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

Dept. of Agriculture, Dept.
of Defense--Air Force, Dept.
2010 Sustainability Reporting of
of Defense--Army, Dept. of
Largest U.S. Federal Agencies
Defense--Navy, Dept. of
Pacific Sustainability Index Scores: A benchmarking tool for online sustainability reporting
Energy, Dept. of Homeland
S e c u r i t y , D e p t . o f t h e
I n t e r i o r , D e p t . o f
T r a n s p o r t a t i o n ,
Dept.Housing and Urban
D e v . , G e n e r a l S e r v i c e s
Administration, NASA,
U S E P A
J. Emil Morhardt, Elgeritte Adidjaja, Ryan Anderson, Virginia Anton, Juliet Marie Archer, Dante Lamarr Benson, Sara
Morgan Caldwell, Emily Aiko Coleman, Francisco Covarrubias, Jr., Blake Crawford, Kristin Almaz Dessie, Salif Doubare,
Asha Nicole Gipson, Alexander Glassmann, Starrisha Marche Godfrey-Canada, Karina Gomez, Pooja Reddy Kanipakam,
Rebecca Enid Lofchie, Jesse Maximilliano Madrigal, Natalya Ratan, Ravindra Wayne Reddy, Andre Garland Shepley,
Timothy Kareem Smedley, and Alyson Noelle Stark, and Sabrina Nicole Williams

Contents
Topics
Page
Company Rankings 3
Lead Analyst’s Commentary 4
PSI Overview 5
PSI Scoring in a Nutshell 6
Environmental Intent Topics 7
Environmental Reporting Topics 8
Social Intent Topics 9
Social Reporting Topics 10
Environmental Intent Element of the PSI Scores 11
Environmental Reporting Element of the PSI 12
Scores
Social Intent Element of the PSI Scores 13
Social Reporting Element of the PSI Scores 14
Environmental Intent Scores Ranking 15
Environmental Reporting Scores Ranking 16
Environmental Performance Scores Ranking 17
Social Intent Scores Ranking 18
Social Reporting Scores Ranking 19
Social Performance Scores Ranking 20
Human Rights Reporting Element 21
Visual Cluster Analysis 22
Company Rankings Based on the Number of 23
Goals Reported
Analyst’s Comments, alphabetically listed by 24
company name
Appendix: PSI Questionnaire 36
Questions should be addressed to:
Dr. J. Emil Morhardt, Director
(emorhardt@cmc.edu)
Roberts Environmental Center
Claremont McKenna College
925 N. Mills Ave. Claremont, CA 91711-5916, USA
Direct line: (909) 621-8190
Elgeritte Adidjaja, Research Fellow: (909) 621-8698
(eadidjaja@cmc.edu)
Departmental secretaries: (909) 621-8298
The Roberts Environmental Center has been the foremost
analyst of corporate sustainability reporting for over a
decade. We analyze corporate online disclosure using our
Pacific Sustainability Index (PSI) and publish the results
online.
Industrial Sector** 2
0
0
4
2
0
0
5
2
0
0
6
2
0
0
7
2
0
0
8
2
0
0
9
2
0
1
0
Aerospace and defense X X
Airlines X X
Banks, Insurance
X
Chemicals X X X
Largest Companies in China
X
Colleges/Universities X 1 X
Computer, Office Equipment,
X
and Services
Consumer Food, Food
X X
Production, & Beverages
Electronics and
X X X
Semiconductors
Energy X * X * X
Entertainment
X
Federal Agencies
Food Services
X
Forest and Paper Products X X X
General Merchandiser
X
Homebuilders
X
X
Industrial and Farm
X
X
Equipment
Mail, Freight, & Shipping
X
Medical Products &
X
Equipment
Metals X * X X
Mining, Crude Oil X * X X
Motor Vehicle and Parts X X X
Municipalities
X
Oil and Gas Equipment
X
Petroleum and Refining X X X
Pharmaceuticals X X X X
Scientific, Photo, & Control
X
Equipment
Telecommunications,
X
Network, & Peripherals
Utilities, Gas, and Electric X * X * X
* Multiple-sector category was separated in later years.
**As of January 2011.
1
Top 50 Liberal Art Colleges.
2
0
1
1
The goal of corporate report analysis conducted by the Roberts Environmental Center is to acquaint students with environmental
and social issues facing the world’s industries, and the ways in which industry approaches and resolves these issues. The data
presented in this report were collected by student research assistants and a research fellow at the Roberts Environmental
Center. Copyright 2010 © by J. Emil Morhardt. All rights reserved.
www.roberts.cmc.edu 2 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal Agencies

US Government Agencies
U.S. Largest Government Agencies Sustainability Reporting
Agency Rankings
Overall Grade
Dept. of Energy
Dept. of Homeland
Security
Dept. of Defense--Navy
Dept. of Transportation
General Services
Administration
41.30
39.61
39.43
32.07
30.80
A+
A+
A
B+
B+
B+
B
B
B-
B-
B-
C+
Dept. of Energy (USA)
Dept. of Homeland Security (USA)
Dept. of Defense--Navy (USA)
Dept. of Transportation (USA)
General Services Administration
(USA)
NASA (USA)
Dept. of Agriculture (USA)
Dept. of Defense--Army (USA)
USEPA (USA)
Dept. of the Interior (USA)
Dept. of Defense--Air Force (USA)
Dept.Housing and Urban Dev. (USA)
NASA
30.31
Dept. of Agriculture
28.99
Dept. of Defense--Army
28.68
USEPA
25.66
Dept. of the Interior
24.09
Dept. of Defense--Air
Force
23.73
Dept.Housing and Urban
Dev.
21.14
0 25 50 75 100
This report is an analysis of the voluntary environmental and social reporting of U.S.
largest goverment agencies. Data were collected from the agencies' websites
during the Spring of 2010.
www.roberts.cmc.edu 3 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal Agencies

Lead Analyst’s Commentary
By Karina Gomez, CMC ‘12
The sector was led by the Department
of Energy with a stronger focus in social
reporting and social performance scores,
which are mostly ethical and human rights
topics.
topics. Environmental reporting, however,
was particularly low with over half of the
agencies receiving a C or lower. Only a
fourth of the agencies addressed any
amount of quantitative data on emissions,
waste, water usage, energy usage, and
environmental incidents and violations.
The Department of Homeland Security
comes second with its intentions of
conducting operations in an
environmentally sound manner and
dedication to social accountability.
Particularly notable were efforts to reduce
environmental impact at operation sites
using the most efficient means possible.
DHS led the group in environmental intent.
The department also tied with Department
of Defense—Navy with most number of
explicit numerical goals reported.
Department of Defense – Navy ranked
third in the sector, but ranked first for
environmental reporting, presenting much
information on environmental initiatives
throughout its website.
The Department of Transportation,
ranking first in social intent, and the Navy,
following second in environmental intent,
complete the four top performing agencies.
Social intent and reporting scores
were relatively high for the federal
agencies sector with only a third of the
agencies receiving lower than a B. The
social categories with the lowest reporting
were human rights and health and safety
www.roberts.cmc.edu 4 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal Agencies

The Pacific Sustainability Index (PSI) Overview
the PSI Scoring System
The Pacific Sustainability Index (PSI) uses two systematic questionnaires to analyze the quality of the
sustainability reporting—a base questionnaire for reports across sectors and a sector-specific
questionnaire for government agencies.
The Roberts Environmental Center
The Roberts Environmental Center is an environmental research institute at Claremont McKenna College
(CMC). Its mission is to provide students of all the Claremont colleges with a comprehensive and realistic
understanding of today’s environmental issues and the ways in which they are being and can be resolved--
beyond the confines of traditional academic disciplines and curriculum--and to identify, publicize, and
encourage policies and practices that achieve economic and social goals in the most environmentally
benign and protective manner. The Center is partially funded by an endowment from George R. Roberts
(Founding Partner of Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. and CMC alumnus),
other grants, and gifts, and is staffed by faculty and students from the
Claremont Colleges.
Methodology
Student analysts download relevant English language web pages from
the main government agencies’ website for analysis. Our scoring
excludes data independently stored outside the main city website or
available only in hard copy. We archive these web pages as PDF files
for future reference. Our analysts use a keyword search function to
search reporting of specific topics and, they fill out a PSI scoring sheet
(http://www.roberts.cmc.edu/PSI/scoringsheet.asp), and track the coverage and depths of different
sustainability issues mentioned in all online materials.
Scores and Ranks
When they are finished scoring, the analysts enter their scoring results into the PSI database. The PSI
database calculates scores and publishes them on the Center’s website. This sector report provides an indepth
analysis on sustainability reporting of the largest government agencies of the United States.
What do the scores mean?
We normalize all the scores to the potential maximum score. Scores of subsets of the overall score are also
normalized to their potential maxima. The letter grades (A+, A, A-, B+, etc.), however, are normalized to the
highest scoring agency analyzed in the report. Government agencies with scores in the highest 4% get A+
and any in the bottom 4% get F. We assign these by dividing the maximum PSI score obtained in the sector
into 12 equal parts then rounding fractional score up or down. This means that A+ and F are underrepresented
compared the other grades. The same technique applies to the separate categories of
environmental and social scores. Thus, we grade on the curve. We assume that the highest score obtained
in the sector and any scores near it represent the state-of-the-art for that sector and deserve an A+.
www.roberts.cmc.edu 5 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal Agencies

PSI Scoring in a Nutshell
Our analysis of sustainability reporting has a set of basic topics applied to all organizations as well as a series of
sector-specific topics. The topics are divided into environmental and social categories—the latter including human
rights—and into three types of information: 1) intent, 2) reporting, and 3) performance.
1. Intent
The “Intent” topics are each worth two points; one point for a discussion of intentions, vision, or plans, and a one
point for evidence of specific actions taken to implement them.
2. Reporting
The “Reporting” topics are each worth five points and are either quantitative (for which we expect numerical data)
or qualitative (for which we don’t).
For quantitative topics, one point is available for a discussion, one point for putting the information into perspective
(i.e. awards, industry standards, competitor performance, etc., or if the raw data are normalized by dividing by
revenue, number of employees, number of widgets produced, etc.), one point for the presence of an explicit
numerical goal, one point for numerical data from a single year, and one point for similar data from a previous year.
For qualitative topics, there are three criteria summed to five points: 1.67 points for discussion, 1.67 points for
initiatives or actions, and 1.67 points for perspective.
3. Performance
For each “Reporting” topic, two performance points are available.
For quantitative topics, one point is given for improvement from the previous reporting period, and one point for
better performance that the sector average (based on the data used for this sector report normalized by revenue).
For qualitative topics we give one point for any indication of improvement from previous reporting periods, and one
point for perspective.
The 11 “human rights” topics are scored differently, with five “reporting” points; 2.5 points for formally adopting a
policy or standard, and 2.5 points for a description of monitoring measures. In addition, there are two “performance”
points; one point for evidence of actions to reinforce policy and one point for a quantitative indication of compliance.
Distribution of Scores by topics
www.roberts.cmc.edu 6 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal Agencies

U.S. Government Agencies
Environmental Intent Topics
Average percent of maximum possible points.
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
79.17 83.33
77.08
77.08
65.63
33.33
Accountability
GRI 2005 Social Indicator for Public Agencies
Management
Policy
Urban Environmental Accords
Vision
Two possible points for each topic:
Accountability
4 * Report contact person
19 * Environmental management structure
GRI 2005 Social Indicator for Public Agencies
323 * Administrative Efficiency
Management
16 * Environmental education
20 * Environmental management system
21 * Environmental accounting
23 * Stakeholder consultation
Policy
9 * Environmental policy statement
10 * Climate change/global warming
11 * Habitat/ecosystem conservation
12 * Biodiversity
13 * Green purchasing
1E+ Participation in External Sustainability-Related
04 Programs
Urban Environmental Accords
306 * Green Building
Vision
5 * Environmental visionary statement
6 * Environmental impediments and challenges
Notes:
* These numbers correspond to the numbers in the PSI questionnaire. Items with numbers higher than 99 are sector
specific questions. Appendix 1 has the complete questionnaire.
www.roberts.cmc.edu 7 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal Agencies

U.S. Government Agencies
Environmental Reporting Topics
Seven possible points for each topic:
Percent of total possible score for all companies
combined.
25
25.00
Energy
26 * Energy used (total)
27 * Energy used (renewable)
Management
38 * Notices of violation (environmental)
39 * Environmental expenses and investments
40 * Fines (environmental)
20
16.67
Recycling
30 * Waste recycled: Solid waste
32 * Waste (office) recycled
Waste
15
12.50
13.33
34 * Waste (solid) disposed of
35 * Waste (hazardous) produced
37 * Waste (hazardous) released to the environment
Water
10
29 * Water used
7.22
5
0
Energy
Management
Recycling
Waste
Water
Notes:
* These numbers correspond to the numbers in the PSI questionnaire. Items with numbers higher than 99 are sector
specific questions.
www.roberts.cmc.edu 8 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal Agencies

U.S. Government Agencies
Social Intent Topics
Average percent of maximum possible points.
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
87.50
72.50
58.33
56.25
54.17
37.50
Accountability
Management
Policy
Public Sector
Social Demographic
Vision
Two possible points for each topic:
Accountability
51 * Health and Safety, or Social organizational
structure
54 * Third-party validation
Management
17 * Workforce profile: Ethnicities/Race
18 * Workforce profile: Gender
52 * Workforce profile: Age
53 * Emergency preparedness program
82 * Employee training for career development
Policy
45 * Social policy statement
47 * Code of conduct or business ethics
49 * Supplier screening based on social or
environmental performance/ Supplier
management
321 * Disclosure Policy
322 * Grievance Mechanism
Social Demographic
80 * Employment for individuals with disabilities
Vision
42 * Social visionary statement
43 * Social impediments and challenges
Notes:
* These numbers correspond to the numbers in the PSI questionnaire. Items with numbers higher than 99 are sector
specific questions. Appendix 1 has the complete questionnaire.
www.roberts.cmc.edu 9 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal Agencies

U.S. Government Agencies
Social Reporting Topics
Average percent of maximum possible points.
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
43.00
35.00
31.52
7.22
Human Rights
Management
Qualitative Social
Quantitative Social
Seven possible points for each topic:
Human Rights
1 * Sexual harassment
7 * Political contributions
8 * Bribery
58 * Anti-corruption practices
59 * Degrading treatment or punishment of employees
60 * Elimination of discrimination in respect to
employment and occupation
61 * Free association and collective bargaining of
employees
62 * Fair compensation of employees
63 * Elimination of all forms of forced and compulsory
labor
64 * Reasonable working hours
65 * Effective abolition of child labor
Management
2 * Women in Management
Qualitative Social
66 * Community development
67 * Employee satisfaction surveys
68 * Community education
70 * Occupational health and safety protection
72 * Employee volunteerism
Quantitative Social
3 * Employee turnover rate
74 * Recordable incident/accident rate
75 * Lost workday case rate
76 * Health and safety citations
77 * Health and safety fines
81 * Social community investment
Notes:
* These numbers correspond to the numbers in the PSI questionnaire. Items with numbers higher than 99 are sector
specific questions. Appendix 1 has the complete questionnaire.
www.roberts.cmc.edu 10 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal Agencies

U.S. Government Agencies
Environmental Intent Elements of the PSI Scores
Environmental policy statement
Report contact person
Green purchasing
Environmental visionary statement
Habitat/ecosystem conservation
Green Building
Environmental management structure
Environmental education
Climate change/global warming
Environmental management system
Stakeholder consultation
Environmental impediments and challenges
Biodiversity
Participation in External Sustainability-Related Programs
Environmental accounting
Administrative Efficiency
100.0%
91.7%
100.0%
83.3%
100.0%
91.7%
100.0%
91.7%
91.7%
91.7%
91.7%
83.3%
91.7%
70.8%
83.3%
79.2%
83.3%
70.8%
83.3%
79.2%
75.0%
70.8%
75.0%
62.5%
75.0%
66.7%
66.7%
62.5%
50.0%
33.3%
33.3%
33.3%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
= Percentage of institutions addressing the topics
= Percentage of the total possible number of points awarded to all institutions combined for each topic,
indicating the depth of reporting coverage measured by PSI criteria for each topic. If both percentages are
the same it means that each of those reporting institutions reporting on a topic got all the possible points.
www.roberts.cmc.edu 11 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal Agencies

U.S. Government Agencies
Environmental Reporting Elements of the PSI Scores
Energy used (total)
20.2%
100.0%
Energy used (renewable)
15 . 5 %
83.3%
Waste (solid) disposed of
11. 9 %
66.7%
Waste recycled: Solid waste
13 . 1%
66.7%
Environmental expenses and
investments
8.3%
58.3%
Water used
11. 9 %
58.3%
Waste (hazardous) produced
9.5%
50.0%
Waste (hazardous) released to
the environment
7.1%
33.3%
Waste (office) recycled
4.8%
33.3%
Notices of violation
(environmental)
4.8%
25.0%
Fines (environmental)
2.4%
16 . 7 %
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
= Percentage of institutions addressing the topics
= Percentage of the total possible number of points awarded to all institutions combined for each topic,
indicating the depth of reporting coverage measured by PSI criteria for each topic. If both percentages are
the same it means that each of those reporting institutions reporting on a topic got all the possible points.
www.roberts.cmc.edu 12 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal Agencies

U.S. Government Agencies
Social Intent Elements of the PSI Scores
Employment for individuals with disabilities
100.0%
87.5%
Emergency preparedness program
91.7%
87.5%
Employee training for career development
91.7%
79.2%
Social visionary statement
83.3%
79.2%
Workforce profile: Ethnicities/Race
83.3%
66.7%
Workforce profile: Gender
83.3%
66.7%
Social policy statement
75.0%
70.8%
Workforce profile: Age
75.0%
62.5%
Health and Safety, or Social organizational structure
66.7%
58.3%
Third-party validation
66.7%
50.0%
Code of conduct or business ethics
58.3%
58.3%
Grievance Mechanism
50.0%
41.7%
Supplier screening based on social or environmental
performance/ Supplier management
50.0%
45.8%
Disclosure Policy
41.7%
33.3%
Social impediments and challenges
41.7%
33.3%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
= Percentage of institutions addressing the topics
= Percentage of the total possible number of points awarded to all institutions combined for each topic,
indicating the depth of reporting coverage measured by PSI criteria for each topic. If both percentages are
the same it means that each of those reporting institutions reporting on a topic got all the possible points.
www.roberts.cmc.edu 13 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal Agencies

U.S. Government Agencies
Social Reporting Elements of the PSI Scores
Sexual harassment
Elimination of discrimination in respect to employment and
occupation
Community development
Community education
Employee volunteerism
Occupational health and safety protection
52.4%
52.4%
33.3%
35.7%
31.0%
29.8%
100.0%
100.0%
83.3%
83.3%
75.0%
75.0%
Bribery
Women in Management
Social community investment
Employee satisfaction surveys
Anti-corruption practices
Political contributions
Free association and collective bargaining of employees
28.6%
25.0%
10 . 7 %
23.8%
21.4%
19 . 0 %
19 . 0 %
66.7%
66.7%
58.3%
58.3%
58.3%
50.0%
50.0%
Employee turnover rate
7.1%
33.3%
Reasonable working hours
Degrading treatment or punishment of employees
Fair compensation of employees
Lost workday case rate
Recordable incident/accident rate
Health and safety citations
Health and safety fines
Elimination of all forms of forced and compulsory labor
Effective abolition of child labor
33.3%
19 . 0 %
33.3%
14 . 3 %
33.3%
14 . 3 %
25.0%
6.0%
25.0%
4.8%
8.3%
1. 2 %
8.3%
1. 2 %
8.3%
7.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
= Percentage of institutions addressing the topics
= Percentage of the total possible number of points awarded to all institutions combined for each topic,
indicating the depth of reporting coverage measured by PSI criteria for each topic. If both percentages are
the same it means that each of those reporting institutions reporting on a topic got all the possible points.
www.roberts.cmc.edu 14 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal Agencies

Environmental Intent Scores
Dept. of Homeland
Security
General Services
Administration
Dept. of Energy
USEPA
Dept. of Transportation
81.3
81.3
78.1
90.6
84.4
A+
A
A
A
A-
A-
A-
B+
B+
B
B
C+
EI Scores Rankings
Dept. of Homeland Security
General Services Administration
Dept. of Energy
USEPA
Dept. of Transportation
Dept. of Agriculture
Dept. of Defense--Navy
Dept. of Defense--Air Force
Dept. of Defense--Army
Dept. of the Interior
Dept.Housing and Urban Dev.
NASA
Dept. of Agriculture
75.0
Dept. of Defense--Navy
71.9
Dept. of Defense--Air
Force
68.8
Dept. of Defense--Army
68.8
Dept. of the Interior
62.5
Dept.Housing and
Urban Dev.
62.5
NASA
46.9
0 25 50 75 100
Environmental intent scores include topics about the firm’s
products, environmental organization, vision and commitment,
stakeholders, environmental policy and certifications, environmental
aspects and impacts, choice of environmental performance
indicators and those used by the industry, environmental initiatives
and mitigations, and environmental goals and targets.
www.roberts.cmc.edu 15 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal Agencies

Environmental Reporting Scores
Dept. of Defense--Navy
Dept. of Defense--Army
Dept. of Homeland
Security
USEPA
Dept. of Agriculture
14.55
25.45
23.64
23.64
18.18
A+
A
A
B+
B-
C+
C
C-
C-
D+
D+
D+
ER Scores Rankings
Dept. of Defense--Navy
Dept. of Defense--Army
Dept. of Homeland Security
USEPA
Dept. of Agriculture
Dept. of Transportation
Dept. of the Interior
Dept. of Defense--Air Force
NASA
General Services Administration
Dept.Housing and Urban Dev.
Dept. of Energy
Dept. of Transportation
12.73
Dept. of the Interior
10.91
Dept. of Defense--Air
Force
9.09
NASA
9.09
General Services
Administration
7.27
Dept.Housing and
Urban Dev.
7.27
Dept. of Energy
5.45
0 25 50 75 100
Environmental reporting scores are based on the degree to which
the company discusses its emissions, energy sources and
consumption, environmental incidents and violations, materials use,
mitigations and remediation, waste produced, and water used. They
also include use of life cycle analysis, environmental performance
and stewardship of products, and environmental performance of
suppliers and contractors.
www.roberts.cmc.edu 16 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal Agencies

Environmental Performance Scores
General Services
Administration
0.00
Dept. of the Interior
0.00
Dept. of Energy
0.00
Dept. of Transportation
0.00
Dept. of Defense--Air
Force
0.00
Dept. of Defense--Navy
0.00
Dept. of Defense--Army
0.00
Dept. of Homeland
Security
0.00
Dept. of Agriculture
0.00
Dept.Housing and
Urban Dev.
0.00
USEPA
0.00
NASA
0.00
0 25 50 75 100
Environmental performance scores are based on whether or not the
firm has improved its performance on each of the topics discussed
under the heading of environmental reporting, and on whether the
quality of the performance is better than that of the firm’s peers.
Scoring for each topic is one point if performance is better than in
previous reports, two points if better than industry peers, three
points if both.
www.roberts.cmc.edu 17 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal Agencies

Social Intent Scores
Dept. of Transportation
96.67
Dept. of Defense--Navy
86.67
Dept. of Agriculture
70.00
Dept. of Energy
66.67
NASA
66.67
A+
A
B+
B
B
B
B-
B-
C+
C+
C
C-
SI Scores Rankings
Dept. of Transportation
Dept. of Defense--Navy
Dept. of Agriculture
Dept. of Energy
NASA
Dept. of Homeland Security
General Services Administration
Dept. of the Interior
Dept. of Defense--Air Force
Dept.Housing and Urban Dev.
USEPA
Dept. of Defense--Army
Dept. of Homeland
Security
63.33
General Services
Administration
60.00
Dept. of the Interior
56.67
Dept. of Defense--Air
Force
46.67
Dept.Housing and
Urban Dev.
46.67
USEPA
43.33
Dept. of Defense--Army
33.33
0 25 50 75 100
Social intent scores include topics about the firm’s financials,
employees, safety reporting, social management organization, social
vision and commitment, stakeholders, social policy and
certifications, social aspects and impacts, choice of social
performance indicators and those used by the industry, social
initiatives and mitigations, and social goals and targets.
www.roberts.cmc.edu 18 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal Agencies

Social Reporting Scores
Dept. of Energy
Dept. of Homeland
Security
Dept. of Defense--Navy
NASA
General Services
Administration
31.30
40.29
38.12
32.75
50.43
A+
A-
B+
B
B-
B-
C+
C
C
C
C
C-
SR Rankings
Dept. of Energy
Dept. of Homeland Security
Dept. of Defense--Navy
NASA
General Services Administration
Dept. of Defense--Army
Dept. of Agriculture
Dept. of Transportation
Dept. of the Interior
Dept. of Defense--Air Force
USEPA
Dept.Housing and Urban Dev.
Dept. of Defense--Army
28.84
Dept. of Agriculture
23.48
Dept. of Transportation
23.04
Dept. of the Interior
20.43
Dept. of Defense--Air
Force
20.43
USEPA
18.99
Dept.Housing and
Urban Dev.
17.68
0 25 50 75 100
Social reporting scores are based on the degree to which the
company discusses various aspects of its dealings with its
employees and contractors. They also include social costs and
investments.
www.roberts.cmc.edu 19 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal Agencies

Social Performance Scores
Dept. of Energy
NASA
Dept. of Defense--Navy
Dept. of Homeland
Security
Dept. of Transportation
15.22
13.04
4.35
4.35
2.17
A+
A-
D+
D+
D
D
D
F
F
F
F
F
F
SP Rankings
Dept. of Energy
NASA
Dept. of Defense--Navy
Dept. of Homeland Security
Dept. of Transportation
Dept. of Defense--Air Force
Dept. of Defense--Army
General Services Administration
Dept. of the Interior
Dept. of Agriculture
Dept. of Agriculture
Dept.Housing and Urban Dev.
USEPA
Dept. of Defense--Air
Force
2.17
Dept. of Defense--Army
2.17
General Services
Administration
0.00
Dept. of the Interior
0.00
Dept. of Agriculture
0.00
Dept.Housing and
Urban Dev.
0.00
USEPA
0.00
0 25 50 75 100
Social performance scores are based on improvement,
performance better than the sector average, or statements of
compliance with established social standards.
www.roberts.cmc.edu 20 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal Agencies

U.S. Government Agencies
Human Rights Reporting Elements of the PSI Scores
Percent of companies reporting*
Human Rights Topics
adoption reinforcement monitoring compliance
Anti-corruption practices 58.3% 8.3% 8.3% 0.0%
Bribery 66.7% 16.7% 16.7% 0.0%
Degrading treatment or punishment of employees 33.3% 8.3% 8.3% 0.0%
Effective abolition of child labor 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Elimination of all forms of forced and compulsory labor 8.3% 8.3% 8.3% 0.0%
Elimination of discrimination in respect to employment 100.0% 41.7% 41.7% 0.0%
and occupation
Fair compensation of employees 33.3% 8.3% 8.3% 0.0%
Free association and collective bargaining of
50.0% 8.3% 8.3% 0.0%
employees
Political contributions 50.0% 8.3% 8.3% 0.0%
Reasonable working hours 33.3% 16.7% 16.7% 0.0%
Sexual harassment 100.0% 41.7% 41.7% 0.0%
* Description of scoring
Adoption
We assign one point for adoption of a policy standard or for an explicit discussion of a company's stance on a particular
human rights principle or its participation to the UN Global Compact,
Reinforcement
We assign one point for a description of reinforcement actions to make a policy stronger, such as providing educational
programs, training, or other activities to promote awareness.
Monitoring
We assign one point for a description of monitoring measures including mechanisms to detect violations at an early
stage, providing systematic reporting, or establishment of committtee structure to oversee risky activities.
Compliance
We assign one point for a quantitative indication of compliance, including the frequency of instances of being in out of
compliance with the principles of the company, it's subsidiaries, or supply-chain affiliates. Describing full compliance
with a broad-brushed statement such as "we are in full compliance of the local and international law" is too general in
our opinion and does not count.
www.roberts.cmc.edu 21 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal Agencies

Visual Cluster Analysis
Visual cluster analysis multivariate data of the sort produced by the PSI are difficult to summarize. Here we have created radar diagrams
of the performance of each company analysed in the sector by its environmental and social intent, reporting, and performance sorted by
company ranking. Maximum scores will match the outer sides of the hexagon which total up to 100 percent.
EI = Environmental Intent, ER = Environmental Reporting, EP = Environmental Performance
SI = Social Intent, SR = Social Reporting, SP = Social Performance
ER
100
ER
100
ER
100
ER
100
ER
100
EI
75
50
EP
EI
75
50
EP
EI
75
50
EP
EI
75
50
EP
EI
75
50
EP
25
25
25
25
25
0
0
0
0
0
SI
SP
SI
SP
SI
SP
SI
SP
SI
SP
SR
SR
SR
SR
SR
Dept. of Energy
Dept. of Homeland
Security
Dept. of Defense--
Navy
Dept. of
Transportation
General Services
Administration
ER
100
100
ER
100
ER
100
ER
100
ER
EI
75
50
EP
EI
75
50
EP
EI
75
50
EP
EI
75
50
EP
EI
75
50
EP
25
25
25
25
25
0
0
0
0
0
SI
SP
SI
SP
SI
SP
SI
SP
SI
SP
SR
SR
SR
SR
SR
NASA
Dept. of Agriculture
Dept. of Defense--
Army
USEPA
Dept. of the Interior
ER
100
ER
100
EI
75
50
EP
EI
75
50
EP
25
25
0
0
SI
SP
SI
SP
SR
Dept. of Defense--
Air Force
SR
Dept.Housing and
Urban Dev.
www.roberts.cmc.edu 22 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal Agencies

Number of Explicit numerical goals Reported
Dept. of Defense--
Navy
Dept. of Homeland
Security
5
5
Dept. of Defense--
Army
4
USEPA
2
Dept. of Energy
1
Dept. of
Transportation
1
0 5 10 15 20 25
Explicit Goals Most Frequently Reported
1 Energy used (total)
4
2 Waste (solid) disposed of
2
3 Waste recycled: Solid waste
2
4 Water used
2
5 Energy used (renewable)
2
6 Lost workday case rate
1
7 Recordable incident/accident rate
1
www.roberts.cmc.edu 23 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal Agencies

B
Dept. of
Agriculture
Dept. of Agriculture 2010 Web Pages
The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s sustainability webpages note that its mission is to advance its sustainable development through partnerships,
collaboration, and outreach. As a result, the USDA has implemented a number of programs that encourage green purchasing, implement fleet efficiency
through the use of alternative fuels, promote energy efficiency and water conservation, and encourage recycling and waste prevention. For example, the
agency’s green purchasing program established by the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act 2002, BioPreferred, promotes the purchasing of biological
products such as renewable agricultural and forestry materials. The USDA provides many links for the public to learn more about its other programs;
however, many of these links are not functioning. The site would benefit from updating of its links and providing more quantitative data on the progress of
USDA's environmental initiatives.
Analyst(s): Alyson Noelle Stark
E=Total Environmental Score, ESA=Environmental Sector Average Score, EI=Environmental Intent, ER=Environmental Reporting, EP=Environmental Performance, S=Total Social
Score, SSA=Social Sector Average Score, SI=Social Intent, SR=Social Reporting, SP=Social Performance
Comparison with sector averages
Source of points
Distribution of points
E
ESA
S
SSA
0 25 50 75
E
54%
S
46%
75
70
15
23
0
0
EI ER EP SI SR SP
Dept. of Agriculture
Environmental Intent
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment
Accountability 4 4 100 Excellent
GRI 2005 Social Indicator for Public Agencies 0 2 0 Needs substantial improvement
Management 4 8 50 Good
Policy 11 12 92 Excellent
Urban Environmental Accords 2 2 100 Excellent
Vision 3 4 75 Excellent
Environmental Reporting
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment
Energy 4 14 29 Needs improvement
Management 1 21 5 Needs substantial improvement
Recycling 2 14 14 Needs substantial improvement
Waste 0 21 0 Needs substantial improvement
Water 1 7 14 Needs substantial improvement
Social Intent
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment
Accountability 0 4 0 Needs substantial improvement
Management 8 10 80 Excellent
Policy 5 6 83 Excellent
Public Sector 4 4 100 Excellent
Social Demographic 2 2 100 Excellent
Vision 2 4 50 Good
Social Reporting
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment
Human Rights 12 77 16 Needs substantial improvement
Management 0 7 0 Needs substantial improvement
Qualitative Social 9 35 26 Needs improvement
Quantitative Social 2 42 5 Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu 24 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal Agencies

B-
Dept. of Defense--
Air Force
Dept. of Defense--Air Force 2010 Web Pages
The US Air Force website was lacking significant information in a number of the environmental and social categories we score. Many issues that the
department surely addresses, such as a code of conduct and fair compensation, were also impossible to locate on the site. The information that is there is
poorly labeled and difficult to find. My impression from navigating the Air Force website was that the accessibility of this information is not a priority. Some
links that looked promising led to pages that were un-locatable. Compared to the quality of the Air Force’s recruitment website, their environmental and
social pages are lacking and definitely in need of a major overhaul.
Analyst(s): Rebecca Enid Lofchie
E=Total Environmental Score, ESA=Environmental Sector Average Score, EI=Environmental Intent, ER=Environmental Reporting, EP=Environmental Performance, S=Total Social
Score, SSA=Social Sector Average Score, SI=Social Intent, SR=Social Reporting, SP=Social Performance
Comparison with sector averages
Source of points
Distribution of points
E
ESA
S
SSA
0 25 50 75
E
55%
S
45%
69
47
9
20
0
2
EI ER EP SI SR SP
Dept. of Defense--Air
Force
Environmental Intent
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment
Accountability 3 4 75 Excellent
GRI 2005 Social Indicator for Public Agencies 0 2 0 Needs substantial improvement
Management 6 8 75 Excellent
Policy 9 12 75 Excellent
Urban Environmental Accords 1 2 50 Good
Vision 3 4 75 Excellent
Environmental Reporting
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment
Energy 2 14 14 Needs substantial improvement
Management 0 21 0 Needs substantial improvement
Recycling 0 14 0 Needs substantial improvement
Waste 2 21 10 Needs substantial improvement
Water 1 7 14 Needs substantial improvement
Social Intent
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment
Accountability 0 4 0 Needs substantial improvement
Management 7 10 70 Good
Policy 4 6 67 Good
Public Sector 0 4 0 Needs substantial improvement
Social Demographic 1 2 50 Good
Vision 2 4 50 Good
Social Reporting
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment
Human Rights 8 77 10 Needs substantial improvement
Management 3 7 43 Needs improvement
Qualitative Social 11 35 31 Needs improvement
Quantitative Social 1 42 2 Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu 25 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal Agencies

B
Dept. of Defense--
Army
Dept. of Defense--Army 2010 Web Pages
The US Army’s first and second (2007 and 2009) sustainability reports are the first from any US Government agency. The Army's sustainability website has
more figures and data than found on most other agency sustainability websites as well. Future sustainability goals were highly detailed in the webpages
and abundant numerical data made it easy to chart progress over time.
Analyst(s): Starrisha Marche Godfrey-Canada
E=Total Environmental Score, ESA=Environmental Sector Average Score, EI=Environmental Intent, ER=Environmental Reporting, EP=Environmental Performance, S=Total Social
Score, SSA=Social Sector Average Score, SI=Social Intent, SR=Social Reporting, SP=Social Performance
Comparison with sector averages
Source of points
Distribution of points
E
ESA
S
SSA
0 25 50 75
E
58%
S
42%
69
24
33 29
0
2
EI ER EP SI SR SP
Dept. of Defense--
Army
Environmental Intent
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment
Accountability 2 4 50 Good
GRI 2005 Social Indicator for Public Agencies 0 2 0 Needs substantial improvement
Management 6 8 75 Excellent
Policy 9 12 75 Excellent
Urban Environmental Accords 2 2 100 Excellent
Vision 3 4 75 Excellent
Environmental Reporting
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment
Energy 3 14 21 Needs substantial improvement
Management 3 21 14 Needs substantial improvement
Recycling 1 14 7 Needs substantial improvement
Waste 5 21 24 Needs substantial improvement
Water 1 7 14 Needs substantial improvement
Social Intent
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment
Accountability 1 4 25 Needs improvement
Management 4 10 40 Needs improvement
Policy 0 6 0 Needs substantial improvement
Public Sector 1 4 25 Needs improvement
Social Demographic 1 2 50 Good
Vision 3 4 75 Excellent
Social Reporting
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment
Human Rights 16 77 21 Needs substantial improvement
Management 3 7 43 Needs improvement
Qualitative Social 8 35 23 Needs substantial improvement
Quantitative Social 4 42 10 Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu 26 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal Agencies

A
Dept. of Defense--
Navy
Dept. of Defense--Navy 2010 Web Pages
The US Navy's sustainability information is well done, but is scattered throughout their website and difficult to navigate to. If they could compile all their
sustainability information into one page, it would be one of the most informative and complete sustainability websites of any agency., but it was still above
average.
Analyst(s): Timothy Kareem Smedley
E=Total Environmental Score, ESA=Environmental Sector Average Score, EI=Environmental Intent, ER=Environmental Reporting, EP=Environmental Performance, S=Total Social
Score, SSA=Social Sector Average Score, SI=Social Intent, SR=Social Reporting, SP=Social Performance
Comparison with sector averages
Source of points
Distribution of points
E
ESA
S
SSA
0 25 50 75
E
47%
S
53%
87
72
38
25
0
4
EI ER EP SI SR SP
Dept. of Defense--
Navy
Environmental Intent
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment
Accountability 4 4 100 Excellent
GRI 2005 Social Indicator for Public Agencies 2 2 100 Excellent
Management 4 8 50 Good
Policy 9 12 75 Excellent
Urban Environmental Accords 2 2 100 Excellent
Vision 2 4 50 Good
Environmental Reporting
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment
Energy 4 14 29 Needs improvement
Management 4 21 19 Needs substantial improvement
Recycling 3 14 21 Needs substantial improvement
Waste 3 21 14 Needs substantial improvement
Water 0 7 0 Needs substantial improvement
Social Intent
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment
Accountability 2 4 50 Good
Management 10 10 100 Excellent
Policy 6 6 100 Excellent
Public Sector 2 4 50 Good
Social Demographic 2 2 100 Excellent
Vision 4 4 100 Excellent
Social Reporting
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment
Human Rights 22 77 29 Needs improvement
Management 3 7 43 Needs improvement
Qualitative Social 14 35 40 Needs improvement
Quantitative Social 3 42 7 Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu 27 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal Agencies

A+
Dept. of Energy
Dept. of Energy 2010 Web Pages
The Department of Energy's website indicates significant effort towards making its facilities and business management environmentally sustainable. The
“Sustainability Outreach Program” is an in-depth and overarching program that guides the Department of Energy’s environmental strategies such as, green
purchasing, green buildings, energy saving products and education. Also, this organization effectively displays worker demographics and sentiment. Oddly,
the Department of Energy falls short in providing quantitative data on energy and water consumption, as well as on hazardous waste production and
disposal, all items that are no doubt extremely carefully monitored by them.
Analyst(s):
Emily Aiko Coleman
E=Total Environmental Score, ESA=Environmental Sector Average Score, EI=Environmental Intent, ER=Environmental Reporting, EP=Environmental Performance, S=Total Social
Score, SSA=Social Sector Average Score, SI=Social Intent, SR=Social Reporting, SP=Social Performance
Comparison with sector averages
Source of points
Distribution of points
E
ESA
S
SSA
0 25 50 75
E
37%
S
63%
81
67
50
15
5 0
EI ER EP SI SR SP
Dept. of Energy
Environmental Intent
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment
Accountability 4 4 100 Excellent
GRI 2005 Social Indicator for Public Agencies 2 2 100 Excellent
Management 6 8 75 Excellent
Policy 8 12 67 Good
Urban Environmental Accords 2 2 100 Excellent
Vision 4 4 100 Excellent
Environmental Reporting
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment
Energy 1 14 7 Needs substantial improvement
Management 0 21 0 Needs substantial improvement
Recycling 2 14 14 Needs substantial improvement
Waste 0 21 0 Needs substantial improvement
Water 0 7 0 Needs substantial improvement
Social Intent
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment
Accountability 2 4 50 Good
Management 10 10 100 Excellent
Policy 4 6 67 Good
Public Sector 2 4 50 Good
Social Demographic 2 2 100 Excellent
Vision 0 4 0 Needs substantial improvement
Social Reporting
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment
Human Rights 42 77 55 Good
Management 3 7 43 Needs improvement
Qualitative Social 15 35 43 Needs improvement
Quantitative Social 3 42 7 Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu 28 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal Agencies

A+
Dept. of Homeland
Security
Dept. of Homeland Security 2010 Web Pages
The Department of Homeland Security conducts numerous operations to protect the nation’s borders. In its web pages, DHS notes its 2008 policy aimed to
develop and implement sustainable practices programs to ensure its operations are carried out in an environmentally sound manner. As a result, the DHS
has been active in investigating the environmental impact of its actions, especially those of the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility, and has
implemented reasonable alternatives to help mitigate environmental damage. For example, the agency addresses facility nighttime lighting affects on
wildlife and surrounding residents, and has adjusted operation boundaries to protect natural biodiversity. The Department of Homeland Security, however,
provides little quantitative workforce data such as turnover rate, lost workday, accident indices, and information on employee health and safety.
Analyst(s): Karina Gomez
E=Total Environmental Score, ESA=Environmental Sector Average Score, EI=Environmental Intent, ER=Environmental Reporting, EP=Environmental Performance, S=Total Social
Score, SSA=Social Sector Average Score, SI=Social Intent, SR=Social Reporting, SP=Social Performance
Comparison with sector averages
Source of points
Distribution of points
E
ESA
S
SSA
0 25 50 75
E
52%
S
48%
91
63
40
24
0
4
EI ER EP SI SR SP
Dept. of Homeland
Security
Environmental Intent
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment
Accountability 3 4 75 Excellent
GRI 2005 Social Indicator for Public Agencies 2 2 100 Excellent
Management 6 8 75 Excellent
Policy 12 12 100 Excellent
Urban Environmental Accords 2 2 100 Excellent
Vision 4 4 100 Excellent
Environmental Reporting
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment
Energy 4 14 29 Needs improvement
Management 0 21 0 Needs substantial improvement
Recycling 3 14 21 Needs substantial improvement
Waste 4 21 19 Needs substantial improvement
Water 2 7 29 Needs improvement
Social Intent
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment
Accountability 2 4 50 Good
Management 8 10 80 Excellent
Policy 3 6 50 Good
Public Sector 3 4 75 Excellent
Social Demographic 2 2 100 Excellent
Vision 1 4 25 Needs improvement
Social Reporting
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment
Human Rights 24 77 31 Needs improvement
Management 2 7 29 Needs improvement
Qualitative Social 15 35 43 Needs improvement
Quantitative Social 3 42 7 Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu 29 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal Agencies

B-
Dept. of the Interior
Dept. of the Interior 2010 Web Pages
The U.S. Department of the Interior’s FY 2008 Annual Environmental Management Systems Report, FY 2008-2012 Workforce and Succession Plan, Green
Purchasing Plan, Strategic Sustainability Performance Plan, and 2010 web pages contain much information on the department’s environmental and social
programs and goals. The department has numerous energy and water conservation projects including the implementation of solar panels. Although the
department has a good discussion of these programs and initiatives, and states that data are collected and reported, not much of the data is provided;
lacking are data on environmental issues such as energy use, water conservation, and waste production; and on employee data such as turnover and
accident rate. The Department of the Interior has a number of initiatives that show its dedication to the country’s Native American population; however, it
does not report similar initiatives on its responsibility to its workforce, nor does it provide a code of ethics.
Analyst(s):
Karina Gomez
E=Total Environmental Score, ESA=Environmental Sector Average Score, EI=Environmental Intent, ER=Environmental Reporting, EP=Environmental Performance, S=Total Social
Score, SSA=Social Sector Average Score, SI=Social Intent, SR=Social Reporting, SP=Social Performance
Comparison with sector averages
Source of points
Distribution of points
E
ESA
S
SSA
0 25 50 75
E
53%
S
47%
63
57
11
20
0
0
EI ER EP SI SR SP
Dept. of the Interior
Environmental Intent
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment
Accountability 2 4 50 Good
GRI 2005 Social Indicator for Public Agencies 0 2 0 Needs substantial improvement
Management 6 8 75 Excellent
Policy 7 12 58 Good
Urban Environmental Accords 1 2 50 Good
Vision 4 4 100 Excellent
Environmental Reporting
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment
Energy 2 14 14 Needs substantial improvement
Management 1 21 5 Needs substantial improvement
Recycling 1 14 7 Needs substantial improvement
Waste 1 21 5 Needs substantial improvement
Water 1 7 14 Needs substantial improvement
Social Intent
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment
Accountability 2 4 50 Good
Management 8 10 80 Excellent
Policy 0 6 0 Needs substantial improvement
Public Sector 2 4 50 Good
Social Demographic 1 2 50 Good
Vision 4 4 100 Excellent
Social Reporting
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment
Human Rights 10 77 13 Needs substantial improvement
Management 2 7 29 Needs improvement
Qualitative Social 8 35 23 Needs substantial improvement
Quantitative Social 1 42 2 Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu 30 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal Agencies

B+
Dept. of
Transportation
Dept. of Transportation 2010 Web Pages
The U.S. Department of Transportation is a huge agency and provides a large amount of sustainability information on its website, but it is not centralized,
nor is there a central sustainability index for it, so it is difficult to sort out. Rather the information is provided piecemeal as it has come in from various
divisions. Similar to the sustainability issue, it is difficult to find overall departmental procedures, guidelines, and employment information for the entire
Department of Transportation. The next iteration of DOT's website should provide a more integrated approach.
Analyst(s): Jesse Maximilliano Madrigal
E=Total Environmental Score, ESA=Environmental Sector Average Score, EI=Environmental Intent, ER=Environmental Reporting, EP=Environmental Performance, S=Total Social
Score, SSA=Social Sector Average Score, SI=Social Intent, SR=Social Reporting, SP=Social Performance
Comparison with sector averages
Source of points
Distribution of points
E
ESA
S
SSA
0 25 50 75
E
50%
S
50%
97
78
13
23
0
2
EI ER EP SI SR SP
Dept. of
Transportation
Environmental Intent
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment
Accountability 2 4 50 Good
GRI 2005 Social Indicator for Public Agencies 2 2 100 Excellent
Management 4 8 50 Good
Policy 11 12 92 Excellent
Urban Environmental Accords 2 2 100 Excellent
Vision 4 4 100 Excellent
Environmental Reporting
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment
Energy 1 14 7 Needs substantial improvement
Management 2 21 10 Needs substantial improvement
Recycling 0 14 0 Needs substantial improvement
Waste 4 21 19 Needs substantial improvement
Water 0 7 0 Needs substantial improvement
Social Intent
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment
Accountability 4 4 100 Excellent
Management 10 10 100 Excellent
Policy 6 6 100 Excellent
Public Sector 3 4 75 Excellent
Social Demographic 2 2 100 Excellent
Vision 4 4 100 Excellent
Social Reporting
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment
Human Rights 12 77 16 Needs substantial improvement
Management 2 7 29 Needs improvement
Qualitative Social 8 35 23 Needs substantial improvement
Quantitative Social 4 42 10 Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu 31 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal Agencies

C+
Dept.Housing and
Urban Dev.
Dept.Housing and Urban Dev. 2010 Web Pages
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) does not appear to have developed a comprehensive environmental department, though it has
established environmental coordinators for each region with appropriate contact information. Most environmentally related topics can be found through
direct searches on the home web page, but are typically addressed as complementary issues and rarely acknowledged as the primary target of any of the
Department's activities. For example, water and energy conservation initiatives are coordinated through housing development and community education
which may be fine, but the presentation makes it difficult to ascertain their importance to HUD. HUD could improve its website by coordinating its
environment-related topics to a single domain that is user-friendly.
Analyst(s): Ryan Anderson
E=Total Environmental Score, ESA=Environmental Sector Average Score, EI=Environmental Intent, ER=Environmental Reporting, EP=Environmental Performance, S=Total Social
Score, SSA=Social Sector Average Score, SI=Social Intent, SR=Social Reporting, SP=Social Performance
Comparison with sector averages
Source of points
Distribution of points
E
ESA
S
SSA
0 25 50 75
E
55%
S
45%
63
47
18
7 0
0
EI ER EP SI SR SP
Dept.Housing and
Urban Dev.
Environmental Intent
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment
Accountability 3 4 75 Excellent
GRI 2005 Social Indicator for Public Agencies 0 2 0 Needs substantial improvement
Management 4 8 50 Good
Policy 10 12 83 Excellent
Urban Environmental Accords 2 2 100 Excellent
Vision 1 4 25 Needs improvement
Environmental Reporting
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment
Energy 2 14 14 Needs substantial improvement
Management 1 21 5 Needs substantial improvement
Recycling 0 14 0 Needs substantial improvement
Waste 1 21 5 Needs substantial improvement
Water 0 7 0 Needs substantial improvement
Social Intent
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment
Accountability 3 4 75 Excellent
Management 1 10 10 Needs substantial improvement
Policy 4 6 67 Good
Public Sector 1 4 25 Needs improvement
Social Demographic 2 2 100 Excellent
Vision 3 4 75 Excellent
Social Reporting
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment
Human Rights 4 77 5 Needs substantial improvement
Management 0 7 0 Needs substantial improvement
Qualitative Social 12 35 34 Needs improvement
Quantitative Social 2 42 5 Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu 32 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal Agencies

B+
General Services
Administration
General Services Administration 2010 Web Pages
The GSA expresses a commitment to improving its sustainability stance as well as aiding other actors in doing the same. The use of renewable energy and
adopting LEED guidelines for its buildings illustrates the move towards a more sustainable relationship with the environment. The GSA website does not
provide information on specific policies it has adopted, however, nor any quantitative performance data. It is also silent on human rights policy issues and
measures taken to insure compliance. The GSA could easily improve its PSI rating simply by posting quantitative data it surely has.
Analyst(s): Natalya Ratan
E=Total Environmental Score, ESA=Environmental Sector Average Score, EI=Environmental Intent, ER=Environmental Reporting, EP=Environmental Performance, S=Total Social
Score, SSA=Social Sector Average Score, SI=Social Intent, SR=Social Reporting, SP=Social Performance
Comparison with sector averages
Source of points
Distribution of points
E
ESA
S
SSA
0 25 50 75
E
50%
S
50%
84
60
31
7
0
0
EI ER EP SI SR SP
General Services
Administration
Environmental Intent
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment
Accountability 4 4 100 Excellent
GRI 2005 Social Indicator for Public Agencies 0 2 0 Needs substantial improvement
Management 7 8 88 Excellent
Policy 10 12 83 Excellent
Urban Environmental Accords 2 2 100 Excellent
Vision 4 4 100 Excellent
Environmental Reporting
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment
Energy 2 14 14 Needs substantial improvement
Management 0 21 0 Needs substantial improvement
Recycling 1 14 7 Needs substantial improvement
Waste 0 21 0 Needs substantial improvement
Water 1 7 14 Needs substantial improvement
Social Intent
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment
Accountability 4 4 100 Excellent
Management 6 10 60 Good
Policy 4 6 67 Good
Public Sector 0 4 0 Needs substantial improvement
Social Demographic 2 2 100 Excellent
Vision 2 4 50 Good
Social Reporting
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment
Human Rights 12 77 16 Needs substantial improvement
Management 3 7 43 Needs improvement
Qualitative Social 15 35 43 Needs improvement
Quantitative Social 1 42 2 Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu 33 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal Agencies

B+
NASA
NASA 2010 Web Pages
NASA has a very user-friendly website which lists many sustainability initiatives. Although this is great, there were no data whatsoever on actual
environmental performance.
Analyst(s):
Dante Lamarr Benson
E=Total Environmental Score, ESA=Environmental Sector Average Score, EI=Environmental Intent, ER=Environmental Reporting, EP=Environmental Performance, S=Total Social
Score, SSA=Social Sector Average Score, SI=Social Intent, SR=Social Reporting, SP=Social Performance
Comparison with sector averages
Source of points
Distribution of points
E
ESA
S
SSA
0 25 50 75
E
36%
S
64%
67
47
33
9
13
0
EI ER EP SI SR SP
NASA
Environmental Intent
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment
Accountability 3 4 75 Excellent
GRI 2005 Social Indicator for Public Agencies 0 2 0 Needs substantial improvement
Management 3 8 38 Needs improvement
Policy 7 12 58 Good
Urban Environmental Accords 0 2 0 Needs substantial improvement
Vision 2 4 50 Good
Environmental Reporting
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment
Energy 2 14 14 Needs substantial improvement
Management 0 21 0 Needs substantial improvement
Recycling 0 14 0 Needs substantial improvement
Waste 3 21 14 Needs substantial improvement
Water 0 7 0 Needs substantial improvement
Social Intent
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment
Accountability 4 4 100 Excellent
Management 10 10 100 Excellent
Policy 2 6 33 Needs improvement
Public Sector 0 4 0 Needs substantial improvement
Social Demographic 2 2 100 Excellent
Vision 2 4 50 Good
Social Reporting
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment
Human Rights 36 77 47 Needs improvement
Management 0 7 0 Needs substantial improvement
Qualitative Social 6 35 17 Needs substantial improvement
Quantitative Social 1 42 2 Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu 34 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal Agencies

B-
USEPA
USEPA 2010 Web Pages
Unsurprisingly, the EPA appears to be the environmental leader in this group of US federal agencies. It was the first federal agency to purchase green
power equal to one-hundred percent of its estimated annual electricity use, either through direct delivery or renewable energy certificates and it reports a
lot of information about its agency-wide environmental initiative, Greening EPA. The website provides information about its programs to address energy and
water conservation, green power and buildings, recycling, waste reduction and stormwater management. Other practices, like “green meetings” and
“green janitorial services,” aimed at reducing the agency’s environmental footprint are also addressed. Quantitative data are only provided for agency-wide
energy and water use, but the EPA does outline many goals for decreasing energy and water consumption and for increasing recycling rates and
renewable energy use. Besides charged with protecting the natural environment, the EPA mission also includes protecting human health. However, only a
small amount of information about the health and human rights of its employees is presented on its website. For example, it does not report metrics such as
employee turnover, lost workday case rates, or accident rates, and no information is provided about EPA policies for employee volunteerism, fair
compensation, free association, forced labor, or working hours. The website does give a detailed report of the gender and racial distribution of its
workforce in aggregate and office-specific terms, a thing uncommon on the sites of most other agencies. Other highlights of the EPA’s social reporting are
its Environmental Education Department and its Federal Women’s Program.
Analyst(s):
Juliet Marie Archer
E=Total Environmental Score, ESA=Environmental Sector Average Score, EI=Environmental Intent, ER=Environmental Reporting, EP=Environmental Performance, S=Total Social
Score, SSA=Social Sector Average Score, SI=Social Intent, SR=Social Reporting, SP=Social Performance
Comparison with sector averages
Source of points
Distribution of points
E
ESA
S
SSA
0 25 50 75
E
64%
S
36%
81
43
18
19
0
0
EI ER EP SI SR SP
USEPA
Environmental Intent
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment
Accountability 3 4 75 Excellent
GRI 2005 Social Indicator for Public Agencies 0 2 0 Needs substantial improvement
Management 7 8 88 Excellent
Policy 11 12 92 Excellent
Urban Environmental Accords 2 2 100 Excellent
Vision 3 4 75 Excellent
Environmental Reporting
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment
Energy 3 14 21 Needs substantial improvement
Management 1 21 5 Needs substantial improvement
Recycling 2 14 14 Needs substantial improvement
Waste 1 21 5 Needs substantial improvement
Water 3 7 43 Needs improvement
Social Intent
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment
Accountability 2 4 50 Good
Management 5 10 50 Good
Policy 4 6 67 Good
Public Sector 0 4 0 Needs substantial improvement
Social Demographic 2 2 100 Excellent
Vision 0 4 0 Needs substantial improvement
Social Reporting
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment
Human Rights 10 77 13 Needs substantial improvement
Management 0 7 0 Needs substantial improvement
Qualitative Social 8 35 23 Needs substantial improvement
Quantitative Social 1 42 2 Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu 35 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal Agencies

Environmental visionary statement
-Discussion: includes a clear visionary statement expressing an organizational
commitment to good environmental performance.
-Initiatives/actions: include measures to fulfill that commitment.
Discussion
Discussion Pg#
Initiatives/Actions Initiatives Pg#
Environmental impediments and challenges
-Discussion: of impediments and challenges faced by the organization in
attempting to realize its environmental vision and commitments.
-Initiatives/actions: include measures to overcome them.
Discussion
Discussion Pg#
Initiatives/Actions Initiatives Pg#
Social visionary statement
42
-Discussion: includes a clear visionary statement expressing an organizational
commitment good social performance.
-Initiatives/actions: include measures taken to fulfill that commitment.
Discussion
Discussion Pg#
Initiatives/Actions Initiatives Pg#
Social impediments and challenges
Discussion: of impediments and challenges faced by the organization in
attempting to realize its social vision and commitments.
Initiatives/actions: include measures taken to overcome them.
Discussion
Discussion Pg#
Initiatives/Actions Initiatives Pg#
Environmental policy statement
9
-Discussion: includes a formal statement of the organization's environmental
policy or plan.
-Initiatives/actions: include a description of how the policy is being
implemented.
Discussion
Discussion Pg#
Initiatives/Actions Initiatives Pg#
Social policy statement
45
-Discussion: includes a formal statement of the company's social policy or plan.
-Initiatives/actions: include a description of how the policy is being
implemented.
Discussion
Discussion Pg#
Initiatives/Actions Initiatives Pg#
Report contact person
4
-Discussion: identifies the person specifically designated to answer questions
about the report or sustainability issues. Investor relations or public relations
contact representatives are not valid contacts for this question.
-Initiatives/actions: to facilitate such contact, i.e. providing email address,
phone number, or a link for feedback and questions.
Discussion
Discussion Pg#
Initiatives/Actions Initiatives Pg#
Environmental management structure
19
-Discussion: of the organization's environmental management structure or
staffing.
-Initiatives/actions: include identification of individuals currently holding the
staff positions
Discussion
Discussion Pg#
Initiatives/Actions Initiatives Pg#
Government Institutions
5
6
43
Environmental management system
20
-Discussion: includes a statement of adoption of ISO 14001 or other formal
environmental management system.
-Initiatives/actions: include information on the extent to which the system has
been implemented.
Discussion
Discussion Pg#
Initiatives/Actions Initiatives Pg#
Health and Safety, or Social organizational structure 51
-Discussion: of organizational structure or staffing for ensuring health and
safety or social responsibility.
-Initiatives/actions: include identification of the individuals currently holding
the staff positions.
Discussion
Discussion Pg#
Initiatives/Actions Initiatives Pg#
Stakeholder consultation
23
-Discussion: of consultation and dialogue with stakeholders about the
organization's environmental aspects or impacts.
-Initiatives/actions: include identification of specific consultation activities.
Discussion
Discussion Pg#
Initiatives/Actions Initiatives Pg#
Environmental education
16
-Discussion: of efforts to promote environmental education and awareness of
employees, the general public, or children.
-Initiatives/actions: taken to provide such education.
Discussion
Discussion Pg#
Initiatives/Actions Initiatives Pg#
Environmental accounting
-Discussion: of environmental expenditures
-Initiatives/actions: include detailed accounting of such expenditures.
Discussion
Discussion Pg#
Initiatives/Actions Initiatives Pg#
Third-party validation
54
-Discussion: of the value (or lack thereof) of third-party auditing or validation.
-Initiatives/actions: include formal auditing or validation by a qualified
external third-party source.
Discussion
Discussion Pg#
Initiatives/Actions Initiatives Pg#
Climate change/global warming
10
-Discussion: of the organization's position on climate change and/or global
warming.
-Initiatives/actions: include measures taken by the organization to decrease its
contribution to climate change.
Discussion
Discussion Pg#
Initiatives/Actions Initiatives Pg#
Habitat/ecosystem conservation
11
-Discussion: of the organization's position on conserving natural ecosystems
and habitat.
-Initiatives/actions: taken to increase conservation of natural ecosystems either
associated with or separate from the organization's business activities.
Discussion
Discussion Pg#
Initiatives/Actions Initiatives Pg#
21
www.roberts.cmc.edu 36 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal Agencies

Biodiversity
-Discussion: of the organization's position on biodiversity.
-Initiatives/actions: taken by to the organization to foster biodiversity.
Discussion
Discussion Pg#
Initiatives/Actions Initiatives Pg#
Green purchasing
-Discussion: about preferential purchasing of eco-friendly (non-polluting,
recycled, recyclable, etc.) products.
-Initiatives/actions: taken to implement such purchasing.
Discussion
Discussion Pg#
Initiatives/Actions Initiatives Pg#
Supplier screening based on social or environmental 49
performance/ Supplier management
-Discussion: or description of procedures to evaluate and select suppliers on
their ability to meet the requirements of the company's social or environmental
policy and principles.
-Initiatives/actions: include measures to implement or assure such screening or
selection.
Discussion
Discussion Pg#
Initiatives/Actions Initiatives Pg#
Workforce profile: Ethnicities/Race
-Discussion: of racial or ethnic distribution of workforce.
-Initiatives/actions: taken to avoid racial or ethnic discrimination.
Discussion
Discussion Pg#
Initiatives/Actions Initiatives Pg#
Workforce profile: Gender
-Discussion: of gender distribution of workforce.
-Initiatives/actions: taken to avoid gender discrimination and achieve
appropriate balance
Discussion
Discussion Pg#
Initiatives/Actions Initiatives Pg#
Workforce profile: Age
52
-Discussion: of age distribution of workforce.
-Initiatives/actions: include measures taken to avoid age discrimination or to
encourage a balanced age structure.
Discussion
Discussion Pg#
Initiatives/Actions Initiatives Pg#
Employment for individuals with disabilities
80
-Discussion: of appropriate actions to accommodate employees with disabilities.
-Initiatives/actions: taken to implement such accommodations.
Discussion
Discussion Pg#
Initiatives/Actions Initiatives Pg#
Emergency preparedness program
53
-Discussion: of emergency preparedness programs to prepare employees or the
public to cope with potential emergencies at the organization's facilities.
-Initiatives/actions: include measures taken to implement such programs.
Discussion
Discussion Pg#
Initiatives/Actions Initiatives Pg#
Government Institutions
12
13
17
18
Employee training for career development
82
-Discussion: of training, skills and learning programs appropriate to support
employees' upward mobility.
-Initiatives/actions: taken to implement such training.
Discussion
Discussion Pg#
Initiatives/Actions Initiatives Pg#
Code of conduct or business ethics
47
-Discussion: includes a formal organizational code of conduct or of ethical
behavior.
-Initiatives/actions: include measures to assure that the code of conduct is
followed.
Discussion
Discussion Pg#
Initiatives/Actions Initiatives Pg#
Energy used (total)
Sum of the energy used by the organization in all different forms, including
electricity, fuel, natural gas and others.
Discussion
Discussion Pg#:
Context
Context Pg#:
Goal
Goal Pg#:
Current Period Quantitative Data Quant Pg#:
Previous Quantitative Data
Prev QuantPg#:
Improvement Over Previous
ImproveP#:
Year Data Values Units
Energy used (renewable)
Energy used from renewable sources such as wind, solar, hydroelectric, or
other renewable sources.
Discussion
Discussion Pg#:
Context
Context Pg#:
Goal
Goal Pg#:
Current Period Quantitative Data Quant Pg#:
Previous Quantitative Data
Prev QuantPg#:
Improvement Over Previous
ImproveP#:
Year Data Values Units
26
27
www.roberts.cmc.edu 37 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal Agencies

Waste recycled: Solid waste
Sum of all solid waste recycled, including hazardous waste.
Discussion
Discussion Pg#:
Context
Context Pg#:
Goal
Goal Pg#:
Current Period Quantitative Data Quant Pg#:
Previous Quantitative Data
Prev QuantPg#:
Improvement Over Previous
ImproveP#:
Year Data Values Units
Government Institutions
30
Waste (hazardous) produced
Sum of all hazardous materials remaining after production, irrespective of
final disposition. Hazardous wastes include items identified as TRI, PRTR,
HAP (Hazardous Air Pollutants), and similar indices, and may include
mercury or lead. Depending on the nationality of the organization, this could
be labeled "TRI" (Toxic Release Inventory), "substance releases" , or
something else.
Discussion
Discussion Pg#:
Context
Context Pg#:
Goal
Goal Pg#:
Current Period Quantitative Data Quant Pg#:
Previous Quantitative Data
Prev QuantPg#:
Improvement Over Previous
ImproveP#:
Year Data Values Units
35
Waste (office) recycled
Office recycling of paper, cardboard, metal, or plastic
Discussion
Context
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
Year Data Values Units
Waste (solid) disposed of
Discussion Pg#:
Context Pg#:
Goal Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Prev QuantPg#:
ImproveP#:
Includes solid hazardous and non-hazardous waste landfilled, incinerated, or
transferred.
Discussion
Discussion Pg#:
Context
Context Pg#:
Goal
Goal Pg#:
Current Period Quantitative Data Quant Pg#:
Previous Quantitative Data
Prev QuantPg#:
Improvement Over Previous
ImproveP#:
Year Data Values Units
32
34
Waste (hazardous) released to the environment
Amounts of hazardous materials released into the environment, total (TRI,
PRTR, HAP (Hazardous Air Pollutants), and similar indices), may include
mercury or lead. Depending on the nationality of the organization, this could
be labeled "TRI" (Toxic Release Inventory), "substance releases" , or
something else.
Discussion
Discussion Pg#:
Context
Context Pg#:
Goal
Goal Pg#:
Current Period Quantitative Data Quant Pg#:
Previous Quantitative Data
Prev QuantPg#:
Improvement Over Previous
ImproveP#:
Year Data Values Units
Water used
Sum of all water used during operations.
Discussion
Context
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
Year Data Values Units
Discussion Pg#:
Context Pg#:
Goal Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Prev QuantPg#:
ImproveP#:
37
29
www.roberts.cmc.edu 38 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal Agencies

Carbon dioxide (CO2) or equivalents (i.e. GHG)
CO2 emissions (or CO2 equivalents from CO2 + other greenhouse gases)
resulting from all company operations including generating electricity.
Discussion
Discussion Pg#:
Context
Context Pg#:
Goal
Goal Pg#:
Current Period Quantitative Data Quant Pg#:
Previous Quantitative Data
Prev QuantPg#:
Improvement Over Previous
ImproveP#:
Year Data Values Units
Government Institutions
112
Recordable incident/accident rate
Number of employee incidents or accidents, such as: “total case incident
rate”, “incident rate”, or "accident rate".
Discussion
Discussion Pg#:
Context
Context Pg#:
Goal
Goal Pg#:
Current Period Quantitative Data Quant Pg#:
Previous Quantitative Data
Prev QuantPg#:
Improvement Over Previous
ImproveP#:
Year Data Values Units
74
Ozone depleting substances from refrigerant
Total ozone-depleting substances include CFCs (Class I); and halons, carbon
tetrachloride, methyl chloroform, and HCFCs (Class II), not a CO2 emission.
Discussion
Discussion Pg#:
Context
Context Pg#:
Goal
Goal Pg#:
Current Period Quantitative Data Quant Pg#:
Previous Quantitative Data
Prev QuantPg#:
Improvement Over Previous
ImproveP#:
Year Data Values Units
119
Lost workday case rate
Number of employee injuries or illnesses that resulted in one or more lost
workdays
Discussion
Discussion Pg#:
Context
Context Pg#:
Goal
Goal Pg#:
Current Period Quantitative Data Quant Pg#:
Previous Quantitative Data
Prev QuantPg#:
Improvement Over Previous
ImproveP#:
Year Data Values Units
75
Employee turnover rate
Annual employee turnover rate.
Discussion
Context
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
Year Data Values Units
Discussion Pg#:
Context Pg#:
Goal Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Prev QuantPg#:
ImproveP#:
3
Social community investment
Amount of money spent on community outreach, including education grants,
donations, and relief effort funds.
Discussion
Discussion Pg#:
Context
Context Pg#:
Goal
Goal Pg#:
Current Period Quantitative Data Quant Pg#:
Previous Quantitative Data
Prev QuantPg#:
Improvement Over Previous
ImproveP#:
Year Data Values Units
81
www.roberts.cmc.edu 39 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal Agencies

Notices of violation (environmental)
Notices of violation (NOVs) for environmental infractions.
Discussion
Discussion Pg#:
Context
Context Pg#:
Goal
Goal Pg#:
Current Period Quantitative Data Quant Pg#:
Previous Quantitative Data
Prev QuantPg#:
Improvement Over Previous
ImproveP#:
Year Data Values Units
Government Institutions
38
Health and safety citations
Number of health and safety citations or notices of violation. If it is stated that
there were none, check lines 1,2,3, 4, and 6.
Discussion
Discussion Pg#:
Context
Context Pg#:
Goal
Goal Pg#:
Current Period Quantitative Data Quant Pg#:
Previous Quantitative Data
Prev QuantPg#:
Improvement Over Previous
ImproveP#:
Year Data Values Units
76
Environmental expenses and investments
An accounting of money spent or invested specifically to decrease
environmental damage or to benefit the environment
Discussion
Discussion Pg#:
Context
Context Pg#:
Goal
Goal Pg#:
Current Period Quantitative Data Quant Pg#:
Previous Quantitative Data
Prev QuantPg#:
Improvement Over Previous
ImproveP#:
39
Health and safety fines
Fines levied against a company for health and safety violations.
Discussion
Discussion Pg#:
Context
Context Pg#:
Goal
Goal Pg#:
Current Period Quantitative Data Quant Pg#:
Previous Quantitative Data
Prev QuantPg#:
Improvement Over Previous
ImproveP#:
77
Year Data Values Units
Year Data Values Units
Fines (environmental)
Government imposed fines for environmental infractions.
Discussion
Discussion Pg#:
Context
Context Pg#:
Goal
Goal Pg#:
Current Period Quantitative Data Quant Pg#:
Previous Quantitative Data
Prev QuantPg#:
Improvement Over Previous
ImproveP#:
Year Data Values Units
40
Emulating best practices
164
Organization looks for industry "best practices" or performance of peer organizations
as a guide to its reporting
Discussion
Discussion Pg#:
Initiatives/Action
Initiative Pg#:
Context Pg#:
Context
Improve Pg#:
Improvement Over Previous
Women in Management
Relative numbers of women in management.
Discussion
Discussion Pg#:
Initiatives/Action
Initiative Pg#:
Context
Context Pg#:
Improvement Over Previous
Improve Pg#:
Employee satisfaction surveys
Surveys to monitor employee satisfaction.
Discussion
Discussion Pg#:
Initiatives/Action
Initiative Pg#:
Context
Context Pg#:
Improvement Over Previous
Improve Pg#:
2
67
www.roberts.cmc.edu 40 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal Agencies

Occupational health and safety protection
Efforts to provide a safe and healthy working environment at all sites.
Discussion
Discussion Pg#:
Initiatives/Action
Initiative Pg#:
Context
Context Pg#:
Improvement Over Previous
Improve Pg#:
Employee volunteerism
Efforts to promote employee volunteerism in social or environmental projects.
Discussion
Discussion Pg#:
Initiatives/Action
Initiative Pg#:
Context
Context Pg#:
Improvement Over Previous
Improve Pg#:
Green transportation initiatives
Programs to encourage carpooling, mass transit or other reductions in total
commuting.
Discussion
Discussion Pg#:
Initiatives/Action
Initiative Pg#:
Context Pg#:
Context
Improve Pg#:
Improvement Over Previous
Community development
Government Institutions
70
72
163
Efforts to participate in social activities that improve the quality of life of
communities including that of indigenous people, where the organization operates.
Discussion
Discussion Pg#:
Initiatives/Action
Initiative Pg#:
Context Pg#:
Context
Improve Pg#:
Improvement Over Previous
Community education
Efforts to support education in the communities where the company is located.
Discussion
Discussion Pg#:
Initiatives/Action
Initiative Pg#:
Context
Context Pg#:
Improvement Over Previous
Improve Pg#:
Sexual harassment
1
Rejection of any form of sexual harassment.
Adoption of Policy
Policy Adopt Pg#:
Action to Reinforce Policy Initiative Pg#:
Monitoring
Monitoring Pg#:
Quant. Indication of Compliance Qty Perf Pg#:
Political contributions
Policy about political contributions
Adoption of Policy
Action to Reinforce Policy
Monitoring
Quant. Indication of Compliance
Bribery
Rejection of bribery
Adoption of Policy
Action to Reinforce Policy
Monitoring
Quant. Indication of Compliance
Policy Adopt Pg#:
Initiative Pg#:
Monitoring Pg#:
Qty Perf Pg#:
Policy Adopt Pg#:
Initiative Pg#:
Monitoring Pg#:
Qty Perf Pg#:
66
68
7
8
Anti-corruption practices
58
Efforts to uphold the highest standards of business ethics and integrity. May be found
under a Code of Conduct.
Adoption of Policy
Policy Adopt Pg#:
Action to Reinforce Policy Initiative Pg#:
Monitoring
Monitoring Pg#:
Quant. Indication of Compliance Qty Perf Pg#:
Fair compensation of employees
62
Assurance that wages paid meet or exceed legal or industry minimum standard.
Adoption of Policy
Policy Adopt Pg#:
Action to Reinforce Policy Initiative Pg#:
Monitoring
Monitoring Pg#:
Quant. Indication of Compliance Qty Perf Pg#:
Reasonable working hours
64
Compliance with applicable laws and industry standards on working hours, including
overtime.
Adoption of Policy
Policy Adopt Pg#:
Action to Reinforce Policy Initiative Pg#:
Monitoring
Monitoring Pg#:
Quant. Indication of Compliance Qty Perf Pg#:
Degrading treatment or punishment of employees 59
Commitment to oppose any corporal/hard labor punishment, mental/physical
coercion, or verbal abuse.
Adoption of Policy
Policy Adopt Pg#:
Action to Reinforce Policy Initiative Pg#:
Monitoring
Monitoring Pg#:
Quant. Indication of Compliance Qty Perf Pg#:
Elimination of discrimination in respect to employment and 60
occupation
Commitment not to engage in any kind of discrimination based on ethnicity, caste,
religion, disability, sex, age, sexual orientation, union membership, or political
affiliation in hiring practices or employee treatment.
Adoption of Policy
Policy Adopt Pg#:
Action to Reinforce Policy Initiative Pg#:
Monitoring
Monitoring Pg#:
Quant. Indication of Compliance Qty Perf Pg#:
Free association and collective bargaining of employees 61
Efforts to respect the right of employees to form and join trade unions of their choice
and to bargain collectively.
Adoption of Policy
Policy Adopt Pg#:
Action to Reinforce Policy Initiative Pg#:
Monitoring
Monitoring Pg#:
Quant. Indication of Compliance Qty Perf Pg#:
Elimination of all forms of forced and compulsory labor 63
Assurance that all employees enter employment with the company of their own free
will, not by compulsion.
Adoption of Policy
Policy Adopt Pg#:
Action to Reinforce Policy Initiative Pg#:
Monitoring
Monitoring Pg#:
Quant. Indication of Compliance Qty Perf Pg#:
www.roberts.cmc.edu 41 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal Agencies

Effective abolition of child labor
Rejection of illegal child labor by the company or its affiliates.
Adoption of Policy
Policy Adopt Pg#:
Action to Reinforce Policy Initiative Pg#:
Monitoring
Monitoring Pg#:
Quant. Indication of Compliance Qty Perf Pg#:
Government Institutions
65
www.roberts.cmc.edu 42 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal Agencies

Dept. of Agriculture, Dept.
of Defense--Air Force, Dept.
of Defense--Army, Dept. of
Defense--Navy, Dept. of
Energy, Dept. of Homeland
S e c u r i t y , D e p t . o f t h e
I n t e r i o r , D e p t . o f
Roberts Environmental Center
The Roberts Environmental Center is a research institute at Claremont McKenna College, endowed by George R.
Roberts, Founding Partner, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. The Center is managed by faculty and staff, and its research,
including the material in this report, is done by students at the Claremont Colleges.
T r a n s p o r t a t i o n ,
Claremont McKenna College
Claremont McKenna College, a member of the Claremont Colleges, is a highly selective, independent, coeducational,
Dept.Housing
residential, undergraduate liberal arts college with a curricular emphasis
and
on economics, government,
Urban
and public
affairs.
The Claremont Colleges
The Claremont Colleges form a consortium of five undergraduate liberal arts colleges and two graduate institutions
D
ebased v
on the
.
Oxford/Cambridge
,
Gmodel. eThe nconsortium e
offers
r
astudents l
diverse Sopportunities e
rand resources
v
itypically
c e s
found only at much larger universities. The consortium members include Claremont McKenna College, Harvey Mudd
College, Pitzer College, Pomona College, Scripps College, Keck Graduate Institute of Applied Life Sciences, and the
Clremont Graduate University which—includes the Peter F. Drucker and Masatoshi Ito Graduate School of
Management.
Administration, NASA,
Contact Information
Dr. J. Emil Morhardt, Director, Phone: 909-621-8190, email: emorhardt@cmc.edu
Elgeritte Adidjaja, Research Fellow, Phone: 909-621-8698, email: eadidjaja@cmc.edu
Roberts Environmental Center, Claremont McKenna College, 925 N. Mills Avenue, Claremont, CA 91711-5916, USA.
U S E P A