under a Code of Conduct.

Adoption of Policy

Policy Adopt Pg#:

Action to Reinforce Policy Initiative Pg#:

Monitoring

Monitoring Pg#:

Quant. Indication of Compliance Qty Perf Pg#:

Fair compensation of employees

62

Assurance that wages paid meet or exceed legal or industry minimum standard.

Adoption of Policy

Policy Adopt Pg#:

Action to Reinforce Policy Initiative Pg#:

Monitoring

Monitoring Pg#:

Quant. Indication of Compliance Qty Perf Pg#:

Reasonable working hours

64

Compliance with applicable laws and industry standards on working hours, including

overtime.

Adoption of Policy

Policy Adopt Pg#:

Action to Reinforce Policy Initiative Pg#:

Monitoring

Monitoring Pg#:

Quant. Indication of Compliance 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

Policy Adopt Pg#:

Action to Reinforce Policy Initiative Pg#:

Monitoring

Monitoring Pg#:

Quant. Indication of Compliance Qty Perf Pg#:

Elimination of discrimination in respect to employment and 60

occupation

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

Policy Adopt Pg#:

Action to Reinforce Policy Initiative Pg#:

Monitoring

Monitoring Pg#:

Quant. Indication of Compliance 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

Policy Adopt Pg#:

Action to Reinforce Policy Initiative Pg#:

Monitoring

Monitoring Pg#:

Quant. Indication of Compliance Qty Perf Pg#:

Elimination of all forms of forced and compulsory labor 63

Assurance that all employees enter employment with the company of their own free

will, not by compulsion.

Adoption of Policy

Policy Adopt Pg#:

Action to Reinforce Policy Initiative Pg#:

Monitoring

Monitoring Pg#:

Quant. Indication of Compliance Qty Perf Pg#:

www.roberts.cmc.edu 41 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal Agencies


Effective abolition of child labor

Rejection of illegal child labor by the company or its affiliates.

Adoption of Policy

Policy Adopt Pg#:

Action to Reinforce Policy Initiative Pg#:

Monitoring

Monitoring Pg#:

Quant. Indication of Compliance Qty Perf Pg#:

Government Institutions

65

www.roberts.cmc.edu 42 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal Agencies


Dept. of Agriculture, Dept.

of Defense--Air Force, Dept.

of Defense--Army, Dept. of

Defense--Navy, Dept. of

Energy, Dept. of Homeland

S e c u r i t y , D e p t . o f t h e

I n t e r i o r , D e p t . o f

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.

T r a n s p o r t a t i o n ,

Claremont McKenna College

Claremont McKenna College, a member of the Claremont Colleges, is a highly selective, independent, coeducational,

Dept.Housing

residential, undergraduate liberal arts college with a curricular emphasis

and

on economics, government,

Urban

and public

affairs.

The Claremont Colleges

The Claremont Colleges form a consortium of five undergraduate liberal arts colleges and two graduate institutions

D

ebased v

on the

.

Oxford/Cambridge

,

Gmodel. eThe nconsortium e

offers

r

astudents l

diverse Sopportunities e

rand resources

v

itypically

c e s

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.

Administration, NASA,

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.

U S E P A

More magazines by this user
Similar magazines