Dept. of Agriculture, Dept. of Defense - Roberts Environmental Center
Dept. of Agriculture, Dept. of Defense - Roberts Environmental Center
Dept. of Agriculture, Dept. of Defense - Roberts Environmental Center
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> <strong>Agriculture</strong>, <strong>Dept</strong>.<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>Defense</strong>--Air Force, <strong>Dept</strong>.<br />
2010 Sustainability Reporting <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>Defense</strong>--Army, <strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong><br />
Largest U.S. Federal Agencies<br />
<strong>Defense</strong>--Navy, <strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong><br />
Pacific Sustainability Index Scores: A benchmarking tool for online sustainability reporting<br />
Energy, <strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> Homeland<br />
S e c u r i t y , D e p t . o f t h e<br />
I n t e r i o r , D e p t . o f<br />
T r a n s p o r t a t i o n ,<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>.Housing and Urban<br />
D e v . , G e n e r a l S e r v i c e s<br />
Administration, NASA,<br />
U S E P A<br />
J. Emil Morhardt, Elgeritte Adidjaja, Ryan Anderson, Virginia Anton, Juliet Marie Archer, Dante Lamarr Benson, Sara<br />
Morgan Caldwell, Emily Aiko Coleman, Francisco Covarrubias, Jr., Blake Crawford, Kristin Almaz Dessie, Salif Doubare,<br />
Asha Nicole Gipson, Alexander Glassmann, Starrisha Marche Godfrey-Canada, Karina Gomez, Pooja Reddy Kanipakam,<br />
Rebecca Enid L<strong>of</strong>chie, Jesse Maximilliano Madrigal, Natalya Ratan, Ravindra Wayne Reddy, Andre Garland Shepley,<br />
Timothy Kareem Smedley, and Alyson Noelle Stark, and Sabrina Nicole Williams
Contents<br />
Topics<br />
Page<br />
Company Rankings 3<br />
Lead Analyst’s Commentary 4<br />
PSI Overview 5<br />
PSI Scoring in a Nutshell 6<br />
<strong>Environmental</strong> Intent Topics 7<br />
<strong>Environmental</strong> Reporting Topics 8<br />
Social Intent Topics 9<br />
Social Reporting Topics 10<br />
<strong>Environmental</strong> Intent Element <strong>of</strong> the PSI Scores 11<br />
<strong>Environmental</strong> Reporting Element <strong>of</strong> the PSI 12<br />
Scores<br />
Social Intent Element <strong>of</strong> the PSI Scores 13<br />
Social Reporting Element <strong>of</strong> the PSI Scores 14<br />
<strong>Environmental</strong> Intent Scores Ranking 15<br />
<strong>Environmental</strong> Reporting Scores Ranking 16<br />
<strong>Environmental</strong> Performance Scores Ranking 17<br />
Social Intent Scores Ranking 18<br />
Social Reporting Scores Ranking 19<br />
Social Performance Scores Ranking 20<br />
Human Rights Reporting Element 21<br />
Visual Cluster Analysis 22<br />
Company Rankings Based on the Number <strong>of</strong> 23<br />
Goals Reported<br />
Analyst’s Comments, alphabetically listed by 24<br />
company name<br />
Appendix: PSI Questionnaire 36<br />
Questions should be addressed to:<br />
Dr. J. Emil Morhardt, Director<br />
(emorhardt@cmc.edu)<br />
<strong>Roberts</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Center</strong><br />
Claremont McKenna College<br />
925 N. Mills Ave. Claremont, CA 91711-5916, USA<br />
Direct line: (909) 621-8190<br />
Elgeritte Adidjaja, Research Fellow: (909) 621-8698<br />
(eadidjaja@cmc.edu)<br />
Departmental secretaries: (909) 621-8298<br />
The <strong>Roberts</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Center</strong> has been the foremost<br />
analyst <strong>of</strong> corporate sustainability reporting for over a<br />
decade. We analyze corporate online disclosure using our<br />
Pacific Sustainability Index (PSI) and publish the results<br />
online.<br />
Industrial Sector** 2<br />
0<br />
0<br />
4<br />
2<br />
0<br />
0<br />
5<br />
2<br />
0<br />
0<br />
6<br />
2<br />
0<br />
0<br />
7<br />
2<br />
0<br />
0<br />
8<br />
2<br />
0<br />
0<br />
9<br />
2<br />
0<br />
1<br />
0<br />
Aerospace and defense X X<br />
Airlines X X<br />
Banks, Insurance<br />
X<br />
Chemicals X X X<br />
Largest Companies in China<br />
X<br />
Colleges/Universities X 1 X<br />
Computer, Office Equipment,<br />
X<br />
and Services<br />
Consumer Food, Food<br />
X X<br />
Production, & Beverages<br />
Electronics and<br />
X X X<br />
Semiconductors<br />
Energy X * X * X<br />
Entertainment<br />
X<br />
Federal Agencies<br />
Food Services<br />
X<br />
Forest and Paper Products X X X<br />
General Merchandiser<br />
X<br />
Homebuilders<br />
X<br />
X<br />
Industrial and Farm<br />
X<br />
X<br />
Equipment<br />
Mail, Freight, & Shipping<br />
X<br />
Medical Products &<br />
X<br />
Equipment<br />
Metals X * X X<br />
Mining, Crude Oil X * X X<br />
Motor Vehicle and Parts X X X<br />
Municipalities<br />
X<br />
Oil and Gas Equipment<br />
X<br />
Petroleum and Refining X X X<br />
Pharmaceuticals X X X X<br />
Scientific, Photo, & Control<br />
X<br />
Equipment<br />
Telecommunications,<br />
X<br />
Network, & Peripherals<br />
Utilities, Gas, and Electric X * X * X<br />
* Multiple-sector category was separated in later years.<br />
**As <strong>of</strong> January 2011.<br />
1<br />
Top 50 Liberal Art Colleges.<br />
2<br />
0<br />
1<br />
1<br />
The goal <strong>of</strong> corporate report analysis conducted by the <strong>Roberts</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Center</strong> is to acquaint students with environmental<br />
and social issues facing the world’s industries, and the ways in which industry approaches and resolves these issues. The data<br />
presented in this report were collected by student research assistants and a research fellow at the <strong>Roberts</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong><br />
<strong>Center</strong>. Copyright 2010 © by J. Emil Morhardt. All rights reserved.<br />
www.roberts.cmc.edu 2 Sustainability Reporting <strong>of</strong> Largest U.S. Federal Agencies
US Government Agencies<br />
U.S. Largest Government Agencies Sustainability Reporting<br />
Agency Rankings<br />
Overall Grade<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> Energy<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> Homeland<br />
Security<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> <strong>Defense</strong>--Navy<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> Transportation<br />
General Services<br />
Administration<br />
41.30<br />
39.61<br />
39.43<br />
32.07<br />
30.80<br />
A+<br />
A+<br />
A<br />
B+<br />
B+<br />
B+<br />
B<br />
B<br />
B-<br />
B-<br />
B-<br />
C+<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> Energy (USA)<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> Homeland Security (USA)<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> <strong>Defense</strong>--Navy (USA)<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> Transportation (USA)<br />
General Services Administration<br />
(USA)<br />
NASA (USA)<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> <strong>Agriculture</strong> (USA)<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> <strong>Defense</strong>--Army (USA)<br />
USEPA (USA)<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> the Interior (USA)<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> <strong>Defense</strong>--Air Force (USA)<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>.Housing and Urban Dev. (USA)<br />
NASA<br />
30.31<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> <strong>Agriculture</strong><br />
28.99<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> <strong>Defense</strong>--Army<br />
28.68<br />
USEPA<br />
25.66<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> the Interior<br />
24.09<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> <strong>Defense</strong>--Air<br />
Force<br />
23.73<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>.Housing and Urban<br />
Dev.<br />
21.14<br />
0 25 50 75 100<br />
This report is an analysis <strong>of</strong> the voluntary environmental and social reporting <strong>of</strong> U.S.<br />
largest goverment agencies. Data were collected from the agencies' websites<br />
during the Spring <strong>of</strong> 2010.<br />
www.roberts.cmc.edu 3 Sustainability Reporting <strong>of</strong> Largest U.S. Federal Agencies
Lead Analyst’s Commentary<br />
By Karina Gomez, CMC ‘12<br />
The sector was led by the Department<br />
<strong>of</strong> Energy with a stronger focus in social<br />
reporting and social performance scores,<br />
which are mostly ethical and human rights<br />
topics.<br />
topics. <strong>Environmental</strong> reporting, however,<br />
was particularly low with over half <strong>of</strong> the<br />
agencies receiving a C or lower. Only a<br />
fourth <strong>of</strong> the agencies addressed any<br />
amount <strong>of</strong> quantitative data on emissions,<br />
waste, water usage, energy usage, and<br />
environmental incidents and violations.<br />
The Department <strong>of</strong> Homeland Security<br />
comes second with its intentions <strong>of</strong><br />
conducting operations in an<br />
environmentally sound manner and<br />
dedication to social accountability.<br />
Particularly notable were efforts to reduce<br />
environmental impact at operation sites<br />
using the most efficient means possible.<br />
DHS led the group in environmental intent.<br />
The department also tied with Department<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>Defense</strong>—Navy with most number <strong>of</strong><br />
explicit numerical goals reported.<br />
Department <strong>of</strong> <strong>Defense</strong> – Navy ranked<br />
third in the sector, but ranked first for<br />
environmental reporting, presenting much<br />
information on environmental initiatives<br />
throughout its website.<br />
The Department <strong>of</strong> Transportation,<br />
ranking first in social intent, and the Navy,<br />
following second in environmental intent,<br />
complete the four top performing agencies.<br />
Social intent and reporting scores<br />
were relatively high for the federal<br />
agencies sector with only a third <strong>of</strong> the<br />
agencies receiving lower than a B. The<br />
social categories with the lowest reporting<br />
were human rights and health and safety<br />
www.roberts.cmc.edu 4 Sustainability Reporting <strong>of</strong> Largest U.S. Federal Agencies
The Pacific Sustainability Index (PSI) Overview<br />
the PSI Scoring System<br />
The Pacific Sustainability Index (PSI) uses two systematic questionnaires to analyze the quality <strong>of</strong> the<br />
sustainability reporting—a base questionnaire for reports across sectors and a sector-specific<br />
questionnaire for government agencies.<br />
The <strong>Roberts</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Center</strong><br />
The <strong>Roberts</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Center</strong> is an environmental research institute at Claremont McKenna College<br />
(CMC). Its mission is to provide students <strong>of</strong> all the Claremont colleges with a comprehensive and realistic<br />
understanding <strong>of</strong> today’s environmental issues and the ways in which they are being and can be resolved--<br />
beyond the confines <strong>of</strong> traditional academic disciplines and curriculum--and to identify, publicize, and<br />
encourage policies and practices that achieve economic and social goals in the most environmentally<br />
benign and protective manner. The <strong>Center</strong> is partially funded by an endowment from George R. <strong>Roberts</strong><br />
(Founding Partner <strong>of</strong> Kohlberg Kravis <strong>Roberts</strong> & Co. and CMC alumnus),<br />
other grants, and gifts, and is staffed by faculty and students from the<br />
Claremont Colleges.<br />
Methodology<br />
Student analysts download relevant English language web pages from<br />
the main government agencies’ website for analysis. Our scoring<br />
excludes data independently stored outside the main city website or<br />
available only in hard copy. We archive these web pages as PDF files<br />
for future reference. Our analysts use a keyword search function to<br />
search reporting <strong>of</strong> specific topics and, they fill out a PSI scoring sheet<br />
(http://www.roberts.cmc.edu/PSI/scoringsheet.asp), and track the coverage and depths <strong>of</strong> different<br />
sustainability issues mentioned in all online materials.<br />
Scores and Ranks<br />
When they are finished scoring, the analysts enter their scoring results into the PSI database. The PSI<br />
database calculates scores and publishes them on the <strong>Center</strong>’s website. This sector report provides an indepth<br />
analysis on sustainability reporting <strong>of</strong> the largest government agencies <strong>of</strong> the United States.<br />
What do the scores mean?<br />
We normalize all the scores to the potential maximum score. Scores <strong>of</strong> subsets <strong>of</strong> the overall score are also<br />
normalized to their potential maxima. The letter grades (A+, A, A-, B+, etc.), however, are normalized to the<br />
highest scoring agency analyzed in the report. Government agencies with scores in the highest 4% get A+<br />
and any in the bottom 4% get F. We assign these by dividing the maximum PSI score obtained in the sector<br />
into 12 equal parts then rounding fractional score up or down. This means that A+ and F are underrepresented<br />
compared the other grades. The same technique applies to the separate categories <strong>of</strong><br />
environmental and social scores. Thus, we grade on the curve. We assume that the highest score obtained<br />
in the sector and any scores near it represent the state-<strong>of</strong>-the-art for that sector and deserve an A+.<br />
www.roberts.cmc.edu 5 Sustainability Reporting <strong>of</strong> Largest U.S. Federal Agencies
PSI Scoring in a Nutshell<br />
Our analysis <strong>of</strong> sustainability reporting has a set <strong>of</strong> basic topics applied to all organizations as well as a series <strong>of</strong><br />
sector-specific topics. The topics are divided into environmental and social categories—the latter including human<br />
rights—and into three types <strong>of</strong> information: 1) intent, 2) reporting, and 3) performance.<br />
1. Intent<br />
The “Intent” topics are each worth two points; one point for a discussion <strong>of</strong> intentions, vision, or plans, and a one<br />
point for evidence <strong>of</strong> specific actions taken to implement them.<br />
2. Reporting<br />
The “Reporting” topics are each worth five points and are either quantitative (for which we expect numerical data)<br />
or qualitative (for which we don’t).<br />
For quantitative topics, one point is available for a discussion, one point for putting the information into perspective<br />
(i.e. awards, industry standards, competitor performance, etc., or if the raw data are normalized by dividing by<br />
revenue, number <strong>of</strong> employees, number <strong>of</strong> widgets produced, etc.), one point for the presence <strong>of</strong> an explicit<br />
numerical goal, one point for numerical data from a single year, and one point for similar data from a previous year.<br />
For qualitative topics, there are three criteria summed to five points: 1.67 points for discussion, 1.67 points for<br />
initiatives or actions, and 1.67 points for perspective.<br />
3. Performance<br />
For each “Reporting” topic, two performance points are available.<br />
For quantitative topics, one point is given for improvement from the previous reporting period, and one point for<br />
better performance that the sector average (based on the data used for this sector report normalized by revenue).<br />
For qualitative topics we give one point for any indication <strong>of</strong> improvement from previous reporting periods, and one<br />
point for perspective.<br />
The 11 “human rights” topics are scored differently, with five “reporting” points; 2.5 points for formally adopting a<br />
policy or standard, and 2.5 points for a description <strong>of</strong> monitoring measures. In addition, there are two “performance”<br />
points; one point for evidence <strong>of</strong> actions to reinforce policy and one point for a quantitative indication <strong>of</strong> compliance.<br />
Distribution <strong>of</strong> Scores by topics<br />
www.roberts.cmc.edu 6 Sustainability Reporting <strong>of</strong> Largest U.S. Federal Agencies
U.S. Government Agencies<br />
<strong>Environmental</strong> Intent Topics<br />
Average percent <strong>of</strong> maximum possible points.<br />
90<br />
80<br />
70<br />
60<br />
50<br />
40<br />
30<br />
20<br />
10<br />
0<br />
79.17 83.33<br />
77.08<br />
77.08<br />
65.63<br />
33.33<br />
Accountability<br />
GRI 2005 Social Indicator for Public Agencies<br />
Management<br />
Policy<br />
Urban <strong>Environmental</strong> Accords<br />
Vision<br />
Two possible points for each topic:<br />
Accountability<br />
4 * Report contact person<br />
19 * <strong>Environmental</strong> management structure<br />
GRI 2005 Social Indicator for Public Agencies<br />
323 * Administrative Efficiency<br />
Management<br />
16 * <strong>Environmental</strong> education<br />
20 * <strong>Environmental</strong> management system<br />
21 * <strong>Environmental</strong> accounting<br />
23 * Stakeholder consultation<br />
Policy<br />
9 * <strong>Environmental</strong> policy statement<br />
10 * Climate change/global warming<br />
11 * Habitat/ecosystem conservation<br />
12 * Biodiversity<br />
13 * Green purchasing<br />
1E+ Participation in External Sustainability-Related<br />
04 Programs<br />
Urban <strong>Environmental</strong> Accords<br />
306 * Green Building<br />
Vision<br />
5 * <strong>Environmental</strong> visionary statement<br />
6 * <strong>Environmental</strong> impediments and challenges<br />
Notes:<br />
* These numbers correspond to the numbers in the PSI questionnaire. Items with numbers higher than 99 are sector<br />
specific questions. Appendix 1 has the complete questionnaire.<br />
www.roberts.cmc.edu 7 Sustainability Reporting <strong>of</strong> Largest U.S. Federal Agencies
U.S. Government Agencies<br />
<strong>Environmental</strong> Reporting Topics<br />
Seven possible points for each topic:<br />
Percent <strong>of</strong> total possible score for all companies<br />
combined.<br />
25<br />
25.00<br />
Energy<br />
26 * Energy used (total)<br />
27 * Energy used (renewable)<br />
Management<br />
38 * Notices <strong>of</strong> violation (environmental)<br />
39 * <strong>Environmental</strong> expenses and investments<br />
40 * Fines (environmental)<br />
20<br />
16.67<br />
Recycling<br />
30 * Waste recycled: Solid waste<br />
32 * Waste (<strong>of</strong>fice) recycled<br />
Waste<br />
15<br />
12.50<br />
13.33<br />
34 * Waste (solid) disposed <strong>of</strong><br />
35 * Waste (hazardous) produced<br />
37 * Waste (hazardous) released to the environment<br />
Water<br />
10<br />
29 * Water used<br />
7.22<br />
5<br />
0<br />
Energy<br />
Management<br />
Recycling<br />
Waste<br />
Water<br />
Notes:<br />
* These numbers correspond to the numbers in the PSI questionnaire. Items with numbers higher than 99 are sector<br />
specific questions.<br />
www.roberts.cmc.edu 8 Sustainability Reporting <strong>of</strong> Largest U.S. Federal Agencies
U.S. Government Agencies<br />
Social Intent Topics<br />
Average percent <strong>of</strong> maximum possible points.<br />
90<br />
80<br />
70<br />
60<br />
50<br />
40<br />
30<br />
20<br />
10<br />
0<br />
87.50<br />
72.50<br />
58.33<br />
56.25<br />
54.17<br />
37.50<br />
Accountability<br />
Management<br />
Policy<br />
Public Sector<br />
Social Demographic<br />
Vision<br />
Two possible points for each topic:<br />
Accountability<br />
51 * Health and Safety, or Social organizational<br />
structure<br />
54 * Third-party validation<br />
Management<br />
17 * Workforce pr<strong>of</strong>ile: Ethnicities/Race<br />
18 * Workforce pr<strong>of</strong>ile: Gender<br />
52 * Workforce pr<strong>of</strong>ile: Age<br />
53 * Emergency preparedness program<br />
82 * Employee training for career development<br />
Policy<br />
45 * Social policy statement<br />
47 * Code <strong>of</strong> conduct or business ethics<br />
49 * Supplier screening based on social or<br />
environmental performance/ Supplier<br />
management<br />
321 * Disclosure Policy<br />
322 * Grievance Mechanism<br />
Social Demographic<br />
80 * Employment for individuals with disabilities<br />
Vision<br />
42 * Social visionary statement<br />
43 * Social impediments and challenges<br />
Notes:<br />
* These numbers correspond to the numbers in the PSI questionnaire. Items with numbers higher than 99 are sector<br />
specific questions. Appendix 1 has the complete questionnaire.<br />
www.roberts.cmc.edu 9 Sustainability Reporting <strong>of</strong> Largest U.S. Federal Agencies
U.S. Government Agencies<br />
Social Reporting Topics<br />
Average percent <strong>of</strong> maximum possible points.<br />
45<br />
40<br />
35<br />
30<br />
25<br />
20<br />
15<br />
10<br />
5<br />
0<br />
43.00<br />
35.00<br />
31.52<br />
7.22<br />
Human Rights<br />
Management<br />
Qualitative Social<br />
Quantitative Social<br />
Seven possible points for each topic:<br />
Human Rights<br />
1 * Sexual harassment<br />
7 * Political contributions<br />
8 * Bribery<br />
58 * Anti-corruption practices<br />
59 * Degrading treatment or punishment <strong>of</strong> employees<br />
60 * Elimination <strong>of</strong> discrimination in respect to<br />
employment and occupation<br />
61 * Free association and collective bargaining <strong>of</strong><br />
employees<br />
62 * Fair compensation <strong>of</strong> employees<br />
63 * Elimination <strong>of</strong> all forms <strong>of</strong> forced and compulsory<br />
labor<br />
64 * Reasonable working hours<br />
65 * Effective abolition <strong>of</strong> child labor<br />
Management<br />
2 * Women in Management<br />
Qualitative Social<br />
66 * Community development<br />
67 * Employee satisfaction surveys<br />
68 * Community education<br />
70 * Occupational health and safety protection<br />
72 * Employee volunteerism<br />
Quantitative Social<br />
3 * Employee turnover rate<br />
74 * Recordable incident/accident rate<br />
75 * Lost workday case rate<br />
76 * Health and safety citations<br />
77 * Health and safety fines<br />
81 * Social community investment<br />
Notes:<br />
* These numbers correspond to the numbers in the PSI questionnaire. Items with numbers higher than 99 are sector<br />
specific questions. Appendix 1 has the complete questionnaire.<br />
www.roberts.cmc.edu 10 Sustainability Reporting <strong>of</strong> Largest U.S. Federal Agencies
U.S. Government Agencies<br />
<strong>Environmental</strong> Intent Elements <strong>of</strong> the PSI Scores<br />
<strong>Environmental</strong> policy statement<br />
Report contact person<br />
Green purchasing<br />
<strong>Environmental</strong> visionary statement<br />
Habitat/ecosystem conservation<br />
Green Building<br />
<strong>Environmental</strong> management structure<br />
<strong>Environmental</strong> education<br />
Climate change/global warming<br />
<strong>Environmental</strong> management system<br />
Stakeholder consultation<br />
<strong>Environmental</strong> impediments and challenges<br />
Biodiversity<br />
Participation in External Sustainability-Related Programs<br />
<strong>Environmental</strong> accounting<br />
Administrative Efficiency<br />
100.0%<br />
91.7%<br />
100.0%<br />
83.3%<br />
100.0%<br />
91.7%<br />
100.0%<br />
91.7%<br />
91.7%<br />
91.7%<br />
91.7%<br />
83.3%<br />
91.7%<br />
70.8%<br />
83.3%<br />
79.2%<br />
83.3%<br />
70.8%<br />
83.3%<br />
79.2%<br />
75.0%<br />
70.8%<br />
75.0%<br />
62.5%<br />
75.0%<br />
66.7%<br />
66.7%<br />
62.5%<br />
50.0%<br />
33.3%<br />
33.3%<br />
33.3%<br />
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%<br />
= Percentage <strong>of</strong> institutions addressing the topics<br />
= Percentage <strong>of</strong> the total possible number <strong>of</strong> points awarded to all institutions combined for each topic,<br />
indicating the depth <strong>of</strong> reporting coverage measured by PSI criteria for each topic. If both percentages are<br />
the same it means that each <strong>of</strong> those reporting institutions reporting on a topic got all the possible points.<br />
www.roberts.cmc.edu 11 Sustainability Reporting <strong>of</strong> Largest U.S. Federal Agencies
U.S. Government Agencies<br />
<strong>Environmental</strong> Reporting Elements <strong>of</strong> the PSI Scores<br />
Energy used (total)<br />
20.2%<br />
100.0%<br />
Energy used (renewable)<br />
15 . 5 %<br />
83.3%<br />
Waste (solid) disposed <strong>of</strong><br />
11. 9 %<br />
66.7%<br />
Waste recycled: Solid waste<br />
13 . 1%<br />
66.7%<br />
<strong>Environmental</strong> expenses and<br />
investments<br />
8.3%<br />
58.3%<br />
Water used<br />
11. 9 %<br />
58.3%<br />
Waste (hazardous) produced<br />
9.5%<br />
50.0%<br />
Waste (hazardous) released to<br />
the environment<br />
7.1%<br />
33.3%<br />
Waste (<strong>of</strong>fice) recycled<br />
4.8%<br />
33.3%<br />
Notices <strong>of</strong> violation<br />
(environmental)<br />
4.8%<br />
25.0%<br />
Fines (environmental)<br />
2.4%<br />
16 . 7 %<br />
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%<br />
= Percentage <strong>of</strong> institutions addressing the topics<br />
= Percentage <strong>of</strong> the total possible number <strong>of</strong> points awarded to all institutions combined for each topic,<br />
indicating the depth <strong>of</strong> reporting coverage measured by PSI criteria for each topic. If both percentages are<br />
the same it means that each <strong>of</strong> those reporting institutions reporting on a topic got all the possible points.<br />
www.roberts.cmc.edu 12 Sustainability Reporting <strong>of</strong> Largest U.S. Federal Agencies
U.S. Government Agencies<br />
Social Intent Elements <strong>of</strong> the PSI Scores<br />
Employment for individuals with disabilities<br />
100.0%<br />
87.5%<br />
Emergency preparedness program<br />
91.7%<br />
87.5%<br />
Employee training for career development<br />
91.7%<br />
79.2%<br />
Social visionary statement<br />
83.3%<br />
79.2%<br />
Workforce pr<strong>of</strong>ile: Ethnicities/Race<br />
83.3%<br />
66.7%<br />
Workforce pr<strong>of</strong>ile: Gender<br />
83.3%<br />
66.7%<br />
Social policy statement<br />
75.0%<br />
70.8%<br />
Workforce pr<strong>of</strong>ile: Age<br />
75.0%<br />
62.5%<br />
Health and Safety, or Social organizational structure<br />
66.7%<br />
58.3%<br />
Third-party validation<br />
66.7%<br />
50.0%<br />
Code <strong>of</strong> conduct or business ethics<br />
58.3%<br />
58.3%<br />
Grievance Mechanism<br />
50.0%<br />
41.7%<br />
Supplier screening based on social or environmental<br />
performance/ Supplier management<br />
50.0%<br />
45.8%<br />
Disclosure Policy<br />
41.7%<br />
33.3%<br />
Social impediments and challenges<br />
41.7%<br />
33.3%<br />
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%<br />
= Percentage <strong>of</strong> institutions addressing the topics<br />
= Percentage <strong>of</strong> the total possible number <strong>of</strong> points awarded to all institutions combined for each topic,<br />
indicating the depth <strong>of</strong> reporting coverage measured by PSI criteria for each topic. If both percentages are<br />
the same it means that each <strong>of</strong> those reporting institutions reporting on a topic got all the possible points.<br />
www.roberts.cmc.edu 13 Sustainability Reporting <strong>of</strong> Largest U.S. Federal Agencies
U.S. Government Agencies<br />
Social Reporting Elements <strong>of</strong> the PSI Scores<br />
Sexual harassment<br />
Elimination <strong>of</strong> discrimination in respect to employment and<br />
occupation<br />
Community development<br />
Community education<br />
Employee volunteerism<br />
Occupational health and safety protection<br />
52.4%<br />
52.4%<br />
33.3%<br />
35.7%<br />
31.0%<br />
29.8%<br />
100.0%<br />
100.0%<br />
83.3%<br />
83.3%<br />
75.0%<br />
75.0%<br />
Bribery<br />
Women in Management<br />
Social community investment<br />
Employee satisfaction surveys<br />
Anti-corruption practices<br />
Political contributions<br />
Free association and collective bargaining <strong>of</strong> employees<br />
28.6%<br />
25.0%<br />
10 . 7 %<br />
23.8%<br />
21.4%<br />
19 . 0 %<br />
19 . 0 %<br />
66.7%<br />
66.7%<br />
58.3%<br />
58.3%<br />
58.3%<br />
50.0%<br />
50.0%<br />
Employee turnover rate<br />
7.1%<br />
33.3%<br />
Reasonable working hours<br />
Degrading treatment or punishment <strong>of</strong> employees<br />
Fair compensation <strong>of</strong> employees<br />
Lost workday case rate<br />
Recordable incident/accident rate<br />
Health and safety citations<br />
Health and safety fines<br />
Elimination <strong>of</strong> all forms <strong>of</strong> forced and compulsory labor<br />
Effective abolition <strong>of</strong> child labor<br />
33.3%<br />
19 . 0 %<br />
33.3%<br />
14 . 3 %<br />
33.3%<br />
14 . 3 %<br />
25.0%<br />
6.0%<br />
25.0%<br />
4.8%<br />
8.3%<br />
1. 2 %<br />
8.3%<br />
1. 2 %<br />
8.3%<br />
7.1%<br />
0.0%<br />
0.0%<br />
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%<br />
= Percentage <strong>of</strong> institutions addressing the topics<br />
= Percentage <strong>of</strong> the total possible number <strong>of</strong> points awarded to all institutions combined for each topic,<br />
indicating the depth <strong>of</strong> reporting coverage measured by PSI criteria for each topic. If both percentages are<br />
the same it means that each <strong>of</strong> those reporting institutions reporting on a topic got all the possible points.<br />
www.roberts.cmc.edu 14 Sustainability Reporting <strong>of</strong> Largest U.S. Federal Agencies
<strong>Environmental</strong> Intent Scores<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> Homeland<br />
Security<br />
General Services<br />
Administration<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> Energy<br />
USEPA<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> Transportation<br />
81.3<br />
81.3<br />
78.1<br />
90.6<br />
84.4<br />
A+<br />
A<br />
A<br />
A<br />
A-<br />
A-<br />
A-<br />
B+<br />
B+<br />
B<br />
B<br />
C+<br />
EI Scores Rankings<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> Homeland Security<br />
General Services Administration<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> Energy<br />
USEPA<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> Transportation<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> <strong>Agriculture</strong><br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> <strong>Defense</strong>--Navy<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> <strong>Defense</strong>--Air Force<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> <strong>Defense</strong>--Army<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> the Interior<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>.Housing and Urban Dev.<br />
NASA<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> <strong>Agriculture</strong><br />
75.0<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> <strong>Defense</strong>--Navy<br />
71.9<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> <strong>Defense</strong>--Air<br />
Force<br />
68.8<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> <strong>Defense</strong>--Army<br />
68.8<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> the Interior<br />
62.5<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>.Housing and<br />
Urban Dev.<br />
62.5<br />
NASA<br />
46.9<br />
0 25 50 75 100<br />
<strong>Environmental</strong> intent scores include topics about the firm’s<br />
products, environmental organization, vision and commitment,<br />
stakeholders, environmental policy and certifications, environmental<br />
aspects and impacts, choice <strong>of</strong> environmental performance<br />
indicators and those used by the industry, environmental initiatives<br />
and mitigations, and environmental goals and targets.<br />
www.roberts.cmc.edu 15 Sustainability Reporting <strong>of</strong> Largest U.S. Federal Agencies
<strong>Environmental</strong> Reporting Scores<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> <strong>Defense</strong>--Navy<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> <strong>Defense</strong>--Army<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> Homeland<br />
Security<br />
USEPA<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> <strong>Agriculture</strong><br />
14.55<br />
25.45<br />
23.64<br />
23.64<br />
18.18<br />
A+<br />
A<br />
A<br />
B+<br />
B-<br />
C+<br />
C<br />
C-<br />
C-<br />
D+<br />
D+<br />
D+<br />
ER Scores Rankings<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> <strong>Defense</strong>--Navy<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> <strong>Defense</strong>--Army<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> Homeland Security<br />
USEPA<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> <strong>Agriculture</strong><br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> Transportation<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> the Interior<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> <strong>Defense</strong>--Air Force<br />
NASA<br />
General Services Administration<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>.Housing and Urban Dev.<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> Energy<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> Transportation<br />
12.73<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> the Interior<br />
10.91<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> <strong>Defense</strong>--Air<br />
Force<br />
9.09<br />
NASA<br />
9.09<br />
General Services<br />
Administration<br />
7.27<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>.Housing and<br />
Urban Dev.<br />
7.27<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> Energy<br />
5.45<br />
0 25 50 75 100<br />
<strong>Environmental</strong> reporting scores are based on the degree to which<br />
the company discusses its emissions, energy sources and<br />
consumption, environmental incidents and violations, materials use,<br />
mitigations and remediation, waste produced, and water used. They<br />
also include use <strong>of</strong> life cycle analysis, environmental performance<br />
and stewardship <strong>of</strong> products, and environmental performance <strong>of</strong><br />
suppliers and contractors.<br />
www.roberts.cmc.edu 16 Sustainability Reporting <strong>of</strong> Largest U.S. Federal Agencies
<strong>Environmental</strong> Performance Scores<br />
General Services<br />
Administration<br />
0.00<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> the Interior<br />
0.00<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> Energy<br />
0.00<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> Transportation<br />
0.00<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> <strong>Defense</strong>--Air<br />
Force<br />
0.00<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> <strong>Defense</strong>--Navy<br />
0.00<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> <strong>Defense</strong>--Army<br />
0.00<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> Homeland<br />
Security<br />
0.00<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> <strong>Agriculture</strong><br />
0.00<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>.Housing and<br />
Urban Dev.<br />
0.00<br />
USEPA<br />
0.00<br />
NASA<br />
0.00<br />
0 25 50 75 100<br />
<strong>Environmental</strong> performance scores are based on whether or not the<br />
firm has improved its performance on each <strong>of</strong> the topics discussed<br />
under the heading <strong>of</strong> environmental reporting, and on whether the<br />
quality <strong>of</strong> the performance is better than that <strong>of</strong> the firm’s peers.<br />
Scoring for each topic is one point if performance is better than in<br />
previous reports, two points if better than industry peers, three<br />
points if both.<br />
www.roberts.cmc.edu 17 Sustainability Reporting <strong>of</strong> Largest U.S. Federal Agencies
Social Intent Scores<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> Transportation<br />
96.67<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> <strong>Defense</strong>--Navy<br />
86.67<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> <strong>Agriculture</strong><br />
70.00<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> Energy<br />
66.67<br />
NASA<br />
66.67<br />
A+<br />
A<br />
B+<br />
B<br />
B<br />
B<br />
B-<br />
B-<br />
C+<br />
C+<br />
C<br />
C-<br />
SI Scores Rankings<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> Transportation<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> <strong>Defense</strong>--Navy<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> <strong>Agriculture</strong><br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> Energy<br />
NASA<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> Homeland Security<br />
General Services Administration<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> the Interior<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> <strong>Defense</strong>--Air Force<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>.Housing and Urban Dev.<br />
USEPA<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> <strong>Defense</strong>--Army<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> Homeland<br />
Security<br />
63.33<br />
General Services<br />
Administration<br />
60.00<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> the Interior<br />
56.67<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> <strong>Defense</strong>--Air<br />
Force<br />
46.67<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>.Housing and<br />
Urban Dev.<br />
46.67<br />
USEPA<br />
43.33<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> <strong>Defense</strong>--Army<br />
33.33<br />
0 25 50 75 100<br />
Social intent scores include topics about the firm’s financials,<br />
employees, safety reporting, social management organization, social<br />
vision and commitment, stakeholders, social policy and<br />
certifications, social aspects and impacts, choice <strong>of</strong> social<br />
performance indicators and those used by the industry, social<br />
initiatives and mitigations, and social goals and targets.<br />
www.roberts.cmc.edu 18 Sustainability Reporting <strong>of</strong> Largest U.S. Federal Agencies
Social Reporting Scores<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> Energy<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> Homeland<br />
Security<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> <strong>Defense</strong>--Navy<br />
NASA<br />
General Services<br />
Administration<br />
31.30<br />
40.29<br />
38.12<br />
32.75<br />
50.43<br />
A+<br />
A-<br />
B+<br />
B<br />
B-<br />
B-<br />
C+<br />
C<br />
C<br />
C<br />
C<br />
C-<br />
SR Rankings<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> Energy<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> Homeland Security<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> <strong>Defense</strong>--Navy<br />
NASA<br />
General Services Administration<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> <strong>Defense</strong>--Army<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> <strong>Agriculture</strong><br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> Transportation<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> the Interior<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> <strong>Defense</strong>--Air Force<br />
USEPA<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>.Housing and Urban Dev.<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> <strong>Defense</strong>--Army<br />
28.84<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> <strong>Agriculture</strong><br />
23.48<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> Transportation<br />
23.04<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> the Interior<br />
20.43<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> <strong>Defense</strong>--Air<br />
Force<br />
20.43<br />
USEPA<br />
18.99<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>.Housing and<br />
Urban Dev.<br />
17.68<br />
0 25 50 75 100<br />
Social reporting scores are based on the degree to which the<br />
company discusses various aspects <strong>of</strong> its dealings with its<br />
employees and contractors. They also include social costs and<br />
investments.<br />
www.roberts.cmc.edu 19 Sustainability Reporting <strong>of</strong> Largest U.S. Federal Agencies
Social Performance Scores<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> Energy<br />
NASA<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> <strong>Defense</strong>--Navy<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> Homeland<br />
Security<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> Transportation<br />
15.22<br />
13.04<br />
4.35<br />
4.35<br />
2.17<br />
A+<br />
A-<br />
D+<br />
D+<br />
D<br />
D<br />
D<br />
F<br />
F<br />
F<br />
F<br />
F<br />
F<br />
SP Rankings<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> Energy<br />
NASA<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> <strong>Defense</strong>--Navy<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> Homeland Security<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> Transportation<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> <strong>Defense</strong>--Air Force<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> <strong>Defense</strong>--Army<br />
General Services Administration<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> the Interior<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> <strong>Agriculture</strong><br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> <strong>Agriculture</strong><br />
<strong>Dept</strong>.Housing and Urban Dev.<br />
USEPA<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> <strong>Defense</strong>--Air<br />
Force<br />
2.17<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> <strong>Defense</strong>--Army<br />
2.17<br />
General Services<br />
Administration<br />
0.00<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> the Interior<br />
0.00<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> <strong>Agriculture</strong><br />
0.00<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>.Housing and<br />
Urban Dev.<br />
0.00<br />
USEPA<br />
0.00<br />
0 25 50 75 100<br />
Social performance scores are based on improvement,<br />
performance better than the sector average, or statements <strong>of</strong><br />
compliance with established social standards.<br />
www.roberts.cmc.edu 20 Sustainability Reporting <strong>of</strong> Largest U.S. Federal Agencies
U.S. Government Agencies<br />
Human Rights Reporting Elements <strong>of</strong> the PSI Scores<br />
Percent <strong>of</strong> companies reporting*<br />
Human Rights Topics<br />
adoption reinforcement monitoring compliance<br />
Anti-corruption practices 58.3% 8.3% 8.3% 0.0%<br />
Bribery 66.7% 16.7% 16.7% 0.0%<br />
Degrading treatment or punishment <strong>of</strong> employees 33.3% 8.3% 8.3% 0.0%<br />
Effective abolition <strong>of</strong> child labor 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%<br />
Elimination <strong>of</strong> all forms <strong>of</strong> forced and compulsory labor 8.3% 8.3% 8.3% 0.0%<br />
Elimination <strong>of</strong> discrimination in respect to employment 100.0% 41.7% 41.7% 0.0%<br />
and occupation<br />
Fair compensation <strong>of</strong> employees 33.3% 8.3% 8.3% 0.0%<br />
Free association and collective bargaining <strong>of</strong><br />
50.0% 8.3% 8.3% 0.0%<br />
employees<br />
Political contributions 50.0% 8.3% 8.3% 0.0%<br />
Reasonable working hours 33.3% 16.7% 16.7% 0.0%<br />
Sexual harassment 100.0% 41.7% 41.7% 0.0%<br />
* Description <strong>of</strong> scoring<br />
Adoption<br />
We assign one point for adoption <strong>of</strong> a policy standard or for an explicit discussion <strong>of</strong> a company's stance on a particular<br />
human rights principle or its participation to the UN Global Compact,<br />
Reinforcement<br />
We assign one point for a description <strong>of</strong> reinforcement actions to make a policy stronger, such as providing educational<br />
programs, training, or other activities to promote awareness.<br />
Monitoring<br />
We assign one point for a description <strong>of</strong> monitoring measures including mechanisms to detect violations at an early<br />
stage, providing systematic reporting, or establishment <strong>of</strong> committtee structure to oversee risky activities.<br />
Compliance<br />
We assign one point for a quantitative indication <strong>of</strong> compliance, including the frequency <strong>of</strong> instances <strong>of</strong> being in out <strong>of</strong><br />
compliance with the principles <strong>of</strong> the company, it's subsidiaries, or supply-chain affiliates. Describing full compliance<br />
with a broad-brushed statement such as "we are in full compliance <strong>of</strong> the local and international law" is too general in<br />
our opinion and does not count.<br />
www.roberts.cmc.edu 21 Sustainability Reporting <strong>of</strong> Largest U.S. Federal Agencies
Visual Cluster Analysis<br />
Visual cluster analysis multivariate data <strong>of</strong> the sort produced by the PSI are difficult to summarize. Here we have created radar diagrams<br />
<strong>of</strong> the performance <strong>of</strong> each company analysed in the sector by its environmental and social intent, reporting, and performance sorted by<br />
company ranking. Maximum scores will match the outer sides <strong>of</strong> the hexagon which total up to 100 percent.<br />
EI = <strong>Environmental</strong> Intent, ER = <strong>Environmental</strong> Reporting, EP = <strong>Environmental</strong> Performance<br />
SI = Social Intent, SR = Social Reporting, SP = Social Performance<br />
ER<br />
100<br />
ER<br />
100<br />
ER<br />
100<br />
ER<br />
100<br />
ER<br />
100<br />
EI<br />
75<br />
50<br />
EP<br />
EI<br />
75<br />
50<br />
EP<br />
EI<br />
75<br />
50<br />
EP<br />
EI<br />
75<br />
50<br />
EP<br />
EI<br />
75<br />
50<br />
EP<br />
25<br />
25<br />
25<br />
25<br />
25<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
SI<br />
SP<br />
SI<br />
SP<br />
SI<br />
SP<br />
SI<br />
SP<br />
SI<br />
SP<br />
SR<br />
SR<br />
SR<br />
SR<br />
SR<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> Energy<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> Homeland<br />
Security<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> <strong>Defense</strong>--<br />
Navy<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong><br />
Transportation<br />
General Services<br />
Administration<br />
ER<br />
100<br />
100<br />
ER<br />
100<br />
ER<br />
100<br />
ER<br />
100<br />
ER<br />
EI<br />
75<br />
50<br />
EP<br />
EI<br />
75<br />
50<br />
EP<br />
EI<br />
75<br />
50<br />
EP<br />
EI<br />
75<br />
50<br />
EP<br />
EI<br />
75<br />
50<br />
EP<br />
25<br />
25<br />
25<br />
25<br />
25<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
SI<br />
SP<br />
SI<br />
SP<br />
SI<br />
SP<br />
SI<br />
SP<br />
SI<br />
SP<br />
SR<br />
SR<br />
SR<br />
SR<br />
SR<br />
NASA<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> <strong>Agriculture</strong><br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> <strong>Defense</strong>--<br />
Army<br />
USEPA<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> the Interior<br />
ER<br />
100<br />
ER<br />
100<br />
EI<br />
75<br />
50<br />
EP<br />
EI<br />
75<br />
50<br />
EP<br />
25<br />
25<br />
0<br />
0<br />
SI<br />
SP<br />
SI<br />
SP<br />
SR<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> <strong>Defense</strong>--<br />
Air Force<br />
SR<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>.Housing and<br />
Urban Dev.<br />
www.roberts.cmc.edu 22 Sustainability Reporting <strong>of</strong> Largest U.S. Federal Agencies
Number <strong>of</strong> Explicit numerical goals Reported<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> <strong>Defense</strong>--<br />
Navy<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> Homeland<br />
Security<br />
5<br />
5<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> <strong>Defense</strong>--<br />
Army<br />
4<br />
USEPA<br />
2<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> Energy<br />
1<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong><br />
Transportation<br />
1<br />
0 5 10 15 20 25<br />
Explicit Goals Most Frequently Reported<br />
1 Energy used (total)<br />
4<br />
2 Waste (solid) disposed <strong>of</strong><br />
2<br />
3 Waste recycled: Solid waste<br />
2<br />
4 Water used<br />
2<br />
5 Energy used (renewable)<br />
2<br />
6 Lost workday case rate<br />
1<br />
7 Recordable incident/accident rate<br />
1<br />
www.roberts.cmc.edu 23 Sustainability Reporting <strong>of</strong> Largest U.S. Federal Agencies
B<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Agriculture</strong><br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> <strong>Agriculture</strong> 2010 Web Pages<br />
The U.S. Department <strong>of</strong> <strong>Agriculture</strong>’s sustainability webpages note that its mission is to advance its sustainable development through partnerships,<br />
collaboration, and outreach. As a result, the USDA has implemented a number <strong>of</strong> programs that encourage green purchasing, implement fleet efficiency<br />
through the use <strong>of</strong> alternative fuels, promote energy efficiency and water conservation, and encourage recycling and waste prevention. For example, the<br />
agency’s green purchasing program established by the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act 2002, BioPreferred, promotes the purchasing <strong>of</strong> biological<br />
products such as renewable agricultural and forestry materials. The USDA provides many links for the public to learn more about its other programs;<br />
however, many <strong>of</strong> these links are not functioning. The site would benefit from updating <strong>of</strong> its links and providing more quantitative data on the progress <strong>of</strong><br />
USDA's environmental initiatives.<br />
Analyst(s): Alyson Noelle Stark<br />
E=Total <strong>Environmental</strong> Score, ESA=<strong>Environmental</strong> Sector Average Score, EI=<strong>Environmental</strong> Intent, ER=<strong>Environmental</strong> Reporting, EP=<strong>Environmental</strong> Performance, S=Total Social<br />
Score, SSA=Social Sector Average Score, SI=Social Intent, SR=Social Reporting, SP=Social Performance<br />
Comparison with sector averages<br />
Source <strong>of</strong> points<br />
Distribution <strong>of</strong> points<br />
E<br />
ESA<br />
S<br />
SSA<br />
0 25 50 75<br />
E<br />
54%<br />
S<br />
46%<br />
75<br />
70<br />
15<br />
23<br />
0<br />
0<br />
EI ER EP SI SR SP<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> <strong>Agriculture</strong><br />
<strong>Environmental</strong> Intent<br />
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment<br />
Accountability 4 4 100 Excellent<br />
GRI 2005 Social Indicator for Public Agencies 0 2 0 Needs substantial improvement<br />
Management 4 8 50 Good<br />
Policy 11 12 92 Excellent<br />
Urban <strong>Environmental</strong> Accords 2 2 100 Excellent<br />
Vision 3 4 75 Excellent<br />
<strong>Environmental</strong> Reporting<br />
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment<br />
Energy 4 14 29 Needs improvement<br />
Management 1 21 5 Needs substantial improvement<br />
Recycling 2 14 14 Needs substantial improvement<br />
Waste 0 21 0 Needs substantial improvement<br />
Water 1 7 14 Needs substantial improvement<br />
Social Intent<br />
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment<br />
Accountability 0 4 0 Needs substantial improvement<br />
Management 8 10 80 Excellent<br />
Policy 5 6 83 Excellent<br />
Public Sector 4 4 100 Excellent<br />
Social Demographic 2 2 100 Excellent<br />
Vision 2 4 50 Good<br />
Social Reporting<br />
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment<br />
Human Rights 12 77 16 Needs substantial improvement<br />
Management 0 7 0 Needs substantial improvement<br />
Qualitative Social 9 35 26 Needs improvement<br />
Quantitative Social 2 42 5 Needs substantial improvement<br />
www.roberts.cmc.edu 24 Sustainability Reporting <strong>of</strong> Largest U.S. Federal Agencies
B-<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> <strong>Defense</strong>--<br />
Air Force<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> <strong>Defense</strong>--Air Force 2010 Web Pages<br />
The US Air Force website was lacking significant information in a number <strong>of</strong> the environmental and social categories we score. Many issues that the<br />
department surely addresses, such as a code <strong>of</strong> conduct and fair compensation, were also impossible to locate on the site. The information that is there is<br />
poorly labeled and difficult to find. My impression from navigating the Air Force website was that the accessibility <strong>of</strong> this information is not a priority. Some<br />
links that looked promising led to pages that were un-locatable. Compared to the quality <strong>of</strong> the Air Force’s recruitment website, their environmental and<br />
social pages are lacking and definitely in need <strong>of</strong> a major overhaul.<br />
Analyst(s): Rebecca Enid L<strong>of</strong>chie<br />
E=Total <strong>Environmental</strong> Score, ESA=<strong>Environmental</strong> Sector Average Score, EI=<strong>Environmental</strong> Intent, ER=<strong>Environmental</strong> Reporting, EP=<strong>Environmental</strong> Performance, S=Total Social<br />
Score, SSA=Social Sector Average Score, SI=Social Intent, SR=Social Reporting, SP=Social Performance<br />
Comparison with sector averages<br />
Source <strong>of</strong> points<br />
Distribution <strong>of</strong> points<br />
E<br />
ESA<br />
S<br />
SSA<br />
0 25 50 75<br />
E<br />
55%<br />
S<br />
45%<br />
69<br />
47<br />
9<br />
20<br />
0<br />
2<br />
EI ER EP SI SR SP<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> <strong>Defense</strong>--Air<br />
Force<br />
<strong>Environmental</strong> Intent<br />
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment<br />
Accountability 3 4 75 Excellent<br />
GRI 2005 Social Indicator for Public Agencies 0 2 0 Needs substantial improvement<br />
Management 6 8 75 Excellent<br />
Policy 9 12 75 Excellent<br />
Urban <strong>Environmental</strong> Accords 1 2 50 Good<br />
Vision 3 4 75 Excellent<br />
<strong>Environmental</strong> Reporting<br />
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment<br />
Energy 2 14 14 Needs substantial improvement<br />
Management 0 21 0 Needs substantial improvement<br />
Recycling 0 14 0 Needs substantial improvement<br />
Waste 2 21 10 Needs substantial improvement<br />
Water 1 7 14 Needs substantial improvement<br />
Social Intent<br />
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment<br />
Accountability 0 4 0 Needs substantial improvement<br />
Management 7 10 70 Good<br />
Policy 4 6 67 Good<br />
Public Sector 0 4 0 Needs substantial improvement<br />
Social Demographic 1 2 50 Good<br />
Vision 2 4 50 Good<br />
Social Reporting<br />
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment<br />
Human Rights 8 77 10 Needs substantial improvement<br />
Management 3 7 43 Needs improvement<br />
Qualitative Social 11 35 31 Needs improvement<br />
Quantitative Social 1 42 2 Needs substantial improvement<br />
www.roberts.cmc.edu 25 Sustainability Reporting <strong>of</strong> Largest U.S. Federal Agencies
B<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> <strong>Defense</strong>--<br />
Army<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> <strong>Defense</strong>--Army 2010 Web Pages<br />
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<br />
more figures and data than found on most other agency sustainability websites as well. Future sustainability goals were highly detailed in the webpages<br />
and abundant numerical data made it easy to chart progress over time.<br />
Analyst(s): Starrisha Marche Godfrey-Canada<br />
E=Total <strong>Environmental</strong> Score, ESA=<strong>Environmental</strong> Sector Average Score, EI=<strong>Environmental</strong> Intent, ER=<strong>Environmental</strong> Reporting, EP=<strong>Environmental</strong> Performance, S=Total Social<br />
Score, SSA=Social Sector Average Score, SI=Social Intent, SR=Social Reporting, SP=Social Performance<br />
Comparison with sector averages<br />
Source <strong>of</strong> points<br />
Distribution <strong>of</strong> points<br />
E<br />
ESA<br />
S<br />
SSA<br />
0 25 50 75<br />
E<br />
58%<br />
S<br />
42%<br />
69<br />
24<br />
33 29<br />
0<br />
2<br />
EI ER EP SI SR SP<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> <strong>Defense</strong>--<br />
Army<br />
<strong>Environmental</strong> Intent<br />
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment<br />
Accountability 2 4 50 Good<br />
GRI 2005 Social Indicator for Public Agencies 0 2 0 Needs substantial improvement<br />
Management 6 8 75 Excellent<br />
Policy 9 12 75 Excellent<br />
Urban <strong>Environmental</strong> Accords 2 2 100 Excellent<br />
Vision 3 4 75 Excellent<br />
<strong>Environmental</strong> Reporting<br />
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment<br />
Energy 3 14 21 Needs substantial improvement<br />
Management 3 21 14 Needs substantial improvement<br />
Recycling 1 14 7 Needs substantial improvement<br />
Waste 5 21 24 Needs substantial improvement<br />
Water 1 7 14 Needs substantial improvement<br />
Social Intent<br />
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment<br />
Accountability 1 4 25 Needs improvement<br />
Management 4 10 40 Needs improvement<br />
Policy 0 6 0 Needs substantial improvement<br />
Public Sector 1 4 25 Needs improvement<br />
Social Demographic 1 2 50 Good<br />
Vision 3 4 75 Excellent<br />
Social Reporting<br />
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment<br />
Human Rights 16 77 21 Needs substantial improvement<br />
Management 3 7 43 Needs improvement<br />
Qualitative Social 8 35 23 Needs substantial improvement<br />
Quantitative Social 4 42 10 Needs substantial improvement<br />
www.roberts.cmc.edu 26 Sustainability Reporting <strong>of</strong> Largest U.S. Federal Agencies
A<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> <strong>Defense</strong>--<br />
Navy<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> <strong>Defense</strong>--Navy 2010 Web Pages<br />
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<br />
sustainability information into one page, it would be one <strong>of</strong> the most informative and complete sustainability websites <strong>of</strong> any agency., but it was still above<br />
average.<br />
Analyst(s): Timothy Kareem Smedley<br />
E=Total <strong>Environmental</strong> Score, ESA=<strong>Environmental</strong> Sector Average Score, EI=<strong>Environmental</strong> Intent, ER=<strong>Environmental</strong> Reporting, EP=<strong>Environmental</strong> Performance, S=Total Social<br />
Score, SSA=Social Sector Average Score, SI=Social Intent, SR=Social Reporting, SP=Social Performance<br />
Comparison with sector averages<br />
Source <strong>of</strong> points<br />
Distribution <strong>of</strong> points<br />
E<br />
ESA<br />
S<br />
SSA<br />
0 25 50 75<br />
E<br />
47%<br />
S<br />
53%<br />
87<br />
72<br />
38<br />
25<br />
0<br />
4<br />
EI ER EP SI SR SP<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> <strong>Defense</strong>--<br />
Navy<br />
<strong>Environmental</strong> Intent<br />
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment<br />
Accountability 4 4 100 Excellent<br />
GRI 2005 Social Indicator for Public Agencies 2 2 100 Excellent<br />
Management 4 8 50 Good<br />
Policy 9 12 75 Excellent<br />
Urban <strong>Environmental</strong> Accords 2 2 100 Excellent<br />
Vision 2 4 50 Good<br />
<strong>Environmental</strong> Reporting<br />
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment<br />
Energy 4 14 29 Needs improvement<br />
Management 4 21 19 Needs substantial improvement<br />
Recycling 3 14 21 Needs substantial improvement<br />
Waste 3 21 14 Needs substantial improvement<br />
Water 0 7 0 Needs substantial improvement<br />
Social Intent<br />
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment<br />
Accountability 2 4 50 Good<br />
Management 10 10 100 Excellent<br />
Policy 6 6 100 Excellent<br />
Public Sector 2 4 50 Good<br />
Social Demographic 2 2 100 Excellent<br />
Vision 4 4 100 Excellent<br />
Social Reporting<br />
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment<br />
Human Rights 22 77 29 Needs improvement<br />
Management 3 7 43 Needs improvement<br />
Qualitative Social 14 35 40 Needs improvement<br />
Quantitative Social 3 42 7 Needs substantial improvement<br />
www.roberts.cmc.edu 27 Sustainability Reporting <strong>of</strong> Largest U.S. Federal Agencies
A+<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> Energy<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> Energy 2010 Web Pages<br />
The Department <strong>of</strong> Energy's website indicates significant effort towards making its facilities and business management environmentally sustainable. The<br />
“Sustainability Outreach Program” is an in-depth and overarching program that guides the Department <strong>of</strong> Energy’s environmental strategies such as, green<br />
purchasing, green buildings, energy saving products and education. Also, this organization effectively displays worker demographics and sentiment. Oddly,<br />
the Department <strong>of</strong> Energy falls short in providing quantitative data on energy and water consumption, as well as on hazardous waste production and<br />
disposal, all items that are no doubt extremely carefully monitored by them.<br />
Analyst(s):<br />
Emily Aiko Coleman<br />
E=Total <strong>Environmental</strong> Score, ESA=<strong>Environmental</strong> Sector Average Score, EI=<strong>Environmental</strong> Intent, ER=<strong>Environmental</strong> Reporting, EP=<strong>Environmental</strong> Performance, S=Total Social<br />
Score, SSA=Social Sector Average Score, SI=Social Intent, SR=Social Reporting, SP=Social Performance<br />
Comparison with sector averages<br />
Source <strong>of</strong> points<br />
Distribution <strong>of</strong> points<br />
E<br />
ESA<br />
S<br />
SSA<br />
0 25 50 75<br />
E<br />
37%<br />
S<br />
63%<br />
81<br />
67<br />
50<br />
15<br />
5 0<br />
EI ER EP SI SR SP<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> Energy<br />
<strong>Environmental</strong> Intent<br />
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment<br />
Accountability 4 4 100 Excellent<br />
GRI 2005 Social Indicator for Public Agencies 2 2 100 Excellent<br />
Management 6 8 75 Excellent<br />
Policy 8 12 67 Good<br />
Urban <strong>Environmental</strong> Accords 2 2 100 Excellent<br />
Vision 4 4 100 Excellent<br />
<strong>Environmental</strong> Reporting<br />
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment<br />
Energy 1 14 7 Needs substantial improvement<br />
Management 0 21 0 Needs substantial improvement<br />
Recycling 2 14 14 Needs substantial improvement<br />
Waste 0 21 0 Needs substantial improvement<br />
Water 0 7 0 Needs substantial improvement<br />
Social Intent<br />
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment<br />
Accountability 2 4 50 Good<br />
Management 10 10 100 Excellent<br />
Policy 4 6 67 Good<br />
Public Sector 2 4 50 Good<br />
Social Demographic 2 2 100 Excellent<br />
Vision 0 4 0 Needs substantial improvement<br />
Social Reporting<br />
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment<br />
Human Rights 42 77 55 Good<br />
Management 3 7 43 Needs improvement<br />
Qualitative Social 15 35 43 Needs improvement<br />
Quantitative Social 3 42 7 Needs substantial improvement<br />
www.roberts.cmc.edu 28 Sustainability Reporting <strong>of</strong> Largest U.S. Federal Agencies
A+<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> Homeland<br />
Security<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> Homeland Security 2010 Web Pages<br />
The Department <strong>of</strong> Homeland Security conducts numerous operations to protect the nation’s borders. In its web pages, DHS notes its 2008 policy aimed to<br />
develop and implement sustainable practices programs to ensure its operations are carried out in an environmentally sound manner. As a result, the DHS<br />
has been active in investigating the environmental impact <strong>of</strong> its actions, especially those <strong>of</strong> the National Bio and Agro-<strong>Defense</strong> Facility, and has<br />
implemented reasonable alternatives to help mitigate environmental damage. For example, the agency addresses facility nighttime lighting affects on<br />
wildlife and surrounding residents, and has adjusted operation boundaries to protect natural biodiversity. The Department <strong>of</strong> Homeland Security, however,<br />
provides little quantitative workforce data such as turnover rate, lost workday, accident indices, and information on employee health and safety.<br />
Analyst(s): Karina Gomez<br />
E=Total <strong>Environmental</strong> Score, ESA=<strong>Environmental</strong> Sector Average Score, EI=<strong>Environmental</strong> Intent, ER=<strong>Environmental</strong> Reporting, EP=<strong>Environmental</strong> Performance, S=Total Social<br />
Score, SSA=Social Sector Average Score, SI=Social Intent, SR=Social Reporting, SP=Social Performance<br />
Comparison with sector averages<br />
Source <strong>of</strong> points<br />
Distribution <strong>of</strong> points<br />
E<br />
ESA<br />
S<br />
SSA<br />
0 25 50 75<br />
E<br />
52%<br />
S<br />
48%<br />
91<br />
63<br />
40<br />
24<br />
0<br />
4<br />
EI ER EP SI SR SP<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> Homeland<br />
Security<br />
<strong>Environmental</strong> Intent<br />
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment<br />
Accountability 3 4 75 Excellent<br />
GRI 2005 Social Indicator for Public Agencies 2 2 100 Excellent<br />
Management 6 8 75 Excellent<br />
Policy 12 12 100 Excellent<br />
Urban <strong>Environmental</strong> Accords 2 2 100 Excellent<br />
Vision 4 4 100 Excellent<br />
<strong>Environmental</strong> Reporting<br />
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment<br />
Energy 4 14 29 Needs improvement<br />
Management 0 21 0 Needs substantial improvement<br />
Recycling 3 14 21 Needs substantial improvement<br />
Waste 4 21 19 Needs substantial improvement<br />
Water 2 7 29 Needs improvement<br />
Social Intent<br />
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment<br />
Accountability 2 4 50 Good<br />
Management 8 10 80 Excellent<br />
Policy 3 6 50 Good<br />
Public Sector 3 4 75 Excellent<br />
Social Demographic 2 2 100 Excellent<br />
Vision 1 4 25 Needs improvement<br />
Social Reporting<br />
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment<br />
Human Rights 24 77 31 Needs improvement<br />
Management 2 7 29 Needs improvement<br />
Qualitative Social 15 35 43 Needs improvement<br />
Quantitative Social 3 42 7 Needs substantial improvement<br />
www.roberts.cmc.edu 29 Sustainability Reporting <strong>of</strong> Largest U.S. Federal Agencies
B-<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> the Interior<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> the Interior 2010 Web Pages<br />
The U.S. Department <strong>of</strong> the Interior’s FY 2008 Annual <strong>Environmental</strong> Management Systems Report, FY 2008-2012 Workforce and Succession Plan, Green<br />
Purchasing Plan, Strategic Sustainability Performance Plan, and 2010 web pages contain much information on the department’s environmental and social<br />
programs and goals. The department has numerous energy and water conservation projects including the implementation <strong>of</strong> solar panels. Although the<br />
department has a good discussion <strong>of</strong> these programs and initiatives, and states that data are collected and reported, not much <strong>of</strong> the data is provided;<br />
lacking are data on environmental issues such as energy use, water conservation, and waste production; and on employee data such as turnover and<br />
accident rate. The Department <strong>of</strong> the Interior has a number <strong>of</strong> initiatives that show its dedication to the country’s Native American population; however, it<br />
does not report similar initiatives on its responsibility to its workforce, nor does it provide a code <strong>of</strong> ethics.<br />
Analyst(s):<br />
Karina Gomez<br />
E=Total <strong>Environmental</strong> Score, ESA=<strong>Environmental</strong> Sector Average Score, EI=<strong>Environmental</strong> Intent, ER=<strong>Environmental</strong> Reporting, EP=<strong>Environmental</strong> Performance, S=Total Social<br />
Score, SSA=Social Sector Average Score, SI=Social Intent, SR=Social Reporting, SP=Social Performance<br />
Comparison with sector averages<br />
Source <strong>of</strong> points<br />
Distribution <strong>of</strong> points<br />
E<br />
ESA<br />
S<br />
SSA<br />
0 25 50 75<br />
E<br />
53%<br />
S<br />
47%<br />
63<br />
57<br />
11<br />
20<br />
0<br />
0<br />
EI ER EP SI SR SP<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> the Interior<br />
<strong>Environmental</strong> Intent<br />
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment<br />
Accountability 2 4 50 Good<br />
GRI 2005 Social Indicator for Public Agencies 0 2 0 Needs substantial improvement<br />
Management 6 8 75 Excellent<br />
Policy 7 12 58 Good<br />
Urban <strong>Environmental</strong> Accords 1 2 50 Good<br />
Vision 4 4 100 Excellent<br />
<strong>Environmental</strong> Reporting<br />
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment<br />
Energy 2 14 14 Needs substantial improvement<br />
Management 1 21 5 Needs substantial improvement<br />
Recycling 1 14 7 Needs substantial improvement<br />
Waste 1 21 5 Needs substantial improvement<br />
Water 1 7 14 Needs substantial improvement<br />
Social Intent<br />
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment<br />
Accountability 2 4 50 Good<br />
Management 8 10 80 Excellent<br />
Policy 0 6 0 Needs substantial improvement<br />
Public Sector 2 4 50 Good<br />
Social Demographic 1 2 50 Good<br />
Vision 4 4 100 Excellent<br />
Social Reporting<br />
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment<br />
Human Rights 10 77 13 Needs substantial improvement<br />
Management 2 7 29 Needs improvement<br />
Qualitative Social 8 35 23 Needs substantial improvement<br />
Quantitative Social 1 42 2 Needs substantial improvement<br />
www.roberts.cmc.edu 30 Sustainability Reporting <strong>of</strong> Largest U.S. Federal Agencies
B+<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong><br />
Transportation<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> Transportation 2010 Web Pages<br />
The U.S. Department <strong>of</strong> Transportation is a huge agency and provides a large amount <strong>of</strong> sustainability information on its website, but it is not centralized,<br />
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<br />
divisions. Similar to the sustainability issue, it is difficult to find overall departmental procedures, guidelines, and employment information for the entire<br />
Department <strong>of</strong> Transportation. The next iteration <strong>of</strong> DOT's website should provide a more integrated approach.<br />
Analyst(s): Jesse Maximilliano Madrigal<br />
E=Total <strong>Environmental</strong> Score, ESA=<strong>Environmental</strong> Sector Average Score, EI=<strong>Environmental</strong> Intent, ER=<strong>Environmental</strong> Reporting, EP=<strong>Environmental</strong> Performance, S=Total Social<br />
Score, SSA=Social Sector Average Score, SI=Social Intent, SR=Social Reporting, SP=Social Performance<br />
Comparison with sector averages<br />
Source <strong>of</strong> points<br />
Distribution <strong>of</strong> points<br />
E<br />
ESA<br />
S<br />
SSA<br />
0 25 50 75<br />
E<br />
50%<br />
S<br />
50%<br />
97<br />
78<br />
13<br />
23<br />
0<br />
2<br />
EI ER EP SI SR SP<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong><br />
Transportation<br />
<strong>Environmental</strong> Intent<br />
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment<br />
Accountability 2 4 50 Good<br />
GRI 2005 Social Indicator for Public Agencies 2 2 100 Excellent<br />
Management 4 8 50 Good<br />
Policy 11 12 92 Excellent<br />
Urban <strong>Environmental</strong> Accords 2 2 100 Excellent<br />
Vision 4 4 100 Excellent<br />
<strong>Environmental</strong> Reporting<br />
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment<br />
Energy 1 14 7 Needs substantial improvement<br />
Management 2 21 10 Needs substantial improvement<br />
Recycling 0 14 0 Needs substantial improvement<br />
Waste 4 21 19 Needs substantial improvement<br />
Water 0 7 0 Needs substantial improvement<br />
Social Intent<br />
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment<br />
Accountability 4 4 100 Excellent<br />
Management 10 10 100 Excellent<br />
Policy 6 6 100 Excellent<br />
Public Sector 3 4 75 Excellent<br />
Social Demographic 2 2 100 Excellent<br />
Vision 4 4 100 Excellent<br />
Social Reporting<br />
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment<br />
Human Rights 12 77 16 Needs substantial improvement<br />
Management 2 7 29 Needs improvement<br />
Qualitative Social 8 35 23 Needs substantial improvement<br />
Quantitative Social 4 42 10 Needs substantial improvement<br />
www.roberts.cmc.edu 31 Sustainability Reporting <strong>of</strong> Largest U.S. Federal Agencies
C+<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>.Housing and<br />
Urban Dev.<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>.Housing and Urban Dev. 2010 Web Pages<br />
The Department <strong>of</strong> Housing and Urban Development (HUD) does not appear to have developed a comprehensive environmental department, though it has<br />
established environmental coordinators for each region with appropriate contact information. Most environmentally related topics can be found through<br />
direct searches on the home web page, but are typically addressed as complementary issues and rarely acknowledged as the primary target <strong>of</strong> any <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Department's activities. For example, water and energy conservation initiatives are coordinated through housing development and community education<br />
which may be fine, but the presentation makes it difficult to ascertain their importance to HUD. HUD could improve its website by coordinating its<br />
environment-related topics to a single domain that is user-friendly.<br />
Analyst(s): Ryan Anderson<br />
E=Total <strong>Environmental</strong> Score, ESA=<strong>Environmental</strong> Sector Average Score, EI=<strong>Environmental</strong> Intent, ER=<strong>Environmental</strong> Reporting, EP=<strong>Environmental</strong> Performance, S=Total Social<br />
Score, SSA=Social Sector Average Score, SI=Social Intent, SR=Social Reporting, SP=Social Performance<br />
Comparison with sector averages<br />
Source <strong>of</strong> points<br />
Distribution <strong>of</strong> points<br />
E<br />
ESA<br />
S<br />
SSA<br />
0 25 50 75<br />
E<br />
55%<br />
S<br />
45%<br />
63<br />
47<br />
18<br />
7 0<br />
0<br />
EI ER EP SI SR SP<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>.Housing and<br />
Urban Dev.<br />
<strong>Environmental</strong> Intent<br />
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment<br />
Accountability 3 4 75 Excellent<br />
GRI 2005 Social Indicator for Public Agencies 0 2 0 Needs substantial improvement<br />
Management 4 8 50 Good<br />
Policy 10 12 83 Excellent<br />
Urban <strong>Environmental</strong> Accords 2 2 100 Excellent<br />
Vision 1 4 25 Needs improvement<br />
<strong>Environmental</strong> Reporting<br />
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment<br />
Energy 2 14 14 Needs substantial improvement<br />
Management 1 21 5 Needs substantial improvement<br />
Recycling 0 14 0 Needs substantial improvement<br />
Waste 1 21 5 Needs substantial improvement<br />
Water 0 7 0 Needs substantial improvement<br />
Social Intent<br />
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment<br />
Accountability 3 4 75 Excellent<br />
Management 1 10 10 Needs substantial improvement<br />
Policy 4 6 67 Good<br />
Public Sector 1 4 25 Needs improvement<br />
Social Demographic 2 2 100 Excellent<br />
Vision 3 4 75 Excellent<br />
Social Reporting<br />
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment<br />
Human Rights 4 77 5 Needs substantial improvement<br />
Management 0 7 0 Needs substantial improvement<br />
Qualitative Social 12 35 34 Needs improvement<br />
Quantitative Social 2 42 5 Needs substantial improvement<br />
www.roberts.cmc.edu 32 Sustainability Reporting <strong>of</strong> Largest U.S. Federal Agencies
B+<br />
General Services<br />
Administration<br />
General Services Administration 2010 Web Pages<br />
The GSA expresses a commitment to improving its sustainability stance as well as aiding other actors in doing the same. The use <strong>of</strong> renewable energy and<br />
adopting LEED guidelines for its buildings illustrates the move towards a more sustainable relationship with the environment. The GSA website does not<br />
provide information on specific policies it has adopted, however, nor any quantitative performance data. It is also silent on human rights policy issues and<br />
measures taken to insure compliance. The GSA could easily improve its PSI rating simply by posting quantitative data it surely has.<br />
Analyst(s): Natalya Ratan<br />
E=Total <strong>Environmental</strong> Score, ESA=<strong>Environmental</strong> Sector Average Score, EI=<strong>Environmental</strong> Intent, ER=<strong>Environmental</strong> Reporting, EP=<strong>Environmental</strong> Performance, S=Total Social<br />
Score, SSA=Social Sector Average Score, SI=Social Intent, SR=Social Reporting, SP=Social Performance<br />
Comparison with sector averages<br />
Source <strong>of</strong> points<br />
Distribution <strong>of</strong> points<br />
E<br />
ESA<br />
S<br />
SSA<br />
0 25 50 75<br />
E<br />
50%<br />
S<br />
50%<br />
84<br />
60<br />
31<br />
7<br />
0<br />
0<br />
EI ER EP SI SR SP<br />
General Services<br />
Administration<br />
<strong>Environmental</strong> Intent<br />
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment<br />
Accountability 4 4 100 Excellent<br />
GRI 2005 Social Indicator for Public Agencies 0 2 0 Needs substantial improvement<br />
Management 7 8 88 Excellent<br />
Policy 10 12 83 Excellent<br />
Urban <strong>Environmental</strong> Accords 2 2 100 Excellent<br />
Vision 4 4 100 Excellent<br />
<strong>Environmental</strong> Reporting<br />
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment<br />
Energy 2 14 14 Needs substantial improvement<br />
Management 0 21 0 Needs substantial improvement<br />
Recycling 1 14 7 Needs substantial improvement<br />
Waste 0 21 0 Needs substantial improvement<br />
Water 1 7 14 Needs substantial improvement<br />
Social Intent<br />
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment<br />
Accountability 4 4 100 Excellent<br />
Management 6 10 60 Good<br />
Policy 4 6 67 Good<br />
Public Sector 0 4 0 Needs substantial improvement<br />
Social Demographic 2 2 100 Excellent<br />
Vision 2 4 50 Good<br />
Social Reporting<br />
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment<br />
Human Rights 12 77 16 Needs substantial improvement<br />
Management 3 7 43 Needs improvement<br />
Qualitative Social 15 35 43 Needs improvement<br />
Quantitative Social 1 42 2 Needs substantial improvement<br />
www.roberts.cmc.edu 33 Sustainability Reporting <strong>of</strong> Largest U.S. Federal Agencies
B+<br />
NASA<br />
NASA 2010 Web Pages<br />
NASA has a very user-friendly website which lists many sustainability initiatives. Although this is great, there were no data whatsoever on actual<br />
environmental performance.<br />
Analyst(s):<br />
Dante Lamarr Benson<br />
E=Total <strong>Environmental</strong> Score, ESA=<strong>Environmental</strong> Sector Average Score, EI=<strong>Environmental</strong> Intent, ER=<strong>Environmental</strong> Reporting, EP=<strong>Environmental</strong> Performance, S=Total Social<br />
Score, SSA=Social Sector Average Score, SI=Social Intent, SR=Social Reporting, SP=Social Performance<br />
Comparison with sector averages<br />
Source <strong>of</strong> points<br />
Distribution <strong>of</strong> points<br />
E<br />
ESA<br />
S<br />
SSA<br />
0 25 50 75<br />
E<br />
36%<br />
S<br />
64%<br />
67<br />
47<br />
33<br />
9<br />
13<br />
0<br />
EI ER EP SI SR SP<br />
NASA<br />
<strong>Environmental</strong> Intent<br />
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment<br />
Accountability 3 4 75 Excellent<br />
GRI 2005 Social Indicator for Public Agencies 0 2 0 Needs substantial improvement<br />
Management 3 8 38 Needs improvement<br />
Policy 7 12 58 Good<br />
Urban <strong>Environmental</strong> Accords 0 2 0 Needs substantial improvement<br />
Vision 2 4 50 Good<br />
<strong>Environmental</strong> Reporting<br />
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment<br />
Energy 2 14 14 Needs substantial improvement<br />
Management 0 21 0 Needs substantial improvement<br />
Recycling 0 14 0 Needs substantial improvement<br />
Waste 3 21 14 Needs substantial improvement<br />
Water 0 7 0 Needs substantial improvement<br />
Social Intent<br />
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment<br />
Accountability 4 4 100 Excellent<br />
Management 10 10 100 Excellent<br />
Policy 2 6 33 Needs improvement<br />
Public Sector 0 4 0 Needs substantial improvement<br />
Social Demographic 2 2 100 Excellent<br />
Vision 2 4 50 Good<br />
Social Reporting<br />
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment<br />
Human Rights 36 77 47 Needs improvement<br />
Management 0 7 0 Needs substantial improvement<br />
Qualitative Social 6 35 17 Needs substantial improvement<br />
Quantitative Social 1 42 2 Needs substantial improvement<br />
www.roberts.cmc.edu 34 Sustainability Reporting <strong>of</strong> Largest U.S. Federal Agencies
B-<br />
USEPA<br />
USEPA 2010 Web Pages<br />
Unsurprisingly, the EPA appears to be the environmental leader in this group <strong>of</strong> US federal agencies. It was the first federal agency to purchase green<br />
power equal to one-hundred percent <strong>of</strong> its estimated annual electricity use, either through direct delivery or renewable energy certificates and it reports a<br />
lot <strong>of</strong> information about its agency-wide environmental initiative, Greening EPA. The website provides information about its programs to address energy and<br />
water conservation, green power and buildings, recycling, waste reduction and stormwater management. Other practices, like “green meetings” and<br />
“green janitorial services,” aimed at reducing the agency’s environmental footprint are also addressed. Quantitative data are only provided for agency-wide<br />
energy and water use, but the EPA does outline many goals for decreasing energy and water consumption and for increasing recycling rates and<br />
renewable energy use. Besides charged with protecting the natural environment, the EPA mission also includes protecting human health. However, only a<br />
small amount <strong>of</strong> information about the health and human rights <strong>of</strong> its employees is presented on its website. For example, it does not report metrics such as<br />
employee turnover, lost workday case rates, or accident rates, and no information is provided about EPA policies for employee volunteerism, fair<br />
compensation, free association, forced labor, or working hours. The website does give a detailed report <strong>of</strong> the gender and racial distribution <strong>of</strong> its<br />
workforce in aggregate and <strong>of</strong>fice-specific terms, a thing uncommon on the sites <strong>of</strong> most other agencies. Other highlights <strong>of</strong> the EPA’s social reporting are<br />
its <strong>Environmental</strong> Education Department and its Federal Women’s Program.<br />
Analyst(s):<br />
Juliet Marie Archer<br />
E=Total <strong>Environmental</strong> Score, ESA=<strong>Environmental</strong> Sector Average Score, EI=<strong>Environmental</strong> Intent, ER=<strong>Environmental</strong> Reporting, EP=<strong>Environmental</strong> Performance, S=Total Social<br />
Score, SSA=Social Sector Average Score, SI=Social Intent, SR=Social Reporting, SP=Social Performance<br />
Comparison with sector averages<br />
Source <strong>of</strong> points<br />
Distribution <strong>of</strong> points<br />
E<br />
ESA<br />
S<br />
SSA<br />
0 25 50 75<br />
E<br />
64%<br />
S<br />
36%<br />
81<br />
43<br />
18<br />
19<br />
0<br />
0<br />
EI ER EP SI SR SP<br />
USEPA<br />
<strong>Environmental</strong> Intent<br />
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment<br />
Accountability 3 4 75 Excellent<br />
GRI 2005 Social Indicator for Public Agencies 0 2 0 Needs substantial improvement<br />
Management 7 8 88 Excellent<br />
Policy 11 12 92 Excellent<br />
Urban <strong>Environmental</strong> Accords 2 2 100 Excellent<br />
Vision 3 4 75 Excellent<br />
<strong>Environmental</strong> Reporting<br />
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment<br />
Energy 3 14 21 Needs substantial improvement<br />
Management 1 21 5 Needs substantial improvement<br />
Recycling 2 14 14 Needs substantial improvement<br />
Waste 1 21 5 Needs substantial improvement<br />
Water 3 7 43 Needs improvement<br />
Social Intent<br />
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment<br />
Accountability 2 4 50 Good<br />
Management 5 10 50 Good<br />
Policy 4 6 67 Good<br />
Public Sector 0 4 0 Needs substantial improvement<br />
Social Demographic 2 2 100 Excellent<br />
Vision 0 4 0 Needs substantial improvement<br />
Social Reporting<br />
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment<br />
Human Rights 10 77 13 Needs substantial improvement<br />
Management 0 7 0 Needs substantial improvement<br />
Qualitative Social 8 35 23 Needs substantial improvement<br />
Quantitative Social 1 42 2 Needs substantial improvement<br />
www.roberts.cmc.edu 35 Sustainability Reporting <strong>of</strong> Largest U.S. Federal Agencies
<strong>Environmental</strong> visionary statement<br />
-Discussion: includes a clear visionary statement expressing an organizational<br />
commitment to good environmental performance.<br />
-Initiatives/actions: include measures to fulfill that commitment.<br />
Discussion<br />
Discussion Pg#<br />
Initiatives/Actions Initiatives Pg#<br />
<strong>Environmental</strong> impediments and challenges<br />
-Discussion: <strong>of</strong> impediments and challenges faced by the organization in<br />
attempting to realize its environmental vision and commitments.<br />
-Initiatives/actions: include measures to overcome them.<br />
Discussion<br />
Discussion Pg#<br />
Initiatives/Actions Initiatives Pg#<br />
Social visionary statement<br />
42<br />
-Discussion: includes a clear visionary statement expressing an organizational<br />
commitment good social performance.<br />
-Initiatives/actions: include measures taken to fulfill that commitment.<br />
Discussion<br />
Discussion Pg#<br />
Initiatives/Actions Initiatives Pg#<br />
Social impediments and challenges<br />
Discussion: <strong>of</strong> impediments and challenges faced by the organization in<br />
attempting to realize its social vision and commitments.<br />
Initiatives/actions: include measures taken to overcome them.<br />
Discussion<br />
Discussion Pg#<br />
Initiatives/Actions Initiatives Pg#<br />
<strong>Environmental</strong> policy statement<br />
9<br />
-Discussion: includes a formal statement <strong>of</strong> the organization's environmental<br />
policy or plan.<br />
-Initiatives/actions: include a description <strong>of</strong> how the policy is being<br />
implemented.<br />
Discussion<br />
Discussion Pg#<br />
Initiatives/Actions Initiatives Pg#<br />
Social policy statement<br />
45<br />
-Discussion: includes a formal statement <strong>of</strong> the company's social policy or plan.<br />
-Initiatives/actions: include a description <strong>of</strong> how the policy is being<br />
implemented.<br />
Discussion<br />
Discussion Pg#<br />
Initiatives/Actions Initiatives Pg#<br />
Report contact person<br />
4<br />
-Discussion: identifies the person specifically designated to answer questions<br />
about the report or sustainability issues. Investor relations or public relations<br />
contact representatives are not valid contacts for this question.<br />
-Initiatives/actions: to facilitate such contact, i.e. providing email address,<br />
phone number, or a link for feedback and questions.<br />
Discussion<br />
Discussion Pg#<br />
Initiatives/Actions Initiatives Pg#<br />
<strong>Environmental</strong> management structure<br />
19<br />
-Discussion: <strong>of</strong> the organization's environmental management structure or<br />
staffing.<br />
-Initiatives/actions: include identification <strong>of</strong> individuals currently holding the<br />
staff positions<br />
Discussion<br />
Discussion Pg#<br />
Initiatives/Actions Initiatives Pg#<br />
Government Institutions<br />
5<br />
6<br />
43<br />
<strong>Environmental</strong> management system<br />
20<br />
-Discussion: includes a statement <strong>of</strong> adoption <strong>of</strong> ISO 14001 or other formal<br />
environmental management system.<br />
-Initiatives/actions: include information on the extent to which the system has<br />
been implemented.<br />
Discussion<br />
Discussion Pg#<br />
Initiatives/Actions Initiatives Pg#<br />
Health and Safety, or Social organizational structure 51<br />
-Discussion: <strong>of</strong> organizational structure or staffing for ensuring health and<br />
safety or social responsibility.<br />
-Initiatives/actions: include identification <strong>of</strong> the individuals currently holding<br />
the staff positions.<br />
Discussion<br />
Discussion Pg#<br />
Initiatives/Actions Initiatives Pg#<br />
Stakeholder consultation<br />
23<br />
-Discussion: <strong>of</strong> consultation and dialogue with stakeholders about the<br />
organization's environmental aspects or impacts.<br />
-Initiatives/actions: include identification <strong>of</strong> specific consultation activities.<br />
Discussion<br />
Discussion Pg#<br />
Initiatives/Actions Initiatives Pg#<br />
<strong>Environmental</strong> education<br />
16<br />
-Discussion: <strong>of</strong> efforts to promote environmental education and awareness <strong>of</strong><br />
employees, the general public, or children.<br />
-Initiatives/actions: taken to provide such education.<br />
Discussion<br />
Discussion Pg#<br />
Initiatives/Actions Initiatives Pg#<br />
<strong>Environmental</strong> accounting<br />
-Discussion: <strong>of</strong> environmental expenditures<br />
-Initiatives/actions: include detailed accounting <strong>of</strong> such expenditures.<br />
Discussion<br />
Discussion Pg#<br />
Initiatives/Actions Initiatives Pg#<br />
Third-party validation<br />
54<br />
-Discussion: <strong>of</strong> the value (or lack there<strong>of</strong>) <strong>of</strong> third-party auditing or validation.<br />
-Initiatives/actions: include formal auditing or validation by a qualified<br />
external third-party source.<br />
Discussion<br />
Discussion Pg#<br />
Initiatives/Actions Initiatives Pg#<br />
Climate change/global warming<br />
10<br />
-Discussion: <strong>of</strong> the organization's position on climate change and/or global<br />
warming.<br />
-Initiatives/actions: include measures taken by the organization to decrease its<br />
contribution to climate change.<br />
Discussion<br />
Discussion Pg#<br />
Initiatives/Actions Initiatives Pg#<br />
Habitat/ecosystem conservation<br />
11<br />
-Discussion: <strong>of</strong> the organization's position on conserving natural ecosystems<br />
and habitat.<br />
-Initiatives/actions: taken to increase conservation <strong>of</strong> natural ecosystems either<br />
associated with or separate from the organization's business activities.<br />
Discussion<br />
Discussion Pg#<br />
Initiatives/Actions Initiatives Pg#<br />
21<br />
www.roberts.cmc.edu 36 Sustainability Reporting <strong>of</strong> Largest U.S. Federal Agencies
Biodiversity<br />
-Discussion: <strong>of</strong> the organization's position on biodiversity.<br />
-Initiatives/actions: taken by to the organization to foster biodiversity.<br />
Discussion<br />
Discussion Pg#<br />
Initiatives/Actions Initiatives Pg#<br />
Green purchasing<br />
-Discussion: about preferential purchasing <strong>of</strong> eco-friendly (non-polluting,<br />
recycled, recyclable, etc.) products.<br />
-Initiatives/actions: taken to implement such purchasing.<br />
Discussion<br />
Discussion Pg#<br />
Initiatives/Actions Initiatives Pg#<br />
Supplier screening based on social or environmental 49<br />
performance/ Supplier management<br />
-Discussion: or description <strong>of</strong> procedures to evaluate and select suppliers on<br />
their ability to meet the requirements <strong>of</strong> the company's social or environmental<br />
policy and principles.<br />
-Initiatives/actions: include measures to implement or assure such screening or<br />
selection.<br />
Discussion<br />
Discussion Pg#<br />
Initiatives/Actions Initiatives Pg#<br />
Workforce pr<strong>of</strong>ile: Ethnicities/Race<br />
-Discussion: <strong>of</strong> racial or ethnic distribution <strong>of</strong> workforce.<br />
-Initiatives/actions: taken to avoid racial or ethnic discrimination.<br />
Discussion<br />
Discussion Pg#<br />
Initiatives/Actions Initiatives Pg#<br />
Workforce pr<strong>of</strong>ile: Gender<br />
-Discussion: <strong>of</strong> gender distribution <strong>of</strong> workforce.<br />
-Initiatives/actions: taken to avoid gender discrimination and achieve<br />
appropriate balance<br />
Discussion<br />
Discussion Pg#<br />
Initiatives/Actions Initiatives Pg#<br />
Workforce pr<strong>of</strong>ile: Age<br />
52<br />
-Discussion: <strong>of</strong> age distribution <strong>of</strong> workforce.<br />
-Initiatives/actions: include measures taken to avoid age discrimination or to<br />
encourage a balanced age structure.<br />
Discussion<br />
Discussion Pg#<br />
Initiatives/Actions Initiatives Pg#<br />
Employment for individuals with disabilities<br />
80<br />
-Discussion: <strong>of</strong> appropriate actions to accommodate employees with disabilities.<br />
-Initiatives/actions: taken to implement such accommodations.<br />
Discussion<br />
Discussion Pg#<br />
Initiatives/Actions Initiatives Pg#<br />
Emergency preparedness program<br />
53<br />
-Discussion: <strong>of</strong> emergency preparedness programs to prepare employees or the<br />
public to cope with potential emergencies at the organization's facilities.<br />
-Initiatives/actions: include measures taken to implement such programs.<br />
Discussion<br />
Discussion Pg#<br />
Initiatives/Actions Initiatives Pg#<br />
Government Institutions<br />
12<br />
13<br />
17<br />
18<br />
Employee training for career development<br />
82<br />
-Discussion: <strong>of</strong> training, skills and learning programs appropriate to support<br />
employees' upward mobility.<br />
-Initiatives/actions: taken to implement such training.<br />
Discussion<br />
Discussion Pg#<br />
Initiatives/Actions Initiatives Pg#<br />
Code <strong>of</strong> conduct or business ethics<br />
47<br />
-Discussion: includes a formal organizational code <strong>of</strong> conduct or <strong>of</strong> ethical<br />
behavior.<br />
-Initiatives/actions: include measures to assure that the code <strong>of</strong> conduct is<br />
followed.<br />
Discussion<br />
Discussion Pg#<br />
Initiatives/Actions Initiatives Pg#<br />
Energy used (total)<br />
Sum <strong>of</strong> the energy used by the organization in all different forms, including<br />
electricity, fuel, natural gas and others.<br />
Discussion<br />
Discussion Pg#:<br />
Context<br />
Context Pg#:<br />
Goal<br />
Goal Pg#:<br />
Current Period Quantitative Data Quant Pg#:<br />
Previous Quantitative Data<br />
Prev QuantPg#:<br />
Improvement Over Previous<br />
ImproveP#:<br />
Year Data Values Units<br />
Energy used (renewable)<br />
Energy used from renewable sources such as wind, solar, hydroelectric, or<br />
other renewable sources.<br />
Discussion<br />
Discussion Pg#:<br />
Context<br />
Context Pg#:<br />
Goal<br />
Goal Pg#:<br />
Current Period Quantitative Data Quant Pg#:<br />
Previous Quantitative Data<br />
Prev QuantPg#:<br />
Improvement Over Previous<br />
ImproveP#:<br />
Year Data Values Units<br />
26<br />
27<br />
www.roberts.cmc.edu 37 Sustainability Reporting <strong>of</strong> Largest U.S. Federal Agencies
Waste recycled: Solid waste<br />
Sum <strong>of</strong> all solid waste recycled, including hazardous waste.<br />
Discussion<br />
Discussion Pg#:<br />
Context<br />
Context Pg#:<br />
Goal<br />
Goal Pg#:<br />
Current Period Quantitative Data Quant Pg#:<br />
Previous Quantitative Data<br />
Prev QuantPg#:<br />
Improvement Over Previous<br />
ImproveP#:<br />
Year Data Values Units<br />
Government Institutions<br />
30<br />
Waste (hazardous) produced<br />
Sum <strong>of</strong> all hazardous materials remaining after production, irrespective <strong>of</strong><br />
final disposition. Hazardous wastes include items identified as TRI, PRTR,<br />
HAP (Hazardous Air Pollutants), and similar indices, and may include<br />
mercury or lead. Depending on the nationality <strong>of</strong> the organization, this could<br />
be labeled "TRI" (Toxic Release Inventory), "substance releases" , or<br />
something else.<br />
Discussion<br />
Discussion Pg#:<br />
Context<br />
Context Pg#:<br />
Goal<br />
Goal Pg#:<br />
Current Period Quantitative Data Quant Pg#:<br />
Previous Quantitative Data<br />
Prev QuantPg#:<br />
Improvement Over Previous<br />
ImproveP#:<br />
Year Data Values Units<br />
35<br />
Waste (<strong>of</strong>fice) recycled<br />
Office recycling <strong>of</strong> paper, cardboard, metal, or plastic<br />
Discussion<br />
Context<br />
Goal<br />
Current Period Quantitative Data<br />
Previous Quantitative Data<br />
Improvement Over Previous<br />
Year Data Values Units<br />
Waste (solid) disposed <strong>of</strong><br />
Discussion Pg#:<br />
Context Pg#:<br />
Goal Pg#:<br />
Quant Pg#:<br />
Prev QuantPg#:<br />
ImproveP#:<br />
Includes solid hazardous and non-hazardous waste landfilled, incinerated, or<br />
transferred.<br />
Discussion<br />
Discussion Pg#:<br />
Context<br />
Context Pg#:<br />
Goal<br />
Goal Pg#:<br />
Current Period Quantitative Data Quant Pg#:<br />
Previous Quantitative Data<br />
Prev QuantPg#:<br />
Improvement Over Previous<br />
ImproveP#:<br />
Year Data Values Units<br />
32<br />
34<br />
Waste (hazardous) released to the environment<br />
Amounts <strong>of</strong> hazardous materials released into the environment, total (TRI,<br />
PRTR, HAP (Hazardous Air Pollutants), and similar indices), may include<br />
mercury or lead. Depending on the nationality <strong>of</strong> the organization, this could<br />
be labeled "TRI" (Toxic Release Inventory), "substance releases" , or<br />
something else.<br />
Discussion<br />
Discussion Pg#:<br />
Context<br />
Context Pg#:<br />
Goal<br />
Goal Pg#:<br />
Current Period Quantitative Data Quant Pg#:<br />
Previous Quantitative Data<br />
Prev QuantPg#:<br />
Improvement Over Previous<br />
ImproveP#:<br />
Year Data Values Units<br />
Water used<br />
Sum <strong>of</strong> all water used during operations.<br />
Discussion<br />
Context<br />
Goal<br />
Current Period Quantitative Data<br />
Previous Quantitative Data<br />
Improvement Over Previous<br />
Year Data Values Units<br />
Discussion Pg#:<br />
Context Pg#:<br />
Goal Pg#:<br />
Quant Pg#:<br />
Prev QuantPg#:<br />
ImproveP#:<br />
37<br />
29<br />
www.roberts.cmc.edu 38 Sustainability Reporting <strong>of</strong> Largest U.S. Federal Agencies
Carbon dioxide (CO2) or equivalents (i.e. GHG)<br />
CO2 emissions (or CO2 equivalents from CO2 + other greenhouse gases)<br />
resulting from all company operations including generating electricity.<br />
Discussion<br />
Discussion Pg#:<br />
Context<br />
Context Pg#:<br />
Goal<br />
Goal Pg#:<br />
Current Period Quantitative Data Quant Pg#:<br />
Previous Quantitative Data<br />
Prev QuantPg#:<br />
Improvement Over Previous<br />
ImproveP#:<br />
Year Data Values Units<br />
Government Institutions<br />
112<br />
Recordable incident/accident rate<br />
Number <strong>of</strong> employee incidents or accidents, such as: “total case incident<br />
rate”, “incident rate”, or "accident rate".<br />
Discussion<br />
Discussion Pg#:<br />
Context<br />
Context Pg#:<br />
Goal<br />
Goal Pg#:<br />
Current Period Quantitative Data Quant Pg#:<br />
Previous Quantitative Data<br />
Prev QuantPg#:<br />
Improvement Over Previous<br />
ImproveP#:<br />
Year Data Values Units<br />
74<br />
Ozone depleting substances from refrigerant<br />
Total ozone-depleting substances include CFCs (Class I); and halons, carbon<br />
tetrachloride, methyl chlor<strong>of</strong>orm, and HCFCs (Class II), not a CO2 emission.<br />
Discussion<br />
Discussion Pg#:<br />
Context<br />
Context Pg#:<br />
Goal<br />
Goal Pg#:<br />
Current Period Quantitative Data Quant Pg#:<br />
Previous Quantitative Data<br />
Prev QuantPg#:<br />
Improvement Over Previous<br />
ImproveP#:<br />
Year Data Values Units<br />
119<br />
Lost workday case rate<br />
Number <strong>of</strong> employee injuries or illnesses that resulted in one or more lost<br />
workdays<br />
Discussion<br />
Discussion Pg#:<br />
Context<br />
Context Pg#:<br />
Goal<br />
Goal Pg#:<br />
Current Period Quantitative Data Quant Pg#:<br />
Previous Quantitative Data<br />
Prev QuantPg#:<br />
Improvement Over Previous<br />
ImproveP#:<br />
Year Data Values Units<br />
75<br />
Employee turnover rate<br />
Annual employee turnover rate.<br />
Discussion<br />
Context<br />
Goal<br />
Current Period Quantitative Data<br />
Previous Quantitative Data<br />
Improvement Over Previous<br />
Year Data Values Units<br />
Discussion Pg#:<br />
Context Pg#:<br />
Goal Pg#:<br />
Quant Pg#:<br />
Prev QuantPg#:<br />
ImproveP#:<br />
3<br />
Social community investment<br />
Amount <strong>of</strong> money spent on community outreach, including education grants,<br />
donations, and relief effort funds.<br />
Discussion<br />
Discussion Pg#:<br />
Context<br />
Context Pg#:<br />
Goal<br />
Goal Pg#:<br />
Current Period Quantitative Data Quant Pg#:<br />
Previous Quantitative Data<br />
Prev QuantPg#:<br />
Improvement Over Previous<br />
ImproveP#:<br />
Year Data Values Units<br />
81<br />
www.roberts.cmc.edu 39 Sustainability Reporting <strong>of</strong> Largest U.S. Federal Agencies
Notices <strong>of</strong> violation (environmental)<br />
Notices <strong>of</strong> violation (NOVs) for environmental infractions.<br />
Discussion<br />
Discussion Pg#:<br />
Context<br />
Context Pg#:<br />
Goal<br />
Goal Pg#:<br />
Current Period Quantitative Data Quant Pg#:<br />
Previous Quantitative Data<br />
Prev QuantPg#:<br />
Improvement Over Previous<br />
ImproveP#:<br />
Year Data Values Units<br />
Government Institutions<br />
38<br />
Health and safety citations<br />
Number <strong>of</strong> health and safety citations or notices <strong>of</strong> violation. If it is stated that<br />
there were none, check lines 1,2,3, 4, and 6.<br />
Discussion<br />
Discussion Pg#:<br />
Context<br />
Context Pg#:<br />
Goal<br />
Goal Pg#:<br />
Current Period Quantitative Data Quant Pg#:<br />
Previous Quantitative Data<br />
Prev QuantPg#:<br />
Improvement Over Previous<br />
ImproveP#:<br />
Year Data Values Units<br />
76<br />
<strong>Environmental</strong> expenses and investments<br />
An accounting <strong>of</strong> money spent or invested specifically to decrease<br />
environmental damage or to benefit the environment<br />
Discussion<br />
Discussion Pg#:<br />
Context<br />
Context Pg#:<br />
Goal<br />
Goal Pg#:<br />
Current Period Quantitative Data Quant Pg#:<br />
Previous Quantitative Data<br />
Prev QuantPg#:<br />
Improvement Over Previous<br />
ImproveP#:<br />
39<br />
Health and safety fines<br />
Fines levied against a company for health and safety violations.<br />
Discussion<br />
Discussion Pg#:<br />
Context<br />
Context Pg#:<br />
Goal<br />
Goal Pg#:<br />
Current Period Quantitative Data Quant Pg#:<br />
Previous Quantitative Data<br />
Prev QuantPg#:<br />
Improvement Over Previous<br />
ImproveP#:<br />
77<br />
Year Data Values Units<br />
Year Data Values Units<br />
Fines (environmental)<br />
Government imposed fines for environmental infractions.<br />
Discussion<br />
Discussion Pg#:<br />
Context<br />
Context Pg#:<br />
Goal<br />
Goal Pg#:<br />
Current Period Quantitative Data Quant Pg#:<br />
Previous Quantitative Data<br />
Prev QuantPg#:<br />
Improvement Over Previous<br />
ImproveP#:<br />
Year Data Values Units<br />
40<br />
Emulating best practices<br />
164<br />
Organization looks for industry "best practices" or performance <strong>of</strong> peer organizations<br />
as a guide to its reporting<br />
Discussion<br />
Discussion Pg#:<br />
Initiatives/Action<br />
Initiative Pg#:<br />
Context Pg#:<br />
Context<br />
Improve Pg#:<br />
Improvement Over Previous<br />
Women in Management<br />
Relative numbers <strong>of</strong> women in management.<br />
Discussion<br />
Discussion Pg#:<br />
Initiatives/Action<br />
Initiative Pg#:<br />
Context<br />
Context Pg#:<br />
Improvement Over Previous<br />
Improve Pg#:<br />
Employee satisfaction surveys<br />
Surveys to monitor employee satisfaction.<br />
Discussion<br />
Discussion Pg#:<br />
Initiatives/Action<br />
Initiative Pg#:<br />
Context<br />
Context Pg#:<br />
Improvement Over Previous<br />
Improve Pg#:<br />
2<br />
67<br />
www.roberts.cmc.edu 40 Sustainability Reporting <strong>of</strong> Largest U.S. Federal Agencies
Occupational health and safety protection<br />
Efforts to provide a safe and healthy working environment at all sites.<br />
Discussion<br />
Discussion Pg#:<br />
Initiatives/Action<br />
Initiative Pg#:<br />
Context<br />
Context Pg#:<br />
Improvement Over Previous<br />
Improve Pg#:<br />
Employee volunteerism<br />
Efforts to promote employee volunteerism in social or environmental projects.<br />
Discussion<br />
Discussion Pg#:<br />
Initiatives/Action<br />
Initiative Pg#:<br />
Context<br />
Context Pg#:<br />
Improvement Over Previous<br />
Improve Pg#:<br />
Green transportation initiatives<br />
Programs to encourage carpooling, mass transit or other reductions in total<br />
commuting.<br />
Discussion<br />
Discussion Pg#:<br />
Initiatives/Action<br />
Initiative Pg#:<br />
Context Pg#:<br />
Context<br />
Improve Pg#:<br />
Improvement Over Previous<br />
Community development<br />
Government Institutions<br />
70<br />
72<br />
163<br />
Efforts to participate in social activities that improve the quality <strong>of</strong> life <strong>of</strong><br />
communities including that <strong>of</strong> indigenous people, where the organization operates.<br />
Discussion<br />
Discussion Pg#:<br />
Initiatives/Action<br />
Initiative Pg#:<br />
Context Pg#:<br />
Context<br />
Improve Pg#:<br />
Improvement Over Previous<br />
Community education<br />
Efforts to support education in the communities where the company is located.<br />
Discussion<br />
Discussion Pg#:<br />
Initiatives/Action<br />
Initiative Pg#:<br />
Context<br />
Context Pg#:<br />
Improvement Over Previous<br />
Improve Pg#:<br />
Sexual harassment<br />
1<br />
Rejection <strong>of</strong> any form <strong>of</strong> sexual harassment.<br />
Adoption <strong>of</strong> Policy<br />
Policy Adopt Pg#:<br />
Action to Reinforce Policy Initiative Pg#:<br />
Monitoring<br />
Monitoring Pg#:<br />
Quant. Indication <strong>of</strong> Compliance Qty Perf Pg#:<br />
Political contributions<br />
Policy about political contributions<br />
Adoption <strong>of</strong> Policy<br />
Action to Reinforce Policy<br />
Monitoring<br />
Quant. Indication <strong>of</strong> Compliance<br />
Bribery<br />
Rejection <strong>of</strong> bribery<br />
Adoption <strong>of</strong> Policy<br />
Action to Reinforce Policy<br />
Monitoring<br />
Quant. Indication <strong>of</strong> Compliance<br />
Policy Adopt Pg#:<br />
Initiative Pg#:<br />
Monitoring Pg#:<br />
Qty Perf Pg#:<br />
Policy Adopt Pg#:<br />
Initiative Pg#:<br />
Monitoring Pg#:<br />
Qty Perf Pg#:<br />
66<br />
68<br />
7<br />
8<br />
Anti-corruption practices<br />
58<br />
Efforts to uphold the highest standards <strong>of</strong> business ethics and integrity. May be found<br />
under a Code <strong>of</strong> Conduct.<br />
Adoption <strong>of</strong> Policy<br />
Policy Adopt Pg#:<br />
Action to Reinforce Policy Initiative Pg#:<br />
Monitoring<br />
Monitoring Pg#:<br />
Quant. Indication <strong>of</strong> Compliance Qty Perf Pg#:<br />
Fair compensation <strong>of</strong> employees<br />
62<br />
Assurance that wages paid meet or exceed legal or industry minimum standard.<br />
Adoption <strong>of</strong> Policy<br />
Policy Adopt Pg#:<br />
Action to Reinforce Policy Initiative Pg#:<br />
Monitoring<br />
Monitoring Pg#:<br />
Quant. Indication <strong>of</strong> Compliance Qty Perf Pg#:<br />
Reasonable working hours<br />
64<br />
Compliance with applicable laws and industry standards on working hours, including<br />
overtime.<br />
Adoption <strong>of</strong> Policy<br />
Policy Adopt Pg#:<br />
Action to Reinforce Policy Initiative Pg#:<br />
Monitoring<br />
Monitoring Pg#:<br />
Quant. Indication <strong>of</strong> Compliance Qty Perf Pg#:<br />
Degrading treatment or punishment <strong>of</strong> employees 59<br />
Commitment to oppose any corporal/hard labor punishment, mental/physical<br />
coercion, or verbal abuse.<br />
Adoption <strong>of</strong> Policy<br />
Policy Adopt Pg#:<br />
Action to Reinforce Policy Initiative Pg#:<br />
Monitoring<br />
Monitoring Pg#:<br />
Quant. Indication <strong>of</strong> Compliance Qty Perf Pg#:<br />
Elimination <strong>of</strong> discrimination in respect to employment and 60<br />
occupation<br />
Commitment not to engage in any kind <strong>of</strong> discrimination based on ethnicity, caste,<br />
religion, disability, sex, age, sexual orientation, union membership, or political<br />
affiliation in hiring practices or employee treatment.<br />
Adoption <strong>of</strong> Policy<br />
Policy Adopt Pg#:<br />
Action to Reinforce Policy Initiative Pg#:<br />
Monitoring<br />
Monitoring Pg#:<br />
Quant. Indication <strong>of</strong> Compliance Qty Perf Pg#:<br />
Free association and collective bargaining <strong>of</strong> employees 61<br />
Efforts to respect the right <strong>of</strong> employees to form and join trade unions <strong>of</strong> their choice<br />
and to bargain collectively.<br />
Adoption <strong>of</strong> Policy<br />
Policy Adopt Pg#:<br />
Action to Reinforce Policy Initiative Pg#:<br />
Monitoring<br />
Monitoring Pg#:<br />
Quant. Indication <strong>of</strong> Compliance Qty Perf Pg#:<br />
Elimination <strong>of</strong> all forms <strong>of</strong> forced and compulsory labor 63<br />
Assurance that all employees enter employment with the company <strong>of</strong> their own free<br />
will, not by compulsion.<br />
Adoption <strong>of</strong> Policy<br />
Policy Adopt Pg#:<br />
Action to Reinforce Policy Initiative Pg#:<br />
Monitoring<br />
Monitoring Pg#:<br />
Quant. Indication <strong>of</strong> Compliance Qty Perf Pg#:<br />
www.roberts.cmc.edu 41 Sustainability Reporting <strong>of</strong> Largest U.S. Federal Agencies
Effective abolition <strong>of</strong> child labor<br />
Rejection <strong>of</strong> illegal child labor by the company or its affiliates.<br />
Adoption <strong>of</strong> Policy<br />
Policy Adopt Pg#:<br />
Action to Reinforce Policy Initiative Pg#:<br />
Monitoring<br />
Monitoring Pg#:<br />
Quant. Indication <strong>of</strong> Compliance Qty Perf Pg#:<br />
Government Institutions<br />
65<br />
www.roberts.cmc.edu 42 Sustainability Reporting <strong>of</strong> Largest U.S. Federal Agencies
<strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> <strong>Agriculture</strong>, <strong>Dept</strong>.<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>Defense</strong>--Air Force, <strong>Dept</strong>.<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>Defense</strong>--Army, <strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Defense</strong>--Navy, <strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong><br />
Energy, <strong>Dept</strong>. <strong>of</strong> Homeland<br />
S e c u r i t y , D e p t . o f t h e<br />
I n t e r i o r , D e p t . o f<br />
<strong>Roberts</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Center</strong><br />
The <strong>Roberts</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Center</strong> is a research institute at Claremont McKenna College, endowed by George R.<br />
<strong>Roberts</strong>, Founding Partner, Kohlberg Kravis <strong>Roberts</strong> & Co. The <strong>Center</strong> is managed by faculty and staff, and its research,<br />
including the material in this report, is done by students at the Claremont Colleges.<br />
T r a n s p o r t a t i o n ,<br />
Claremont McKenna College<br />
Claremont McKenna College, a member <strong>of</strong> the Claremont Colleges, is a highly selective, independent, coeducational,<br />
<strong>Dept</strong>.Housing<br />
residential, undergraduate liberal arts college with a curricular emphasis<br />
and<br />
on economics, government,<br />
Urban<br />
and public<br />
affairs.<br />
The Claremont Colleges<br />
The Claremont Colleges form a consortium <strong>of</strong> five undergraduate liberal arts colleges and two graduate institutions<br />
D<br />
ebased v<br />
on the<br />
.<br />
Oxford/Cambridge<br />
,<br />
Gmodel. eThe nconsortium e<br />
<strong>of</strong>fers<br />
r<br />
astudents l<br />
diverse Sopportunities e<br />
rand resources<br />
v<br />
itypically<br />
c e s<br />
found only at much larger universities. The consortium members include Claremont McKenna College, Harvey Mudd<br />
College, Pitzer College, Pomona College, Scripps College, Keck Graduate Institute <strong>of</strong> Applied Life Sciences, and the<br />
Clremont Graduate University which—includes the Peter F. Drucker and Masatoshi Ito Graduate School <strong>of</strong><br />
Management.<br />
Administration, NASA,<br />
Contact Information<br />
Dr. J. Emil Morhardt, Director, Phone: 909-621-8190, email: emorhardt@cmc.edu<br />
Elgeritte Adidjaja, Research Fellow, Phone: 909-621-8698, email: eadidjaja@cmc.edu<br />
<strong>Roberts</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Center</strong>, Claremont McKenna College, 925 N. Mills Avenue, Claremont, CA 91711-5916, USA.<br />
U S E P A