Pharmaceuticals - Roberts Environmental Center

Transcription

McKesson, Cardinal Health,
AmerisourceBergen, Johnson &
J o h n s o n 2012
, P Sustainability
fi z e r , RReporting
oche Group,
G l aofxtheoWorld’s
S m iLargest
t h KDrugs
l i nand
e ,Biotech
N oCompanies
vartis,
(*Pharmaceuticals)
Sanofi-Aventis, AstraZeneca, Abbott
Laboratories, Merck
ck & Co, Eli Lilly,
Bristol-Myers
ers
rs Squ
rs
SSquibb
Sq
Squibb,
quibb,
qu
qui
q
uibb, Su
uibb,
Suz
SSuzuk
Suzuken,
u
Takeda
Pharmaceutical, Amgen, Teva
Pharmaceutical
eu
eu
eutical
utical
tical
ti
iicall IInds,
Inds
d Th
T
The
h e Merck
Group, Astellas
ellas
ella
ll Ph
Pharma,
Pharma
h
, No
N
Nov
Novo
ov
vo N
Nordisk,
Daiichi Sankyo,
nkyo
nkyo,
kyo
k
kyo,
ky
y , Toho
yo,
T h Holdin
Holding
H
Holdings,
ld
ldings EISAI,
Gilead Sciences,
ences
een
ences,
nces
n
nces,
ces,
ces, My
M
Mylan
yllan
a Lab
Labo
Labor
Laboratories,
L
Laab
b
Genzyme, Allergan,
All
llergan
lll
llergan
lergan,
eergan,
g , Bi
Biogen
g Idec
I
Id
Inc.,
a
n
d
U
C
B
Pacific Sustainability Index Scores: A benchmarking tool for online sustainability reporƟng
J.Emil Morhardt, ElgeriƩe Adidjaja, RaƟk Asokan, Simone Berkovitz, Leah Bross, Carolyn Campbell, Quinn
Chasan, Jaclyn T. D'Arcy, Whitney Ellen Dawson, Karen de Wolski, Elizabeth Duckworth, Erin Franks, Karina
Gomez, Hilary Haskell, Alan Hu, Bukola Jimoh, Sam Kahr, Eric Robert King, Jordan Lieberman, Danielle L.
Manning, Erin Mastagni, Stephanie Oehler, Daniel Olmsted, Ashley ScoƩ, Michael Handler Shoemaker, and
Sachi Singh.
*This report is based on companies in the Forbes 2010 Drugs and Biotechnology sector, roughly equivalent to
the Fortune Magazine PharmaceuƟcal sector used in our previous reports.
Contents
Topics
Company Rankings
PSI Overview
PSI Scoring in a Nutshell
Environmental Intent Topics
Environmental Reporting Topics
Social Intent Topics
Social Reporting Topics
Environmental Intent Element of the PSI Scores
Environmental Reporting Element of the PSI
Scores
Social Intent Element of the PSI Scores
Social Reporting Element of the PSI Scores
Environmental Intent Scores Ranking
Environmental Reporting Scores Ranking
Environmental Performance Scores Ranking
Social Intent Scores Ranking
Social Reporting Scores Ranking
Social Performance Scores Ranking
Human Rights Reporting Element
Performance by Country
Visual Cluster Analysis
Relationship Between PSI Scores and Financial
Variables
Number of Explicit numerical goals Reported
Number of Topics Showing Performance
Improvement over Previous Year Data
Number of Topics in which Performance was
Better than Sector Average
Analyst’s Comments, alphabetically listed by
company name
Appendix: PSI Questionnaire
Page
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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
Banks, Insurance
Chemicals
60
Questions should be addressed to:
Elgeritte Adidjaja, Research Fellow
(909) 621-8698
(eadidjaja@cmc.edu)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Federal Agencies
Food Services
X
X
X
X
X
General Merchandiser
X
Homebuilders
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X*
X
X
*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Petroleum & Refining
X
Pharmaceuticals
X
Scientific, Photo, & Control
Equipment
Telecommunications, Network, &
Peripherals
Transportation
X
X
Municipalities
Oil and Gas Equipment
Dr. J. Emil Morhardt, Director
(emorhardt@cmc.edu)
Roberts Environmental Center
Claremont McKenna College
925 N. Mills Ave. Claremont, CA 91711-5916, USA
Direct line: (909) 621-8190
2
0
1
2
X
Entertainment
Motor Vehicle & Parts
2
0
1
1
X
Household, Apparel, & Personal
Products
Industrial & Farm Equipment
Mail, Freight, & Shipping
Medical Products & Equipment
Metals
Mining, Crude Oil
30
2
0
1
0
X
Forest & Paper Products
29
2
0
0
9
X
X
Energy & Utilities
26
27
2
0
0
8
X
Colleges/Universities
Computer, Office Equipment, &
Services
Conglomerates
Food & Beverages
Electronics & Semiconductors
2
0
0
7
X
Aerospace & Defense
Airlines
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2
0
0
6
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
* Multiple-sector category was separated in later years.
Departmental Secretaries: (909) 621-8298
The goal of corporate report analysis conducted by the Roberts Environmental Center is to acquaint students with environmental and
social issues facing the world’s industries, and the ways in which industry approaches and resolves these issues.
The data presented in this report were collected by student research assistants and a research fellow at the Roberts Environmental
Center. Copyright 2012 © by J. Emil Morhardt. All rights reserved.
www.roberts.cmc.edu
2
Drugs and Biotechnology Sectors
Sustainability Reporting of Worlds' Largest Drugs &
Biotechnology Companies
Corporate Environmental and Sustainability Reporting
Company Rankings
Overall Grade
53.74
The Merc k Group
52.51
Amgen
A+
The Merck Group (Germany)
A+
Amgen (USA)
A+
Abbott Laboratories (USA)
A
Roche Group (Switzerland)
Abbott Laboratories
51.55
A
Johnson & Johnson (USA)
Roc he Group
50.87
A
Allergan (USA)
A-
Novartis (Switzerland)
A-
GlaxoSmithKline (U.K.)
A-
Daiichi Sankyo (Japan)
46.58
A-
Bristol-Myers Squibb (USA)
46.22
B+
Eli Lilly (USA)
B+
Biogen Idec Inc. (USA)
48.81
Johnson & Johnson
47.57
Allergan
Novartis
GlaxoSmithKline
Daiic hi Sankyo
43.36
B+
Sanofi-Aventis (France)
Bristol- Myers Squibb
43.20
B+
Astellas Pharma (Japan)
B+
Novo Nordisk (Denmark)
B+
Pfizer (USA)
B
Takeda Pharmaceutical (Japan)
39.58
B
Merck & Co (USA)
39.46
B-
McKesson (USA)
B-
AstraZeneca (U.K.)
B-
EISAI (Japan)
C+
Genzyme (USA)
C+
UCB (Belgium)
C
Teva Pharmaceutical Inds (Israel)
D+
Cardinal Health (USA)
42.04
Eli Lilly
41.41
Biogen Idec Inc .
Sanofi- Aventis
Astellas Pharma
39.10
Novo Nordisk
38.07
Pfizer
36.55
Takeda Pharmac eutic al
33.73
Merc k & Co
Mc Kesson
30.47
D+
Suzuken (Japan)
AstraZenec a
30.07
D
AmerisourceBergen (USA)
D-
Mylan Laboratories (USA)
D-
Gilead Sciences (USA)
F
Toho Holdings (Japan)
29.55
EISAI
28.12
Genzyme
26.93
UCB
23.95
Teva Pharmac eutic al Inds
15.12
Cardinal Health
11.85
Suzuken
7.88
Amerisourc eBergen
Mylan Laboratories
5.77
Gilead Sc ienc es
5.41
0.48
Toho Holdings
0
25
50
75
100
This report is an analysis of the voluntary environmental and social reporting of companies on the 2010 Forbes Pharmaceuticals sector
lists. Data were collected from corporate websites during the initial analysis period (dates shown below). A draft sector report was then
made available online and letters were sent to all companies inviting them to review the analysis, to identify anything missed by our
analysts, and to post additional material on their websites if they wished to improve their scores.
Analysis Period:
4/6/2011 through 5/31/2011
Draft sector report available for review:
8/1/2012 through 8/31/2012
www.roberts.cmc.edu
3
The Pacific Sustainability Index (PSI) Overview
the PSI Scoring System
The Pacific Sustainability Index (PSI) uses two systematic questionnaires to analyze the quality of the
sustainability reporting—a base questionnaire for reports across sectors and a sector-specific
questionnaire for companies within the same sector. The selection of questions is based on, and
periodically adjusted to, the most frequently-mentioned topics in over 1,900 corporate sustainability reports
analyzed from 2002 through 2009 at the Roberts Environmental Center.
The Roberts Environmental Center
The Roberts Environmental Center is an environmental research institute at Claremont McKenna College
(CMC). Its mission is to provide students of all the Claremont Colleges with a comprehensive and realistic
understanding of today’s environmental issues and the ways in which they are being and can be resolved-beyond the confines of traditional academic disciplines and curriculum--and to identify, publicize, and
encourage policies and practices that achieve economic and social goals in the most environmentally
benign and protective manner. The Center is partially funded by an endowment from George R. Roberts
(Founding Partner of Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. and CMC alumnus),
other grants and gifts, and is staffed by faculty and students from the
Claremont Colleges.
Methodology
Student analysts download relevant English language web pages from
the main corporate website for analysis. Our scoring excludes data
independently stored outside the main corporate website or available
only in hard copy. When a corporate subsidiary has its own
sustainability reporting, partial credit is given to the parent company
when a direct link is provided in the main corporate website. We archive these web pages as PDF files for
future reference. Our analysts use a keyword search function to search reporting of specific topics, 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 companies of the sector, as listed in the latest 2010
Forbes lists. Prior to publishing our sector report, we notify companies analyzed and encourage them to
provide feedback and additional new online materials, which often improve their scores.
What do the scores mean?
We normalize all the scores to the potential maximum score. Scores of subsets of the overall score are also
normalized to their potential maxima. The letter grades (A+, A, A-, B+, etc.), however, are normalized to the
highest scoring company analyzed in the report. Grades of individual companies in the report might be
different from grades posted online on the Roberts Environmental Center's website, since the normalization
of scores of an individual company online is not limited to the companies analyzed in the sector report, but
also includes other companies of the same sector irrespective of the year of analysis. Companies with
scores in the highest 4% get an A+ and any in the bottom 4% get an F. We assign these by dividing the
maximum PSI score obtained in the sector into 12 equal parts then rounding fractional score up or down.
This means that A+ and F are under-represented compared to the other grades. The same technique applies
to the separate categories of environmental and social scores. Thus, we grade on the curve. We assume
that the highest score obtained in the sector and any scores near it represent the state-of-the-art for that
sector and deserve an A+.
www.roberts.cmc.edu
4
PSI Scoring in a Nutshell
Our analysis of sustainability reporting has a set of basic topics applied to all organizations as well as a series of
sector-specific topics. The topics are divided into environmental and social categories—the latter including human
rights—and into three types of information: 1) intent, 2) reporting, and 3) performance.
1. Intent
The “Intent” topics are each worth two points; one point for a discussion of intentions, vision, or plans, and one point
for evidence of specific actions taken to implement them.
2. Reporting
The “Reporting” topics are each worth five points and are either quantitative (for which we expect numerical data)
or qualitative (for which we don’t).
For quantitative topics, one point is available for a discussion, one point for putting the information into perspective
(i.e. awards, industry standards, competitor performance, etc., or if the raw data are normalized by dividing by
revenue, number of employees, number of widgets produced, etc.), one point for the presence of an explicit
numerical goal, one point for numerical data from a single year, and one point for similar data from a previous year.
For qualitative topics, there are three criteria summed up to five points: 1.67 points for discussion, 1.67 points for
initiatives or actions, and 1.67 points for perspective.
3. Performance
For each “Reporting” topic, two performance points are available.
For quantitative topics, one point is given for improvement from the previous reporting period, and one point for
better performance than the sector average (based on the data used for this sector report normalized by revenue).
For qualitative topics, we give one point for any indication of improvement from previous reporting periods, and one
point for perspective.
The 11 “human rights” topics are scored differently, with five “reporting” points; 2.5 points for formally adopting a
policy or standard and 2.5 points for a description of monitoring measures. In addition, there are two “performance”
points; one point for evidence of actions to reinforce policy and one point for a quantitative indication of compliance.
Distribution of Scores by topics
www.roberts.cmc.edu
5
Drugs & Biotechnology
Environmental Intent Topics
Percent of possible points for all companies combined.
Two possible points for each topic:
Accountability
69.17
70
60.83
4
19
60.83
* Report contact person
* Environmental management structure
Management
60
16
20
21
23
52.50
50
* Environmental education
* Environmental management system
* Environmental accounting
* Stakeholder consultation
Policy
40
9
10
11
12
13
194
30
20
Vision
5
6
* Environmental visionary statement
* Environmental impediments and challenges
Vision
Policy
Management
Accountability
10
0
* Environmental policy statement
* Climate change/global warming
* Habitat/ecosystem conservation
* Biodiversity
* Green purchasing
* Green Chemistry
Notes:
* These numbers correspond to the numbers in the PSI questionnaire. Items with numbers higher than 99 are sectorspecific questions. Appendix 1 has the complete questionnaire.
www.roberts.cmc.edu
6
Environmental Reporting Topics
Seven possible points for each topic:
Emissions to Air
83
114
121
* Carbon monoxide (CO)
* Ozone depleting substances from refrigerant
* Nitrogen oxides (NOx)
123
127
* Particulate matter (dust)
* Sulfur oxides (SOx)
118
119
70.00
70
60
* Greenhouse gases (or CO2 equivalents), total
* Volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
Emissions to Water
51.67
129
130
50
131
* Suspended solids, total (TSS)
* Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
* Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD)
Energy
40
35.52
33.87
26
27
30.00
* Energy used (total)
* Renewable energy used
27.78
30
Management
39
* Notices of violation (environmental)
* Environmental expenses and investments
40
* Fines (environmental)
38
20
16.00
Materials Usage
11.67
10
145
148
* Hazardous materials usage
* Materials used: Non-returnable packaging
Recycling
30
32
Water
Waste
Recycling
Materials Usage
Management
Energy
Emissions to Water
Emissions to Air
0
* Waste recycled: solid waste
* Waste (office) recycled
Waste
34
35
37
109
110
* Waste (solid) disposed of
* Waste (hazardous) produced
* Waste (hazardous) released to the environment
* Waste: Packaging materials
* Waste water released to natural water bodies
Water
29
* Water used
Notes:
www.roberts.cmc.edu
7
Social Intent Topics
Two possible points for each topic:
Accountability
51
90
80.56
54
80
*
structure
Third-party validation
Management
70
17
65.00
18
52
60
53
49.33
50
* Health and safety, or social organizational
82
46.67
43.33
* Workforce profile: ethnicities/race
* Workforce profile: gender
* Workforce profile: age
* Emergency preparedness program
* Employee training for career development
Policy
40
45
47
30
49
* Social policy statement
* Code of conduct or business ethics
* Supplier screening based on social or
environmental performance/ supplier
management
20
Social Demographic
80
10
* Employment for individuals with disabilities
42
Vision
Social Demographic
Policy
Management
Accountability
Vision
0
43
* Social visionary statement
* Social impediments and challenges
Notes:
www.roberts.cmc.edu
8
Social Reporting Topics
Seven possible points for each topic:
Accountability
192
* Disclosure of clinical trials
Human Rights
70
64.67
1
59.33
7
60
55.50
8
52.30
58
59
50
60
* Sexual harassment
* Political contributions
* Bribery
* Anti-corruption practices
* Degrading treatment or punishment of employees
* Elimination of discrimination in respect to
employment and occupation
40
61
* Free association and collective bargaining of
employees
30.48
62
30
63
* Fair compensation of employees
* Elimination of all forms of forced and compulsory
labor
64
20
65
Management
10
2
* Women in management
Quantitative Social
Qualitative Social
Management
Human Rights
Qualitative Social
Accountability
0
* Reasonable working hours
* Effective abolition of child labor
66
67
68
70
72
153
154
193
* Community development
* Employee satisfaction surveys
* Community education
* Occupational health and safety protection
* Employee volunteerism
* Animal testing standards
* Access to health care in low income communities
* Efforts on neglected diseases
Quantitative Social
3
74
75
76
77
* Employee turnover rate
* Recordable incident/accident rate
* Lost workday case rate
* Health and safety citations
* Health and safety fines
Notes:
www.roberts.cmc.edu
9
Environmental Intent Elements of the PSI Scores
Environmental visionary
statement
93.3%
86.7%
90.0%
81.7%
Stakeholder consultation
86.7%
Report contact person
66.7%
Environmental policy
statement
83.3%
81.7%
Environmental management
structure
80.0%
55.0%
Climate change/global
warming
73.3%
71.7%
Environmental management
system
73.3%
65.0%
66.7%
61.7%
Environmental education
Environmental impediments
and challenges
56.7%
51.7%
Habitat/ecosystem
conservation
56.7%
45.0%
50.0%
43.3%
Biodiversity
46.7%
35.0%
Environmental accounting
43.3%
36.7%
Green Chemistry
40.0%
36.7%
Green purchasing
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
= Percentage of companies addressing the topics
= Percentage of the total possible number of points awarded to all companies combined for each topic,
indicating the depth of reporting coverage measured by PSI criteria for each topic. If both percentages are
the same it means that each of those reporting companies reporting on a topic got all the possible points.
www.roberts.cmc.edu
10
Environmental Reporting Elements of the PSI Scores
Energy used (total)
Greenhouse gases (or CO2 equivalents), total
76.7%
50.0%
Waste (solid) disposed of
73.3%
4 1. 4 %
Renewable energy used
66.7%
24.8%
Waste recycled: solid waste
66.7%
30.0%
Waste (hazardous) produced
66.7%
36.2%
Nitrogen oxides (NOx)
66.7%
33.8%
Sulfur oxides (SOx)
53.3%
25.7%
Waste: Packaging materials
50.0%
13 . 3 %
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
50.0%
25.7%
Ozone depleting substances from refrigerant
50.0%
2 1. 0 %
Fines (environmental)
50.0%
25.7%
Waste water released to natural water bodies
19 . 0 %
Notices of violation (environmental)
19 . 5 %
Waste (office) recycled
43.3%
40.0%
36.7%
12 . 9 %
Environmental expenses and investments
36.7%
14 . 3 %
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
20.5%
Particulate matter (dust)
9.0%
Materials used: Non-returnable packaging
8.6%
Hazardous materials usage
8 . 1%
36.7%
33.3%
26.7%
26.7%
11. 0 %
26.7%
Suspended solids, total (TSS)
16 . 7 %
7.6%
Carbon monoxide (CO)
16 . 7 %
4.8%
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD)
76.7%
57.6%
Water used
Waste (hazardous) released to the environment
83.3%
49.0%
13 . 3 %
6.2%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
www.roberts.cmc.edu
11
Social Intent Elements of the PSI Scores
96.7%
90.0%
Code of conduct or business ethics
93.3%
86.7%
Social visionary statement
Employee training for career development
83.3%
78.3%
Social policy statement
83.3%
78.3%
80.0%
73.3%
Supplier screening based on social or environmental
performance/ supplier management
76.7%
Health and safety, or social organizational structure
53.3%
66.7%
55.0%
Workforce profile: gender
60.0%
51.7%
Workforce profile: ethnicities/race
53.3%
43.3%
Employment for individuals with disabilities
50.0%
40.0%
Emergency preparedness program
46.7%
40.0%
Social impediments and challenges
46.7%
43.3%
33.3%
21.7%
Workforce profile: age
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
www.roberts.cmc.edu
12
Social Reporting Elements of the PSI Scores
Elimination of discrimination in respect to employment and
occupation
93.3%
61.0%
Community development
93.3%
48.6%
Anti-corruption practices
90.0%
57.1%
Occupational health and safety protection
49.0%
Bribery
49.0%
Social community investment
86.7%
86.7%
86.7%
28.6%
Access to health care in low income communities
83.3%
45.7%
Community education
76.7%
38.1%
Political contributions
43.3%
Sexual harassment
43.3%
Employee volunteerism
45.2%
Disclosure of clinical trials
76.7%
76.7%
76.7%
76.7%
42.4%
Women in management
73.3%
46.2%
Recordable incident/accident rate
70.0%
43.8%
Animal testing standards
70.0%
41.0%
Lost workday case rate
37.6%
Fair compensation of employees
35.7%
Free association and collective bargaining of employees
53.3%
14.3%
Effective abolition of child labor
29.0%
Degrading treatment or punishment of employees
28.1%
Reasonable working hours
20.0%
Employee satisfaction surveys
21.4%
Elimination of all forms of forced and compulsory labor
21.0%
Health and safety fines
23.3%
9.0%
Health and safety citations
23.3%
7.1%
Employee turnover rate
23.3%
11.9%
0%
53.3%
50.0%
21.9%
Efforts on neglected diseases
66.7%
56.7%
29.5%
Training, hours per number of employees
66.7%
50.0%
46.7%
46.7%
43.3%
10% 20%
30% 40%
50% 60%
70% 80%
90% 100%
www.roberts.cmc.edu
13
EI Score Rankings
Environmental Intent Scores
A+
Bristol-Myers Squibb
A
Allergan
85.7
A
Pfizer
85.7
A
A
Biogen Idec Inc.
The Merck Group
82.1
A
Amgen
T he Merck Group
82.1
A
A-
GlaxoSmithKline
Astellas Pharma
Amgen
82.1
A-
Takeda Pharmaceutical
GlaxoSmithKline
82.1
A-
Novartis
Roche Group
Johnson & Johnson
92.9
Allergan
Pfizer
Biogen Idec Inc.
Astellas Pharma
78.6
AA-
T akeda Pharmaceutical
78.6
A-
Daiichi Sankyo
Novartis
78.6
Roche Group
AB+
Eli Lilly
EISAI
78.6
B+
Abbott Laboratories
Johnson & Johnson
78.6
B
Novo Nordisk
AstraZeneca
Sanofi-Aventis
Daiichi Sankyo
75.0
B
B-
Eli Lilly
75.0
B-
McKesson
C+
C+
Suzuken
UCB
EISAI
67.9
Abbott Laboratories
67.9
Novo Nordisk
AstraZeneca
C+
Teva Pharmaceutical Inds
60.7
C+
Merck & Co
60.7
C
D-
Genzyme
Cardinal Health
D-
Mylan Laboratories
F
F
Gilead Sciences
Toho Holdings
F
AmerisourceBergen
57.1
Sanofi-Aventis
McKesson
53.6
50.0
Suzuken
46.4
UCB
T eva Pharmaceutical Inds
42.9
Merck & Co
42.9
39.3
Genzyme
Cardinal Health
10.7
Mylan Laboratories 7.1
Gilead Sciences 3.6
T oho Holdings 3.6
AmerisourceBergen 3.6
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
14
ER Score Rankings
Environmental Reporting Scores
55.20
Abbott Laboratories
50.40
Amgen
49.60
Allergan
A+
Abbott Laboratories
A
Amgen
A
A-
Allergan
Daiichi Sankyo
Daiichi Sankyo
45.60
A-
The Merck Group
T he Merck Group
44.80
GlaxoSmithKline
43.20
B+
B+
GlaxoSmithKline
Astellas Pharma
B+
Roche Group
B
Pfizer
Sanofi-Aventis
Novartis
40.00
Astellas Pharma
40.00
Roche Group
Pfizer
37.60
B
B
Sanofi-Aventis
36.00
B
Biogen Idec Inc.
Novartis
36.00
Biogen Idec Inc.
35.20
B
B-
Johnson & Johnson
Johnson & Johnson
35.20
B-
Genzyme
B-
Eli Lilly
Novo Nordisk
33.60
Genzyme
32.00
BB-
Eli Lilly
32.00
C+
Merck & Co
31.20
C+
C
UCB
McKesson
C-
EISAI
D+
AstraZeneca
DD-
Suzuken
16.80
F
Mylan Laboratories
15.20
F
F
Gilead Sciences
Toho Holdings
F
AmerisourceBergen
F
Cardinal Health
30.40
Novo Nordisk
Merck & Co
26.40
UCB
25.60
21.60
McKesson
EISAI
AstraZeneca
T eva Pharmaceutical Inds 6.40
Suzuken 2.40
Gilead Sciences 0.00
T oho Holdings 0.00
Cardinal Health 0.00
0
25
50
75
100
Environmental reporting scores are based on the degree to which the company discusses its emissions, energy sources
and consumption, environmental incidents and violations, materials use, mitigations and remediation, waste produced, and
water used. They also include use of life cycle analysis, environmental performance and stewardship of products, and
environmental performance of suppliers and contractors.
www.roberts.cmc.edu
15
Environmental Performance Scores
EP Score Rankings
A+
Allergan
Allergan
30.00
A+
Abbott Laboratories
Abbott Laboratories
30.00
A-
The Merck Group
Novo Nordisk
Amgen
T he Merck Group
26.00
Novo Nordisk
24.00
AA-
Amgen
24.00
A-
GlaxoSmithKline
GlaxoSmithKline
24.00
B+
B-
Daiichi Sankyo
Astellas Pharma
18.00
B-
18.00
B-
18.00
BC+
Eli Lilly
Johnson & Johnson
C+
Biogen Idec Inc.
C+
C
McKesson
Sanofi-Aventis
C
Novartis
D+
AstraZeneca
D+
D+
Roche Group
Pfizer
D
UCB
D
D
Genzyme
EISAI
Genzyme 4.00
D-
EISAI 4.00
D-
Merck & Co
Merck & Co 2.00
F
F
Mylan Laboratories
Gilead Sciences
F
Toho Holdings
T oho Holdings 0.00
F
F
Suzuken
AmerisourceBergen
Suzuken 0.00
F
Cardinal Health
Daiichi Sankyo
22.00
Astellas Pharma
Eli Lilly
18.00
Johnson & Johnson
16.00
Biogen Idec Inc.
14.00
McKesson
14.00
Sanofi-Aventis
12.00
Novartis
12.00
AstraZeneca 8.00
Roche Group 8.00
Pfizer 8.00
UCB 6.00
T eva Pharmaceutical Inds 2.00
Cardinal Health 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
16
SI Score Rankings
Social Intent Scores
T he Merck Group
92.31
Novartis
88.46
A+
A
The Merck Group
Novartis
A
Amgen
AstraZeneca
Sanofi-Aventis
Amgen
84.62
AstraZeneca
84.62
A
A
Sanofi-Aventis
84.62
A-
Eli Lilly
80.77
A-
GlaxoSmithKline
80.77
AA-
Roche Group
Daiichi Sankyo
B+
Biogen Idec Inc.
B+
B
Allergan
Astellas Pharma
B
Abbott Laboratories
B
UCB
B
B
Novo Nordisk
B
McKesson
BB-
Johnson & Johnson
C+
EISAI
C+
Merck & Co
Pfizer
Eli Lilly
GlaxoSmithKline
Roche Group
80.77
Daiichi Sankyo
76.92
Biogen Idec Inc.
73.08
Allergan
73.08
Astellas Pharma
65.38
Abbott Laboratories
65.38
UCB
61.54
Novo Nordisk
61.54
61.54
McKesson
61.54
57.69
Johnson & Johnson
53.85
EISAI
50.00
50.00
C+
C+
50.00
C+
Cardinal Health
C+
C-
Suzuken
Genzyme
D
Mylan Laboratories
D
Gilead Sciences
DF
AmerisourceBergen
Toho Holdings
Merck & Co
Pfizer
46.15
Cardinal Health
46.15
Suzuken
42.31
Genzyme
34.62
T oho Holdings 3.85
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
17
SR Score Rankings
Social Reporting Scores
Johnson & Johnson
68.21
A+
Johnson & Johnson
62.26
A+
A
Roche Group
The Merck Group
61.55
A
Novartis
AA-
Amgen
Roche Group
65.83
T he Merck Group
Novartis
58.57
Amgen
56.43
Abbott Laboratories
52.14
B+
Abbott Laboratories
Allergan
50.95
B+
Allergan
Eli Lilly
50.83
B+
B+
Eli Lilly
GlaxoSmithKline
B+
Merck & Co
B+
B
Novo Nordisk
Biogen Idec Inc.
B
Sanofi-Aventis
B
Pfizer
B
B
Daiichi Sankyo
EISAI
B-
AstraZeneca
Astellas Pharma
GlaxoSmithKline
50.48
Merck & Co
50.24
Novo Nordisk
49.88
Biogen Idec Inc.
47.50
Sanofi-Aventis
47.02
Pfizer
45.36
Daiichi Sankyo
44.05
EISAI
42.74
AstraZeneca
42.14
40.24
BB-
Astellas Pharma
38.81
B-
38.69
B-
McKesson
McKesson
37.62
Genzyme
37.02
BC
Genzyme
UCB
UCB
30.59
C
Cardinal Health
Cardinal Health
28.81
D+
D
AmerisourceBergen
Mylan Laboratories
AmerisourceBergen
18.57
Mylan Laboratories
13.69
D
Gilead Sciences
Gilead Sciences
12.62
D
Suzuken
Suzuken
11.90
F
Toho Holdings
T oho Holdings 0.00
0
25
50
75
100
Social reporting scores are based on the degree to which the company discusses various aspects of its dealings with its
employees and contractors. They also include social costs and investments.
www.roberts.cmc.edu
18
SP Score Rankings
Social Performance Scores
A+
Roche Group
A+
Abbott Laboratories
39.29
A
A-
The Merck Group
Amgen
Amgen
37.50
A-
Johnson & Johnson
Johnson & Johnson
37.50
25.00
BB-
Biogen Idec Inc.
Eli Lilly
Roche Group
42.86
Abbott Laboratories
41.07
T he Merck Group
Biogen Idec Inc.
Eli Lilly
25.00
B-
Astellas Pharma
Astellas Pharma
23.21
B-
Novartis
Novartis
23.21
GlaxoSmithKline
23.21
BC+
GlaxoSmithKline
Merck & Co
Merck & Co
21.43
C+
Daiichi Sankyo
Novo Nordisk
Sanofi-Aventis
Daiichi Sankyo
19.64
Novo Nordisk
19.64
C+
C+
Sanofi-Aventis
19.64
C
17.86
C
17.86
17.86
C
C
McKesson
McKesson
17.86
C
EISAI
C
C-
Pfizer
Allergan
C-
Cardinal Health
D+
UCB
D+
D+
Suzuken
AstraZeneca
Suzuken 8.93
D
Genzyme
AstraZeneca 8.93
Genzyme 7.14
D
F
AmerisourceBergen
Gilead Sciences
F
Mylan Laboratories
F
Toho Holdings
EISAI
16.07
Pfizer
16.07
Allergan
14.29
Cardinal Health
14.29
UCB 10.71
T oho Holdings 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
19
Human Rights Reporting Elements of the PSI Scores
Percent of companies reporting*
Human Rights Topics
adoption
reinforcement
monitoring
90.0%
63.3%
40.0%
13.3%
86.7%
56.7%
26.7%
3.3%
50.0%
13.3%
6.7%
6.7%
53.3%
30.0%
10.0%
10.0%
43.3%
23.3%
3.3%
3.3%
93.3%
80.0%
36.7%
13.3%
66.7%
36.7%
16.7%
10.0%
56.7%
33.3%
10.0%
10.0%
73.3%
43.3%
26.7%
13.3%
46.7%
10.0%
6.7%
10.0%
76.7%
53.3%
20.0%
6.7%
Bribery
Elimination of discrimination in respect to employment
and occupation
Free association and collective bargaining of
employees
Sexual harassment
compliance
Basis of Scores
Adoption
We assign one point for adoption of a policy standard or for an explicit discussion of an organization’s stance on each of
11 human rights principles.
Reinforcement
We assign one point for a description of reinforcement actions to make a policy stronger, such as providing educational
programs, training, or other activities to promote awareness.
Monitoring
We assign one point for a description of monitoring measures including mechanisms to detect violations at an early
stage, providing systematic reporting, or establishment of committee structure to oversee risky activities.
Compliance
We assign one point for a quantitative indication of compliance, such as a description of incidences of failure of
compliance, or a statement that there were no such incidences.
www.roberts.cmc.edu
20
Average Overall, Environmental, and Social PSI Scores Performance
by Country
This graph illustrates the average
PSI in three categories--overall,
environmental, and social-breakdown by countries. Since
our sample size follows the
world's largest companies from
the Fortune list, several countries
have only one company score to
represent the whole country's
sustainability reporting in the
sector.
USA
U.K.
Switzerland
Japan
Overall
Israel
Germany
France
Denmark
Country
Belgium
USA
U.K.
Switzerland
Japan
Environmental
Israel
N
Belgium
1
Denmark
1
France
1
Germany
Israel
1
1
Japan
6
Switzerland
U.K.
2
2
USA
15
Germany
France
Denmark
Belgium
USA
U.K.
Switzerland
Japan
Social
Israel
Germany
France
Denmark
Belgium
0
www.roberts.cmc.edu
10
20
30
40
50
21
60
70
Visual Cluster Analysis
Visual cluster analysis multivariate data of the sort produced by the PSI are difficult to summarize. Here we have created radar diagrams
of the performance of each company analyzed in the sector by its environmental and social intent, reporting, and performance sorted by
company ranking. Maximum scores will match the outer sides of the hexagon, which total up to 100 percent.
EI = Environmental Intent, ER = Environmental Reporting, EP = Environmental Performance
SI = Social Intent, SR = Social Reporting, SP = Social Performance
ER
EI
ER
100
100
75
75
75
50
EP
EI
EI
EP
50
EI
50
EP
EI
50
25
25
25
0
0
0
0
SP
SI
SP
SI
SR
SP
SI
SR
Amgen
SI
SR
Abbott Laboratories
ER
SP
SR
Roche Group
ER
Johnson & Johnson
ER
ER
100
100
100
100
75
75
75
75
75
50
EP
EI
50
EP
EI
EP
50
EI
50
EP
EI
50
25
25
25
25
25
0
0
0
0
0
SP
SI
SR
SP
SI
SR
Allergan
SI
SR
Novartis
ER
SP
ER
SP
SI
SR
GlaxoSmithKline
SP
Bristol-Myers
Squibb
ER
ER
100
100
100
100
100
75
75
75
75
75
50
EP
EI
50
EP
EI
EP
50
EI
50
EP
EI
50
25
25
25
25
25
0
0
0
0
0
SI
SP
SI
SR
SP
SI
SR
Eli Lilly
SI
SR
Biogen Idec Inc.
ER
SP
ER
SP
SI
SR
Sanofi-Aventis
SP
Novo Nordisk
ER
ER
100
100
100
100
100
75
75
75
75
75
50
EP
EI
50
EP
EI
EP
50
EI
50
EP
EI
50
25
25
25
25
25
0
0
0
0
0
SI
SP
SI
SR
SP
SI
SR
Pfizer
SI
SR
Takeda
Pharmaceutical
ER
SP
ER
SP
SI
SR
Merck & Co
SP
AstraZeneca
ER
ER
100
100
100
100
100
75
75
75
75
75
50
EP
EI
50
EP
EI
EP
50
EI
50
EP
EI
50
25
25
25
25
25
0
0
0
0
0
SI
SP
SI
SR
SP
SI
SR
EISAI
SI
SR
Genzyme
ER
SP
ER
SP
SI
SR
UCB
SP
Cardinal Health
ER
ER
100
100
100
100
100
75
75
75
75
75
50
EP
EI
50
EP
EI
EP
50
EI
50
EP
EI
50
25
25
25
25
25
0
0
0
0
0
SI
SP
SR
Suzuken
www.roberts.cmc.edu
SI
SP
SR
AmerisourceBergen
SI
SP
SR
Mylan Laboratories
22
SI
EP
SR
Teva
Pharmaceutical Inds
ER
EP
SR
McKesson
ER
EP
SR
Astellas Pharma
ER
EP
SR
Daiichi Sankyo
ER
EP
SP
100
SI
EI
EP
25
0
ER
EI
50
25
SR
EI
ER
100
75
The Merck Group
EI
ER
100
75
SI
EI
ER
100
SP
SR
Gilead Sciences
SI
EP
SP
SR
Toho Holdings
Relationships Between Overall PSI Score and Companies' Revenue and Profit
Company Name
Overall
Score
Revenue
($million)
Revenue
Log10 $M
Profits
Profits
($million) Log $M
10
Assets Assets
($million) Log $M
10
Market
Value
($million)
Market
Value
Log10 $M
Abbott Laboratories
Allergan
51.55
47.57
30760
1.49
5750
0.76
52420
1.72
84290
1.93
4500
0.65
620
-0.21
7540
0.88
18330
1.26
AmerisourceBergen
7.88
73760
1.87
540
-0.27
13560
1.13
7930
0.90
52.51
39.46
14640
1.17
4610
0.66
39630
1.60
55720
1.75
9920
1.00
1760
0.25
13180
1.12
17810
1.25
AstraZeneca
Biogen Idec Inc.
30.07
41.41
32800
1.52
7520
0.88
53630
1.73
63560
1.80
4380
0.64
970
-0.01
8550
0.93
15310
1.18
43.20
18810
1.27
10610
1.03
31010
1.49
41810
1.62
Cardinal Health
Daiichi Sankyo
15.12
43.36
101660
2.01
780
-0.11
20820
1.32
12680
1.10
8650
0.94
-2210
14200
1.15
14320
1.16
EISAI
29.55
8030
0.90
490
-0.31
10910
1.04
11580
1.06
Eli Lilly
Genzyme
42.04
28.12
21840
1.34
4330
0.64
27460
1.44
39580
1.60
4520
0.66
420
-0.38
10060
1.00
15630
1.19
5.41
7010
0.85
2640
0.42
9700
0.99
42760
1.63
GlaxoSmithKline
Johnson & Johnson
46.22
48.81
45830
1.66
8940
0.95
65380
1.82
95360
1.98
61900
1.79
12270
1.09
94680
1.98
174900
2.24
McKesson
Merck & Co
30.47
33.73
108280
2.03
1200
0.08
27540
1.44
16270
1.21
27430
1.44
12900
1.11
112090
2.05
116110
2.06
5.77
5090
0.71
230
-0.64
10800
1.03
6560
0.82
46.58
39.10
44270
1.65
8400
0.92
90890
1.96
126220
2.10
9830
0.99
2070
0.32
10270
1.01
44650
1.65
Pfizer
38.07
50010
1.70
8640
0.94
212950
2.33
143230
2.16
Roche Group
Sanofi-Aventis
50.87
39.58
47350
1.68
7510
0.88
69640
1.84
146190
2.16
41990
1.62
7540
0.88
114850
2.06
98070
1.99
Suzuken
11.85
16860
1.23
70
-1.15
8380
0.92
3110
0.49
Takeda Pharmaceuti
Teva Pharmaceutica
36.55
23.95
15800
1.20
2410
0.38
27830
1.44
35470
1.55
14360
1.16
2070
0.32
33210
1.52
56190
1.75
The Merck Group
53.74
11100
1.05
520
-0.28
23200
1.37
17430
1.24
Toho Holdings
UCB
0.48
26.93
8620
0.94
-30
4030
0.61
990
0.00
4350
0.64
720
-0.14
13290
1.12
7910
0.90
Amgen
Astellas Pharma
Gilead Sciences
Mylan Laboratories
Novartis
Novo Nordisk
Source:
www.roberts.cmc.edu
23
2010 Forbes List
60
5 3 .7 4
5 2 .5 1
5 1.5 5
50
5 0 .8 7
4 8 .8 1
4 7 .5 7
4466.5.282
Overall PSI Scores
4 3 .3 6
4 3 .2 0
4 2 .0 4
4 1.4 1
40
3 9 .5 8
3 8 .0 7
.4 6
33 99 .10
3 6 .5 5
3 3 .7 3
30
2 8 .12
2 6 .9 3
3 0 .4 7
3 0 .0 7
2 9 .5 5
2 3 .9 5
20
15 .12
11.8 5
10
7 .8 8
5 .7 7
5 .4 1
2
R = 0.016
0 .4 8
0
0
0.5
1
1. 5
2
2.5
Revenue
Log10 $M
60
53.74
52.51
5 1. 5 55 0 . 8 7
50
48.81
4 46 6. 5. 28 2
47.57
Overall PSI Scores
43.20
42.04
4 1. 4 1
40
39.58
38.07
3 9 .3496. 10
36.55
33.73
30.47
2 9 . 5 5 30
2 8 . 12
26.93
2
30.07
R = 0.3119
23.95
20
15 . 12
11. 8 5
10
7.88
5.77
5.41
0
- 1.5
-1
- 0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
Profits
Log10 $M
www.roberts.cmc.edu
24
60
53.74
52.51
50
48.81
46.22 46.58
Overall PSI Scores
47.57
43.36
4 1. 4 1
3 9 . 103 9 . 4 6
40
5 1. 5 5 5 0 . 8 7
43.20
42.04
39.58
36.55
2
30
33.73
R = 0.267
30.47
29.55
2 8 . 12
26.93
38.07
30.07
23.95
20
15 . 12
11. 8 5
10
7.88
5 . 45 1. 7 7
0.48
0
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Asset
Log10 $M
60
53.74
52.51
50
47.57
43.36
4 1. 4 1
39.46
Overall PSI Scores
40
5 1. 5 5
50.87
48.81
4 6 . 2 24 6 . 5 8
43.20
42.04
39.58
3 9 . 10
36.55
38.07
33.73
30
26.93
2 9 . 5 53 0 . 4 7
2 8 . 12
2
3 0 .0.4232
07
R =
23.95
20
15 . 12
11. 8 5
10
7.88
5.77
5.41
0.48
- 5.00E - 01
0
0.00E + 00
5.00E - 01
1.00E + 00
1.50E + 00
2.00E + 00
2.50E + 00
Market Value
Log10 $M
www.roberts.cmc.edu
25
Number of Explicit numerical goals Reported
Abbott Laboratories
13
Amgen
12
Pfizer
12
Johnson & Johnson
12
Novartis
11
GlaxoSmithKline
10
Allergan
9
Astellas Pharma
8
Biogen Idec Inc.
7
Eli Lilly
6
5
AstraZeneca
5
The Merck Group
4
Daiichi Sankyo
4
Novo Nordisk
4
Roche Group
4
2
Merck & Co 1
Teva Pharmaceutical Inds 1
EISAI 1
0
5
10
15
20
25
Explicit Goals Most Frequently Reported
1
18
2
Water used
15
3
13
4
10
5
Energy used (total)
9
6
9
7
7
www.roberts.cmc.edu
26
Number of Topics Showing Performance Improvement over Previous Year Data
The Merck Group
22
Abbott Laboratories
19
Allergan
18
GlaxoSmithKline
17
Amgen
17
Johnson & Johnson
14
Novo Nordisk
12
Daiichi Sankyo
11
11
Eli Lilly
11
McKesson
10
Astellas Pharma
9
Novartis
9
8
Biogen Idec Inc.
8
Roche Group
8
Sanofi-Aventis
6
Merck & Co
6
AstraZeneca
5
EISAI
5
UCB
4
Pfizer
4
4
Cardinal Health
2
Genzyme 1
Suzuken 1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Topics Most Frequently Reported as Having Improvements over previous year data
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Water used
Energy used (total)
Women in management
Sulfur oxides (SOx)
www.roberts.cmc.edu
19
14
13
12
11
10
10
10
9
9
9
8
8
8
7
6
27
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Renewable energy used
Community education
www.roberts.cmc.edu
6
5
5
5
5
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
28
Number of Topics in which Performance was Better than Sector Average*
Amgen
3
Roche Group
3
Novo Nordisk
3
Johnson & Johnson
3
3
Eli Lilly
2
2
Genzyme
2
Abbott Laboratories
2
Daiichi Sankyo
2
Biogen Idec Inc.
2
Astellas Pharma
2
GlaxoSmithKline
2
The Merck Group
1
McKesson
1
Novartis
1
AstraZeneca
1
Pfizer
1
Sanofi-Aventis
1
Allergan
1
0
1
2
3
4
*Sector averages are calculated from the materials scored for this report.
www.roberts.cmc.edu
29
A+
Abbott Laboratories 2011 Global Citizenship
Report, Code of Business Conduct, and 2012 Web
Pages
Abbott
Laboratories
Abbott Laboratories publishes a Global Citizenship Report and Code of Conduct annually, in addition to a regularly updated Global Citizenship section of its
corporate website. The company is thorough in its publication of quantitative data; however, it could benefit from publishing more analysis of the data,
explaining why certain values increased or decreased. The company offers a good discussion of the initiatives it has undertaken to decrease the amount
of material it uses in packaging materials. However, the data that is offered is very specific examples of certain drugs that now are shipped with reduced
packaging. The data is not in aggregate form, however. Abbott’s Code of Conduct very clearly states the company’s policies for each of the relevant PSI
criteria. However, no examples of actions undertaken to reinforce the policy, monitoring for violation, or quantitative indicators of compliance are
presented for any of the human rights items. Examples of reinforcement of the Code of Conduct would be beneficial to Abbott because it would
demonstrate commitment to being an ethical employer and a responsible corporate citizen. Publication of the name of a contact person in the Global
Citizenship department would further demonstrate this commitment.
Analyst 1: Elizabeth Duckworth
Analyst 2: Erin Franks
E=Total Environmental Score, ESA=Environmental Sector Average Score, EI=Environmental Intent, ER=Environmental Reporting, EP=Environmental Performance, S=Total Social
Score, SSA=Social Sector Average Score, SI=Social Intent, SR=Social Reporting, SP=Social Performance
Comparison with sector averages
Distribution of points
Source of points
E
73
ES A
E
50%
S
S
50%
SSA
25
50
23
4
EI
0
58
27
ER
EP
SI
SR
13
Consolidated Edison
SP
75
Environmental Intent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
Question Category
3
4
75
Excellent
Management
6
8
75
Excellent
Policy
6
12
50
Good
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Emissions to Air
25
49
51
Good
Emissions to Water
5
21
24
Needs substantial improvement
Energy
8
14
57
Good
Management
8
21
38
Needs improvement
Materials Usage
3
14
21
Good
Recycling
8
14
57
Waste
21
35
60
Good
Water
6
7
86
Excellent
Social Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
1
4
25
Needs improvement
Management
6
10
60
Good
Policy
6
6
100
Social Demographic
0
2
0
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
Excellent
Social Reporting
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
2
7
29
Needs improvement
Human Rights
40
77
52
Good
Management
6
7
86
Excellent
Qualitative Social
29
56
52
Good
Quantitative Social
17
49
35
Needs improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
30
A
Allergan 2011 Sustainability Performance Report,
2010 Environmental Health and Safety
Sustainability Performance Reports, 2010 Code of
Conduct, and 2011 Web Pages
Allergan
Allergan’s consideration of environmental and social sustainability is demonstrated in its 2011 Allergan Sustainability Performance Report, Code of Conduct,
and 2012 web pages. The company provides detailed environmental and social visionary statements, as well as various policies that are enforced to help
accomplish these visions. Allergan recognizes that climate change and global warming are occurring and has taken action to decrease its impact, such as
joining the USEPA Climate Wise Program and the Carbon Disclosure Project, and screening suppliers for their environmental impacts prior to working with
them. Similarly, Allergan supports the preservation of ecosystems and biodiversity. Community involvement is also evident through the company’s formation
of the Allegran Foundation and its contributions to education, environmental groups, and other causes. Allergan could improve its report by including
information about the composition of its workforce and details about training, employee turnover rate, and employee satisfaction surveys. While Allegran
has an extensive Code of Conduct, it should also incorporate the company’s positions on bribery and treatment of employees. Allegran should also provide
the amounts of waste, water, energy, packaging materials, and other aspects that it produces, uses, or emits. It is clear from its reports that Allegran
actively considers its environmental and social sustainability, but the company could provide a bit more information to make its reporting more effective.
Analyst 1: Stephanie Oehler
Analyst 2: Carolyn Campbell
Source of points
E
86
ES A
E
53%
S
SSA
0
25
50
73
51
50
S
47%
30
14
EI
75
ER
EP
SI
SR
Allergan
SP
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
Question Category
4
4
100
Excellent
Management
7
8
88
Excellent
Policy
9
12
75
Excellent
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Emissions to Air
24
49
49
Needs improvement
Emissions to Water
12
21
57
Good
Energy
9
14
64
Good
Management
10
21
48
Needs improvement
Materials Usage
4
14
29
Needs improvement
Recycling
6
14
43
Needs improvement
Waste
6
35
17
Water
6
7
86
Excellent
Social Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
2
4
50
Good
Management
9
10
90
Excellent
Policy
6
6
100
Social Demographic
0
2
0
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Excellent
Social Reporting
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
3
7
43
Needs improvement
Human Rights
30
77
39
Needs improvement
Management
7
7
100
Excellent
Qualitative Social
25
56
45
Needs improvement
Quantitative Social
10
49
20
www.roberts.cmc.edu
31
D
AmerisourceBergen
AmerisourceBergen 2011 Code of Ethics and
Business Conduct and 2011 Web Pages
AmerisourceBergen has no significant reporting of environmental sustainability. There is no published corporate sustainability report and the web pages
have no information about an environmental protection policy. The company does have a large Code of Ethics and Business Conduct, which provides the
basic policies for human rights. However, it should go into more detail to show how these polices are implemented and enforced in order to protect
workers’ rights.
Analyst 1: Eric Robert King
Analyst 2: Erin Mastagni
Source of points
E
3%
E
ES A
19
8
7
4
S
S
97%
SSA
0
25
50
75
EI
0
0
ER
EP
AmerisourceBergen
SI
SR
SP
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
Question Category
1
4
25
Needs improvement
Management
0
8
0
Policy
0
12
0
Vision
0
4
0
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Emissions to Air
0
49
0
Emissions to Water
0
21
0
Energy
0
14
0
Management
0
21
0
Materials Usage
0
14
0
Recycling
0
14
0
Waste
0
35
0
Water
0
7
0
Social Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
0
4
0
Management
0
10
0
Policy
2
6
33
Needs improvement
Social Demographic
0
2
0
Vision
0
4
0
Social Reporting
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
0
7
0
Human Rights
24
77
31
Needs improvement
Management
0
7
0
Qualitative Social
6
56
11
Quantitative Social
1
49
2
www.roberts.cmc.edu
32
A+
Amgen 2011 Environmental Sustainability Report,
Code of Conduct, and 2011 web pages
Amgen
Amgen’s Corporate Responsibility extends to community development, social health care, and education. The Amgen Foundation prepares a separate
Charitable Contributions Report that details social work and that is available on the company’s website. Amgen’s sustainability commitment is expressed
through its governance, sustainability plan and stakeholder engagement. Amgen is also taking organizational steps to reduce their environmental impact
through green innovation in biology, chemistry, packaging and logistics. The company's initiatives include composting at factories and the introduction of
better water usage solutions. In the social sector, Amgen is involved in many wildlife and nature conservancy initiatives including the Heal the Bay and
Merito Academy conservation programs and youth awareness initiatives. The Amgen foundation also sponsors a well developed scholarship program,
student biotechnology lab and is involved in science education. Amgen boasts an employee body that shares ‘a deep appreciation for the natural world’ and
the company has many staff volunteering programs.
Analyst 1: Ratik Asokan
Analyst 2: Sachi Singh
Source of points
E
85
82
ES A
E
47%
S
S
53%
SSA
0
25
50
56
50
38
24
Amgen
EI
75
ER
EP
SI
SR
SP
Question Category
Accountability
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
4
4
100
Excellent
Management
6
8
75
Excellent
Policy
10
12
83
Excellent
Vision
3
4
75
Excellent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
7
49
14
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Emissions to Water
0
21
0
Energy
12
14
86
Excellent
Management
7
21
33
Needs improvement
Materials Usage
5
14
36
Needs improvement
Recycling
9
14
64
Good
Waste
29
35
83
Excellent
Water
6
7
86
Excellent
Social Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
4
4
100
Excellent
Management
8
10
80
Excellent
Policy
6
6
100
Excellent
Social Demographic
2
2
100
Excellent
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Social Reporting
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
6
7
86
Excellent
Human Rights
42
77
55
Good
Management
0
7
0
Qualitative Social
34
56
61
Good
Quantitative Social
18
49
37
Needs improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
33
B+
Astellas Pharma 2010 CSR Report, and 2011 Web
Pages
Astellas Pharma
Astellas Pharma publishes a detailed CSR Report annually. This report is supplemented by a detailed Social Responsibility section of its corporate web
pages. Although the report and web pages contain a great deal of both qualitative and quantitative data, the company could make two large improvements
to its publications. Notably lacking from these publications is a detailed Code of Conduct. A general code is published in both the CSR Report and on the
web pages; however, this code does not address the majority of the human rights items on the PSI. Items not addressed include: political contributions,
bribery, fair compensation of employees, degrading treatment or punishment of employees, free association and collective bargaining of employees, and
elimination of forced and compulsory labor. In addition to these large, unaddressed items, there is no mention of action to reinforce policy, monitoring, or
quantitative indication of compliance for the few human rights items the Code of Conduct covers. Through the publication of information relevant to these
items, the company would demonstrate its commitment to being a responsible employer and corporate citizen. Another general area in which the company
could improve its reporting is quantitative data pertaining to environmental emissions. Astellas Pharma publishes enough quantitative data for the provision
of a general outline of its environmental emissions. The publication of quantitative data in these groups would provide a more complete description of the
company’s environmental impact and demonstrate its commitment to the many environmental policies and goals stated in its CSR Report.
Analyst 1: Elizabeth Duckworth
Source of points
E
79
ES A
E
5 1%
S
SSA
0
25
50
65
S
49%
40
39
18
EI
75
ER
EP
23
Astellas Pharma
SI
SR
SP
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
Question Category
4
4
100
Excellent
Management
7
8
88
Excellent
Policy
7
12
58
Good
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Emissions to Air
23
49
47
Needs improvement
Emissions to Water
4
21
19
Energy
5
14
36
Needs improvement
Management
8
21
38
Needs improvement
Materials Usage
0
14
0
Recycling
2
14
14
Waste
12
35
34
Needs improvement
Water
5
7
71
Good
Social Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
2
4
50
Good
Management
5
10
50
Good
Policy
6
6
100
Excellent
Social Demographic
2
2
100
Excellent
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Social Reporting
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
3
7
43
Needs improvement
Human Rights
37
77
48
Needs improvement
Management
4
7
57
Good
Qualitative Social
15
56
27
Needs improvement
Quantitative Social
7
49
14
www.roberts.cmc.edu
34
B-
AstraZeneca 2010 Annual Report, Code of Conduct,
and 2011 Web Pages
AstraZeneca
While AstraZeneca did well in discussing aspects of environmental intent including climate change, biodiversity and green chemistry; in its 2010 Annual
Report and supporting web pages AstraZeneca fails to present relevant information and quantitative data to support many of its claims of environmental
responsibility. On its website AstraZeneca states that “managing our environmental impact continues to be a priority”, yet hardly any quantitative data is
reported supporting this statement. Socially, AstraZeneca reports some quantitative data to support its discussion of topics such as lost workday and
accident rate. Yet, there are many fields that still need more thorough reporting such as fines, violations, and investments. In addition, the Code of Conduct
lacks discussion of many policies regarding employee treatment, labor practices, and harassment. An improvement in reporting quantitative data along
with presenting initiatives to support the discussion of many topics will improve AstraZeneca’s score greatly.
Analyst 1: Jordan Lieberman
Analyst 2: Karen de Wolski
Source of points
E
85
E
34%
ES A
61
42
S
S
66%
SSA
0
25
50
EI
75
15
8
ER
EP
9
SI
SR
AstraZeneca
SP
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
Question Category
2
4
50
Good
Management
2
8
25
Needs improvement
Policy
9
12
75
Excellent
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Emissions to Air
7
49
14
Emissions to Water
0
21
0
Energy
2
14
14
Management
0
21
0
Materials Usage
3
14
21
Recycling
0
14
0
Waste
8
35
23
Water
3
7
43
Needs improvement
Social Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
3
4
75
Excellent
Management
7
10
70
Good
Policy
6
6
100
Excellent
Social Demographic
2
2
100
Excellent
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
Social Reporting
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
3
7
43
Needs improvement
Human Rights
24
77
31
Needs improvement
Management
6
7
86
Excellent
Qualitative Social
16
56
29
Needs improvement
Quantitative Social
11
49
22
www.roberts.cmc.edu
35
B+
Biogen Idec Corporate Citizenship Report, Code of
Business Conduct, and 2012 Web Pages
Biogen Idec Inc.
Biogen Idec’s corporate sustainability report addresses much of the criteria on which the Pacific Sustainability Index (PSI) focuses. The report centers on
four main pillars: patients, community, environment and employees. The patients section discusses Biogen Idec’s focus on neglected diseases and patient
care programs, such as free or discounted medications. The community section details philanthropic efforts, largely focused on improving access to
science education. The environment section provides a robust discussion of environmental initiatives as Biogen Idec works to reduce its footprint by 15%
by 2015 from 2006 levels. Finally, the employee section details programs to improve company culture, employee work life and diversity. In addition, Biogen
Idec’s corporate sustainability report includes a detailed GRI index and a number of anecdotes to contextualize its corporate sustainability efforts. Two
impressive anecdotes include the continued optimization of the cogeneration facility in Cambridge and the creation of a disposable hybrid manufacturing
facility in North Carolina. Biogen Idec also participates in the Pharmaceutical Supply Chain Initiative (PSCI), an industry wide initiative working to help its
suppliers build their governance, social and environmental capabilities. Overall, Biogen Idec provides a high quality corporate sustainability report with
relevant environmental and social information.
Analyst 1: Karina Gomez
Analyst 2: Bukola Jimoh
Source of points
E
82
E
45%
ES A
S
S
55%
SSA
0
25
50
73
47
35
25
14
EI
75
ER
EP
Biogen Idec Inc.
SI
SR
SP
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
Question Category
4
4
100
Excellent
Management
6
8
75
Excellent
Policy
9
12
75
Excellent
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Emissions to Air
18
49
37
Needs improvement
Emissions to Water
0
21
0
Energy
7
14
50
Good
Management
5
21
24
Materials Usage
2
14
14
Recycling
8
14
57
Good
Waste
7
35
20
Water
4
7
57
Good
Social Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
2
4
50
Good
Management
6
10
60
Good
Policy
6
6
100
Excellent
Social Demographic
1
2
50
Good
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
Social Reporting
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
7
7
100
Excellent
Human Rights
36
77
47
Needs improvement
Management
3
7
43
Needs improvement
Qualitative Social
22
56
39
Needs improvement
Quantitative Social
16
49
33
Needs improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
36
A-
Bristol-Myers Squibb 2004-2005 Corporate Social
Responsibility, 2010 Standards of Business Conduct
and Ethics and 2011 Web Pages
Bristol-Myers
Squibb
Bristol-Myers Squibb does a good job of reporting its environmental sustainability practices through its 2010 Corporate Sustainability Report and 2011 web
pages. Interestingly, the company sees both risk and opportunity from climate change. Bristol-Myers recognizes that is creates risks just from being in the
pharmaceutical industry but also sees an opportunity to gain a competitive advantage by being the best at reducing emissions and conserving energy.
Additionally, the company’s “Go Green” plan focuses on initiatives that employees can use at work and at home to become more sustainable. Bristol-Myers
Squibb reports quantitative data, including the basic data on energy consumed and greenhouse gas emissions. However, there are many categories that
the company only mentions briefly and does not include any data for, such as carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxide. In addition, the exact data values are
not reported for many of the categories, only graphs that show the range in which each data value falls. For social sustainability reporting, the company
provides the basic policies against discrimination and child labor, but it leaves out other crucial details such on policies against forced labor.
Source of points
E
93
E
43%
ES A
S
58
SSA
0
25
50
31
S
57%
EI
75
ER
59
18
EP
18
SI
SR
Bristol-Myers
Squibb
SP
Question Category
Accountability
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
4
4
100
Excellent
Management
7
8
88
Excellent
Policy
12
12
100
Excellent
Vision
3
4
75
Excellent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Emissions to Air
13
49
27
Needs improvement
Emissions to Water
1
21
5
Energy
7
14
50
Good
Management
3
21
14
Materials Usage
0
14
0
Recycling
3
14
21
Waste
15
35
43
Needs improvement
Water
6
7
86
Excellent
Social Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
3
4
75
Excellent
Management
3
10
30
Needs improvement
Policy
6
6
100
Excellent
Social Demographic
0
2
0
Vision
3
4
75
Excellent
Social Reporting
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
3
7
43
Needs improvement
Human Rights
42
77
55
Good
Management
4
7
57
Good
Qualitative Social
21
56
38
Needs improvement
Quantitative Social
19
49
39
Needs improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
37
D+
Cardinal Health 2009 Standards of Business
Conduct and 2011 Web Pages
Cardinal Health
Cardinal Health’s 2009 Business Conduct report focuses purely on its social behavior and working environment. The company’s stance on any
environmental issue is not present in the report, or its web pages. The only quantitative information provided is of investment in the community. Cardinal
Health does reach out to its community, and donates $1 million a year, plus $100 million to help with efficiency in the healthcare system. The company also
encourages its employees to volunteer in the community. Made up largely of company employees volunteering their time, Cardinal Health Chamber
Orchestra performs for those unable to attend live performances. Cardinal Health does not provide information about its employees’ satisfaction, or their
safety in the workplace.
Analyst 1: Whitney Ellen Dawson
Source of points
E
5%
E
ES A
46
29
S
14
11
S
95%
SSA
0
25
50
75
EI
0
0
ER
EP
Cardinal Health
SI
SR
SP
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
Question Category
0
4
0
Management
2
8
25
Needs improvement
Policy
0
12
0
Vision
1
4
25
Needs improvement
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Emissions to Air
0
49
0
Emissions to Water
0
21
0
Energy
0
14
0
Management
0
21
0
Materials Usage
0
14
0
Recycling
0
14
0
Waste
0
35
0
Water
0
7
0
Social Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
0
4
0
Management
3
10
30
Needs improvement
Policy
6
6
100
Excellent
Social Demographic
1
2
50
Good
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Social Reporting
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
0
7
0
Human Rights
24
77
31
Needs improvement
Management
0
7
0
Qualitative Social
22
56
39
Needs improvement
Quantitative Social
2
49
4
www.roberts.cmc.edu
38
A-
Daiichi Sankyo 2010 Corporate Sustainability
Report, Social Contribution Activities Report and
2011 Web Pages
Daiichi Sankyo
Daiichi Sankyo does a good job of reporting its environmental sustainability practices through its 2010 Corporate Sustainability Social Contribution Activity
Policies. The company provides extensive information on its environmental accounting by including a chart of all of its environmental expenses. In addition
it includes an entire section on health and safety within the organization, with polices for employees who are working long hours and return to work
assistance. One area in which the company fails to report much information is climate change. Daiichi Sankyo claims to set targets for moderating climate
change but the report fails to include any of these targets. Daiichi Sankyo does a decent job of reporting environmental quantitative data, including the
basic data on energy consumed and greenhouse gas emissions. However there is not much data regarding social community investment or any mention of
health and safety citations or fines. For social sustainability reporting, the company provides information on human rights policies, including many actions
to reinforce its policies for sexual harassment and reasonable working hours. Daiichi Sankyo could improve by extending these actions to reinforce its
social polices.
Source of points
E
75
ES A
E
5 1%
S
SSA
0
25
50
77
S
49%
46
44
22
EI
75
ER
EP
20
SI
SR
Daiichi Sankyo
SP
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
Question Category
2
4
50
Good
Management
8
8
100
Excellent
Policy
8
12
67
Good
Vision
3
4
75
Excellent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Emissions to Air
16
49
33
Needs improvement
Emissions to Water
8
21
38
Needs improvement
Energy
8
14
57
Good
Management
5
21
24
Materials Usage
4
14
29
Needs improvement
Recycling
7
14
50
Good
Waste
15
35
43
Needs improvement
Water
5
7
71
Good
Social Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
4
4
100
Excellent
Management
6
10
60
Good
Policy
6
6
100
Excellent
Social Demographic
2
2
100
Excellent
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Social Reporting
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
6
7
86
Excellent
Human Rights
35
77
45
Needs improvement
Management
4
7
57
Good
Qualitative Social
21
56
38
Needs improvement
Quantitative Social
6
49
12
www.roberts.cmc.edu
39
B-
Eisai 2009 Code of Conduct, 2009 Environmnetal and
Social Report, and 2011 Web Pages
EISAI
Eisai enacts various progressive initiatives, such as providing Revovir to treat hepatitis B in the Philippines at a reduced cost under its affordable pricing
policy. The company promotes “capacity building” to strengthen development in developing countries and is committed to developing cure for neglected
diseases. However, much of Eisai’s data is incomplete, provided only for some plants and lacking discussion of its initiatives in areas such as packaging
materials, BOD, COD, and hazardous waste. Women in management and age demographic data were provided, but initiatives to combat discrimination
were not mentioned. Likewise, the percent of employees with disabilities was given while policies outlining the steps Eisai is taking to accommodate these
individuals were not available. Adding information in such areas would greatly improve the company’s score.
Analyst 1: Ashley Scott
Source of points
E
E
36%
ES A
68
50
S
17
S
64%
SSA
0
25
50
EI
75
ER
43
16
4
EP
SI
SR
EISAI
SP
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
Question Category
3
4
75
Excellent
Management
7
8
88
Excellent
Policy
7
12
58
Good
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Emissions to Air
7
49
14
Emissions to Water
0
21
0
Energy
6
14
43
Needs improvement
Management
2
21
10
Materials Usage
1
14
7
Recycling
4
14
29
Needs improvement
Waste
3
35
9
Water
0
7
0
Social Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
0
4
0
Management
4
10
40
Needs improvement
Policy
5
6
83
Excellent
Social Demographic
0
2
0
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
Social Reporting
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
3
7
43
Needs improvement
Human Rights
20
77
26
Needs improvement
Management
3
7
43
Needs improvement
Qualitative Social
29
56
52
Good
Quantitative Social
11
49
22
www.roberts.cmc.edu
40
B+
Eli Lilly & Co 2012 Web Pages
Eli Lilly
Eli Lilly & Co provides sustainability reporting in the form of its Position on the Disposal of Unused Medicines in the U.S., Position on Pharmaceuticals in the
Environment, Communication on Progress to the United Nations Global Compact 2010 Report, Charitable Giving 2009, Key Indicators Table, and 2011 web
[pges. The company demonstrates a strong commitment to social and environmental responsibility. The company reports its emission levels of carbon
monoxide, ozone depleting substances, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and sulfur oxides. However, units for these emission levels are not provided.
Furthermore, the company’s transparency is not as evident due to its lack of third party auditing. The amount of solid waste recycled is reported as a
percentage, making it unclear as to how much waste is recycled quantitatively. However, the company’s investment in environmental measures is made
evident by its 529 million dollar Energy, Waste, and Water Reduction Fund.
Analyst 1: Hilary Haskell
Source of points
E
S
51
25
50
32
S
58%
SSA
0
81
75
E
42%
ES A
EI
75
ER
25
18
EP
Eli Lilly
SI
SR
SP
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
Question Category
3
4
75
Excellent
Management
7
8
88
Excellent
Policy
7
12
58
Good
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Emissions to Air
25
49
51
Good
Emissions to Water
0
21
0
Energy
7
14
50
Good
Management
2
21
10
Materials Usage
2
14
14
Recycling
1
14
7
Waste
7
35
20
Water
5
7
71
Good
Social Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
1
4
25
Needs improvement
Management
8
10
80
Excellent
Policy
6
6
100
Excellent
Social Demographic
2
2
100
Excellent
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
Social Reporting
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
3
7
43
Needs improvement
Human Rights
37
77
48
Needs improvement
Management
4
7
57
Good
Qualitative Social
25
56
45
Needs improvement
Quantitative Social
15
49
31
Needs improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
41
C+
Genzyme 2009 Environmental Compliance Report,
2009 Environmental Impact Report, 2008 Code of
Conduct, and 2011 Web Pages
Genzyme
For such a large and prestigious biotech company, Genzyme’s lack of environmental reporting is surprising. No environmental report exists and the
environmental information given only consists of a few web pages. While separate reports indicating the company’s compliance with environmental
standards and its impact on the environment are posted on the website, the data given does not incorporate all of the company’s operations. The only
quantitative data given was for energy and water used, air emissions, and wasted generated, with no distinction given between the various aspects of
these data values, such as renewable energy vs. nonrenewable energy. Furthermore, the data is given in bar graphs with some graphs missing exact data
values. • While there is more social data given than environmental, it too is lacking for such as large company. The company does a good job of reporting its
social commitments to communities, such as providing humanitarian assistance and its free drug programs. Yet apart from a few pages in the Code of
Conduct, the website includes very little information about Genzyme’s social commitment to employees, such as employee education and equal opportunity
hiring practices. There is also no information given regarding occupation health and safety protection.
Analyst 1: Sam Kahr
Source of points
E
39
ES A
E
47%
S
S
53%
SSA
0
25
50
35
32
37
7
4
EI
75
ER
EP
SI
SR
Genzyme
SP
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
Question Category
2
4
50
Good
Management
4
8
50
Good
Policy
3
12
25
Needs improvement
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Emissions to Air
10
49
20
Emissions to Water
2
21
10
Energy
5
14
36
Needs improvement
Management
8
21
38
Needs improvement
Materials Usage
0
14
0
Recycling
4
14
29
Needs improvement
Waste
9
35
26
Needs improvement
Water
4
7
57
Good
Social Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
0
4
0
Management
3
10
30
Needs improvement
Policy
3
6
50
Good
Social Demographic
1
2
50
Good
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Social Reporting
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
3
7
43
Needs improvement
Human Rights
14
77
18
Management
0
7
0
Qualitative Social
31
56
55
Good
Quantitative Social
2
49
4
www.roberts.cmc.edu
42
D-
Gilead Sciences 2010 Business Conduct Manual and,
2011 Web Pages
Gilead Sciences
Gilead Sciences’s 2011 web pages and Business Conduct Manual provide little sustainability information. There is no mention of environmental initiatives
or policy. In regards to social sustainability, Gilead Sciences presents its Gilead Access program which provides pharmaceuticals to patients of the
developing world. Beyond this, there is little mention of social efforts. Gilead Sciences does report efforts towards employee satisfaction, with various
benefits including a refund program for continuing education in accredited 4-year colleges or universities.
Analyst 1: Alan Hu
Source of points
E
5%
E
ES A
12
13
4
S
S
95%
SSA
0
25
50
75
EI
0
0
ER
EP
2
SI
SR
Gilead Sciences
SP
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
Question Category
0
4
0
Management
1
8
13
Policy
0
12
0
Vision
0
4
0
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Emissions to Air
0
49
0
Emissions to Water
0
21
0
Energy
0
14
0
Management
0
21
0
Materials Usage
0
14
0
Recycling
0
14
0
Waste
0
35
0
Water
0
7
0
Social Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
0
4
0
Management
2
10
20
Policy
1
6
17
Social Demographic
0
2
0
Vision
0
4
0
Social Reporting
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
0
7
0
Human Rights
10
77
13
Management
0
7
0
Qualitative Social
6
56
11
Quantitative Social
1
49
2
www.roberts.cmc.edu
43
A-
GlaxoSmithKline 2010 Corporate Responsibility
Report, and Employee guide to Business Conduct
GlaxoSmithKline
GlaxoSmithKline has a strong stated commitment to both environmental and social sustainability. Its Sustainability Centre of Excellence has set forth a clear
environmental strategy for the company, including more ambitious goals for reducing environmental impact than in previous years. Each department also
maintains its own environmental sub-strategy, composed internally. In 2010, it became the first organization to achieve global certification for the Carbon
Trust Standard; this certification recognizes GSK’s year-on-year performance in reducing carbon emissions. GSK also pledged $50 million to a joint venture
with the Singapore Economic Development Board in support of research on sustainable manufacturing. Furthermore, GSK has begun to implement supplier
screening based on environmental factors. The largest area for improvement within GSK’s CSR is within its quantitative data—although the data it provides
is more than is included in a typical CSR, the company does not report data for a number of emissions and types of waste. •GSK performs equally well
socially. It is committed to increase worldwide access to its medicines; the company ranked first on the Access To Medicine Index, which assesses
companies’ efforts to provide medicine to those in need. In 2009-2010, the company invested £ 5 millions in improving healthcare infrastructure in leastdeveloped countries. GSK also has policies in place to ensure that human rights are protected. It conducts supplier screenings and includes a dedicated
human rights clause in all supplier agreements. Furthermore, it has a robust Code of Conduct that clearly establishes policies that protect its own
employees. However, there is a lack of reported monitoring for these policies – GSK should strive to provide adequate monitoring for its current policies.
Analyst 1: Daniel Olmsted
Source of points
E
82
ES A
E
48%
S
S
52%
SSA
0
25
50
81
50
43
24
23
GlaxoSmithKline
EI
75
ER
EP
SI
SR
SP
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
Question Category
4
4
100
Excellent
Management
8
8
100
Excellent
Policy
9
12
75
Excellent
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
18
49
37
Needs improvement
Needs improvement
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Emissions to Water
6
21
29
Energy
10
14
71
Good
Management
5
21
24
Materials Usage
1
14
7
Recycling
4
14
29
Needs improvement
Waste
16
35
46
Needs improvement
Water
6
7
86
Excellent
Social Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
3
4
75
Excellent
Management
6
10
60
Good
Policy
6
6
100
Excellent
Social Demographic
2
2
100
Excellent
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
Social Reporting
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
4
7
57
Good
Human Rights
32
77
42
Needs improvement
Management
4
7
57
Good
Qualitative Social
23
56
41
Needs improvement
Quantitative Social
19
49
39
Needs improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
44
A
Johnson & Johnson 2009 Sustainability Report, 2009
Worldwide Contributions Report and, 2011 Web
Pages
Johnson & Johnson
As one of the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies, Johnson & Johnson’s environmental and social reporting is subpar compared to its peer. Johnson
& Johnson provides general social and environmental visionary statements, but do no address specific policies or challenges. Although there is an
environmental literacy plan for employees, there is no mention of an environmental contact, management structure, expenditures, or third-party validation.
However, there are sufficient quantitative data for energy, waste, water, and fines, both safety and environmental. In the one page Global Diversity and
Inclusion Vision Statement, there are goals for a more diverse workforce, but no workforce profile is provided. Along with this, Johnson & Johnson provides
a 2009 World Contributions Report which emphasizes the importance of community giving as well as providing local healthcare. In 2009 alone, $588 million
in cash and products was given to non-profit organizations as well as in directly to people in need.
Analyst 1: Simone Berkovitz
Source of points
E
79
E
38%
ES A
S
54
S
62%
SSA
0
25
50
68
38
35
16
EI
ER
EP
Johnson & Johnson
SI
SR
SP
75
Question Category
Accountability
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
1
4
25
Needs improvement
Management
6
8
75
Excellent
Policy
11
12
92
Excellent
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
11
49
22
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Emissions to Water
0
21
0
Energy
11
14
79
Excellent
Management
9
21
43
Needs improvement
Materials Usage
3
14
21
Recycling
4
14
29
Needs improvement
Waste
9
35
26
Needs improvement
Water
5
7
71
Good
Social Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
3
4
75
Excellent
Management
2
10
20
Policy
5
6
83
Excellent
Social Demographic
0
2
0
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
Social Reporting
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
0
7
0
Human Rights
44
77
57
Good
Management
6
7
86
Excellent
Qualitative Social
35
56
63
Good
Quantitative Social
28
49
57
Good
www.roberts.cmc.edu
45
B-
McKesson 2010 Corporate Citizenship Report, 2009
Code of Business Conduct and Ethics, and 2011 Web
Pages
McKesson
In its 2010 Corporate Citizenship Report and supporting web pages, McKesson appears to be minimal in reporting its environmental and social practices.
While McKesson states that, “our commitment to environmental sustainability focuses on both reducing our impact on the planet and ensuring our
company’s long-term viability” the report provides a small amount of quantitative data to support this claim. In addition, discussion of many environmental
and social topics is vague and sparse. However, McKesson does a fair job in reporting its adoption of human rights practices as found in their Code of
Business Conduct and Ethics. A more thorough report with supporting quantitative data would improve McKesson’s score greatly.
Source of points
E
E
4 1%
ES A
S
38
25
50
22
S
59%
SSA
0
62
54
EI
75
ER
18
14
EP
SI
SR
McKesson
SP
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
Question Category
3
4
75
Excellent
Management
4
8
50
Good
Policy
4
12
33
Needs improvement
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Emissions to Air
16
49
33
Needs improvement
Emissions to Water
0
21
0
Energy
5
14
36
Needs improvement
Management
6
21
29
Needs improvement
Materials Usage
0
14
0
Recycling
1
14
7
Waste
2
35
6
Water
4
7
57
Good
Social Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
1
4
25
Needs improvement
Management
6
10
60
Good
Policy
6
6
100
Excellent
Social Demographic
1
2
50
Good
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Social Reporting
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
0
7
0
Human Rights
30
77
39
Needs improvement
Management
3
7
43
Needs improvement
Qualitative Social
21
56
38
Needs improvement
Quantitative Social
7
49
14
www.roberts.cmc.edu
46
B
Merck & Co. 2009-2010 Corporate Responsibility
Review, Code of Conduct and 2011 Web Pages
Merck & Co
Merck & Co. reports its efforts toward environmental and social responsibility in its 2009-2010 Corporate Responsibility Review, Code of Conduct, and 2011
web pages. The company outlines a clear corporate responsibility vision and policy which is supports through a Global Safety and Environment
Organization. Merck & Co. supports strong international and national policy measures to addressing climate change and takes steps to reduce water and
energy demand, as well as GHG emissions from its operations. While Merck & Co. does not report data for many important environmental indicators, it
reported multiple years of data for the topics it did include—energy use, water use, GHG emissions, VOC emissions, NOx emissions, SOx emissions,
environmental violations, and fines. The company’s environmental reporting could be enhanced by including information on environmental expenses and
investments, green purchasing, and habitat conservation, while also including additional quantitative data. •In regards to social responsibility reporting,
Merck & Co. presents information on both employee and community programs. Over the past year, the company has improved performance in its employee
turnover rate, accident rates, health and safety citations, and social community investment. Additionally, Merck & Co. focused efforts on community
development and education, promoting women in management, occupational health and safety, and healthcare in low income communities. The company’s
is committed to the principles of the UN Global Compact and outlines its human rights policies in its Code of Conduct.
Analyst 1: Jaclyn T. D'Arcy
Source of points
E
E
35%
ES A
S
65%
SSA
25
50
50
26
S
0
50
43
21
Merck & Co
2
EI
75
ER
EP
SI
SR
SP
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
Question Category
1
4
25
Needs improvement
Management
3
8
38
Needs improvement
Policy
6
12
50
Good
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Emissions to Air
13
49
27
Needs improvement
Emissions to Water
0
21
0
Energy
5
14
36
Needs improvement
Management
7
21
33
Needs improvement
Materials Usage
1
14
7
Recycling
1
14
7
Waste
3
35
9
Water
4
7
57
Good
Social Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
1
4
25
Needs improvement
Management
4
10
40
Needs improvement
Policy
6
6
100
Excellent
Social Demographic
0
2
0
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Social Reporting
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
3
7
43
Needs improvement
Human Rights
33
77
43
Needs improvement
Management
2
7
29
Needs improvement
Qualitative Social
21
56
38
Needs improvement
Quantitative Social
21
49
43
Needs improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
47
D-
Mylan Laboratories
Mylan 2009 Annual Report and 2011 web pages
Mylan has basically no environmental or social reporting data.
Analyst 1: Danielle L. Manning
Source of points
E
9%
E
ES A
12
14
7
S
S
91%
SSA
0
25
50
75
EI
0
0
ER
EP
Mylan Laboratories
0
SI
SR
SP
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
Question Category
1
4
25
Needs improvement
Management
0
8
0
Policy
0
12
0
Vision
1
4
25
Needs improvement
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Emissions to Air
0
49
0
Emissions to Water
0
21
0
Energy
0
14
0
Management
0
21
0
Materials Usage
0
14
0
Recycling
0
14
0
Waste
0
35
0
Water
0
7
0
Social Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
0
4
0
Management
0
10
0
Policy
2
6
33
Needs improvement
Social Demographic
0
2
0
Vision
1
4
25
Needs improvement
Social Reporting
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
3
7
43
Needs improvement
Human Rights
10
77
13
Management
2
7
29
Needs improvement
Qualitative Social
2
56
4
Quantitative Social
0
49
0
www.roberts.cmc.edu
48
A-
Group Annual Report 2010, Third Party Code of
Conduct 2007, 2009 GRI Report, 2007 Corporate
Citizenship Review, 2010 Perspectives on Key Issues,
2001 Code of Conduct and, 2011 Web Pages
Novartis
Novartis has an impressively detailed Corporate Citizenship report. The group discusses at length its efforts to integrate renewable energy at several of its
major manufacturing sites across the globe. For example, its California facility generates up to 20% of its energy needs through on-site solar energy panels.
Also, its generic drug manufacturing subsidiary, Sandoz India, generates nearly 85% of its energy through renewable energy- a portion of which includes
steam that is a byproduct of the plant’s processes. Yet while Novartis prominently features its initiatives towards utilizing alternative energy sources, it is
not transparent on its waste management practices. Specifically, the group is silent on whether it recycles its solid and office waste. Even though the
company has made commendable commitments to expand use of renewable energy, it does not satisfactorily answer questions regarding waste resulting
from its conventional resource consumption.•Novartis has taken the laudable steps of adopting the UN Development Compact and Clean Development
Mechanism. Further, it promotes socially and environmentally responsible business processes by requiring that all its Class 1, or primary suppliers, to
adhere to ethical business standards. However, the company fails to provide information on its hazardous materials usage and the quantity and nature of
effluents it releases to natural water bodies. The company neglects to provide data on Green Chemistry initiatives, which would help qualify its commitment
to reducing pollution at source. •Novartis substantiates its claims towards, “creating value through responsible business”, with undertakings such as the
Novartis Institute of Tropical Diseases, which researches neglected diseases such as leprosy, malaria and dengue; whose treatment revenues are not
central to the company’s bottom line, which highly commendable.
Analyst 1: Leah Bross
Source of points
E
S
88
79
E
40%
ES A
62
36
S
60%
SSA
0
25
50
23
12
EI
75
ER
EP
Novartis
SI
SR
SP
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
Question Category
3
4
75
Excellent
Management
7
8
88
Excellent
Policy
8
12
67
Good
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Emissions to Air
12
49
24
Emissions to Water
8
21
38
Needs improvement
Energy
8
14
57
Good
Management
5
21
24
Materials Usage
0
14
0
Recycling
0
14
0
Waste
14
35
40
Needs improvement
Water
4
7
57
Good
Social Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
3
4
75
Excellent
Management
8
10
80
Excellent
Policy
6
6
100
Excellent
Social Demographic
2
2
100
Excellent
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
Social Reporting
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
7
7
100
Excellent
Human Rights
43
77
56
Good
Management
4
7
57
Good
Qualitative Social
27
56
48
Needs improvement
Quantitative Social
14
49
29
Needs improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
49
B+
Novo Nordisk 2010 Financial, Social and
Environmental Performance and, 2011 Web Pages
Novo Nordisk
For a company of more than 30,000 the quality and quantity of Novo Nordisk's environmental reporting is considerably low. While there is a lot of
information posted on the company’s website, very little focuses on the sustainability commitments of the company. Rather, much of the information
focuses on the development and marketing of the company’s products. Furthermore, the relevant environmental information that the company provides is
not contained in a comprehensive sustainability report but rather in a supplement to the company’s annual report. The annual report is not well organized
and it is very hard to differentiate between the environmental and financial information that is given. Information about employee welfare and social
responsibility is also minimal, with no Code of Conduct available on the website. The company can greatly improve by including a separate sustainability
report and Code of Conduct in addition to providing more data on the company’s environmental and social commitments.
Analyst 1: Sam Kahr
Source of points
E
E
43%
ES A
S
SSA
0
25
50
62
61
30
S
57%
50
24
20
Novo Nordisk
EI
75
ER
EP
SI
SR
SP
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
Question Category
3
4
75
Excellent
Management
5
8
63
Good
Policy
5
12
42
Needs improvement
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Emissions to Air
13
49
27
Needs improvement
Emissions to Water
4
21
19
Energy
6
14
43
Needs improvement
Management
4
21
19
Materials Usage
4
14
29
Needs improvement
Recycling
5
14
36
Needs improvement
Waste
9
35
26
Needs improvement
Water
5
7
71
Good
Social Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
2
4
50
Good
Management
5
10
50
Good
Policy
5
6
83
Excellent
Social Demographic
0
2
0
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
Social Reporting
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
3
7
43
Needs improvement
Human Rights
28
77
36
Needs improvement
Management
6
7
86
Excellent
Qualitative Social
30
56
54
Good
Quantitative Social
11
49
22
www.roberts.cmc.edu
50
B+
Pfizer 2009 Sustainability Report, Code of Business
Conduct, 2010 Orange Guide, 2010 Key Performance
Indicators, 2007 Volunteering for Impact Best
Practices in International Corporate Volunteering,
and 2011 Web Pages
Pfizer
Pfizer covers a lot of social sustainability bases. Their web site is almost hard to navigate through due to the sheer amount of information available.
Despite this, they have very few environmental quantitative measurements, and even less social ones. The numbers they do provide are clear, with a good
industry related context. ••Pfizer's web site is rather scattered in its information, with some pages literally exactly the same in two or three different
places. They have a few sections in a logical order, but within each sustainability page, there are hyperlinks leading to more information, and when
followed those pages have links leading to more information, and when followed THOSE pages have links to other information, etc. This makes navigating
the web site rather arduous, as each point assigned may be hidden deep within the inner confines of the web site, as opposed to the first page on the
issue. ••More generally, the largest gap in the report is in employee relations, in which qualitative and quantitative measurements are almost nonexistent
except for several vague descriptions of 'doing good.'
Analyst 1: Quinn Chasan
Source of points
E
86
ES A
E
49%
S
S
51%
SSA
0
25
50
46
38
45
16
8
EI
75
ER
EP
SI
SR
Pfizer
SP
Question Category
Accountability
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
2
4
50
Good
Management
6
8
75
Excellent
Policy
12
12
100
Excellent
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Emissions to Air
16
49
33
Needs improvement
Emissions to Water
0
21
0
Energy
8
14
57
Good
Management
7
21
33
Needs improvement
Materials Usage
0
14
0
Recycling
6
14
43
Needs improvement
Waste
9
35
26
Needs improvement
Water
5
7
71
Good
Social Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
2
4
50
Good
Management
3
10
30
Needs improvement
Policy
5
6
83
Excellent
Social Demographic
0
2
0
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Social Reporting
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
3
7
43
Needs improvement
Human Rights
30
77
39
Needs improvement
Management
0
7
0
Qualitative Social
28
56
50
Good
Quantitative Social
11
49
22
www.roberts.cmc.edu
51
A
Roche Group 2010 Business Report, 2005 Policy on
Safety, Health and Environmental Protection, Code
of Conduct, and 2011 Web Pages
Roche Group
Roche Group’s corporate sustainability reporting is detailed and thorough. The quality of the information provided is relevant and well-articulated for both
environmental and social topics. Roche Group considers sustainability to require sustainable corporate performance in social, economic, and
environmental facets of business. As Roche Group’s sustainability downloadables explain, the Safety Health and Environment (SHE) organization works to
minimize Roche Group’s environmental and societal impacts. In addition to successfully coordinating and implementing SHE policy across Roche Group’s
global presence, SHE extensively reports quantitative data about Roche Group’s emissions to the environment and work-related injuries. Other Roche
Group organizations, like Re&Act work to facilitate employee volunteerism, and in the process progress Roche Group toward its goal of achieving social
sustainability. ••Despite concise writing and quantitative data pertinent to Roche Group’s corporate footprint, the general organization of information was
poor. The information is provided in a list of all downloadable documents in the Corporate Responsibility section of Roche Group’s website. Thus,
documents pertinent to corporate sustainability reporting were short, and hard to find nestled between titles generally pertinent to Roche Group, such as
Roche ‘n’ Jazz and Museum Tinguely. Creating a corporate sustainability report by compiling and organizing documents pertinent to Roche Group’s
environmental and societal impacts would increase the effectiveness of information Roche Group has already provided. A report facilitating easier access
to Roche Group’s information is close to finished, as all necessary information is clearly documented in prose form. A file merge could create a corporate
sustainability report surprisingly quickly.
Analyst 1: Michael Handler Shoemaker
Source of points
E
S
SSA
25
50
66
43
40
S
62%
0
81
79
E
38%
ES A
8
EI
75
ER
EP
Roche Group
SI
SR
SP
Question Category
Accountability
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
3
4
75
Excellent
Management
7
8
88
Excellent
Policy
10
12
83
Excellent
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Emissions to Air
20
49
41
Needs improvement
Emissions to Water
0
21
0
Energy
5
14
36
Needs improvement
Management
9
21
43
Needs improvement
Materials Usage
0
14
0
Recycling
2
14
14
Waste
14
35
40
Needs improvement
Water
4
7
57
Good
Social Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
3
4
75
Excellent
Management
9
10
90
Excellent
Policy
6
6
100
Excellent
Social Demographic
1
2
50
Good
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Social Reporting
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
6
7
86
Excellent
Human Rights
38
77
49
Needs improvement
Management
7
7
100
Excellent
Qualitative Social
45
56
80
Excellent
Quantitative Social
21
49
43
Needs improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
52
B+
Sanofi-aventis 2009 Corporate Sustainability
Report, Code of Ethics, Sustainable partnership
Suppliers Code of Conduct, 2010-2011 Corporate
Social Responsibility Brochure, and 2011 Web Pages
Sanofi-Aventis
Sanofi-aventis reports its environmental sustainability practices through its 2010 Corporate Sustainability Report and 2011 web pages. Specifically, the
company outlines its future plans to help deal with climate change by reducing energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, Sanofiaventis provides a lot of information about its dedication towards fostering biodiversity. The company believes this is extremely important because “genetic
resources offer valuable potential as sources of new chemical substances and active ingredients.” Despite these impressive details the company struggles
when it comes to reporting on other important categories such as emergency preparedness or green chemistry. Sanofi-aventis does a good job of
reporting quantitative data, including information from energy information to volatile organic compounds. However despite its extensive reporting, the
company often has not improved from the previous year and needs to a find a way to lower their impact on the environment in the future. For social
sustainability reporting, the company provides the basic policies against discrimination and child labor, but it leaves out other crucial details such on
policies against forced labor and bribery.
Source of points
E
85
E
43%
ES A
S
57
S
57%
SSA
0
25
50
47
36
20
12
EI
75
ER
EP
Sanofi-Aventis
SI
SR
SP
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
Question Category
2
4
50
Good
Management
4
8
50
Good
Policy
6
12
50
Good
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Emissions to Air
18
49
37
Needs improvement
Emissions to Water
8
21
38
Needs improvement
Energy
5
14
36
Needs improvement
Management
2
21
10
Materials Usage
1
14
7
Recycling
1
14
7
Waste
11
35
31
Needs improvement
Water
5
7
71
Good
Social Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
4
4
100
Excellent
Management
6
10
60
Good
Policy
6
6
100
Excellent
Social Demographic
2
2
100
Excellent
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
Social Reporting
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
3
7
43
Needs improvement
Human Rights
28
77
36
Needs improvement
Management
7
7
100
Excellent
Qualitative Social
33
56
59
Good
Quantitative Social
5
49
10
www.roberts.cmc.edu
53
D+
Suzuken 2011 Web Pages
Suzuken
A commitment to environmental and social responsibility is not evident in Suzuken’s 2011 web pages. The company does not provide substantiating
quantitative data for any of the information it reports. Although the company’s website mentions a Code of Conduct, it is not available on the website.
Suzuken does not demonstrate efforts towards environmental sustainability beyond what is required by laws and regulations. The company does not report
any specific measures towards environmental issues such as waste reduction or recycling, reduction of air pollutant emissions, water conservation, or
usage of renewable energy. Furthermore, Suzuken does not conduct any third-party audits, or provide any contact info on their website for communicating
comments or concerns.
Analyst 1: Hilary Haskell
Source of points
E
50
E
36%
ES A
S
12
S
64%
SSA
0
25
50
42
EI
75
2
0
ER
EP
SI
SR
9
Suzuken
SP
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
Question Category
2
4
50
Good
Management
5
8
63
Good
Policy
5
12
42
Needs improvement
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Emissions to Air
1
49
2
Emissions to Water
0
21
0
Energy
1
14
7
Management
0
21
0
Materials Usage
0
14
0
Recycling
1
14
7
Waste
0
35
0
Water
0
7
0
Social Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
1
4
25
Needs improvement
Management
6
10
60
Good
Policy
1
6
17
Social Demographic
1
2
50
Good
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Social Reporting
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
0
7
0
Human Rights
16
77
21
Management
0
7
0
Qualitative Social
8
56
14
Quantitative Social
0
49
0
www.roberts.cmc.edu
54
B
Takeda Pharmaceutical 2010 Annual Report and
2011 Web Pages
Takeda
Pharmaceutical
The largest and one of the oldest pharmaceutical companies in Asia, Takeda’s corporate sustainability reporting could be improved. The 2010 annual report
covers most of the sections in PSI, but the many specific details or initiatives are missing. For example, most of the quantitative data provided only present
data from 2009 and no past year’s data are given. There are a few sections where past data are presented, but only in the form of a bar graph, with no
specific values. Takeda does provide a detailed accounting of their Quaility Assurance System as well as incorporation of the ten principles of the UN
Global Compact into the CSR. There are also diagrams showing ways energy CO2 production is reduced. There is also no individual identified to answer
questions about the report, but on the 2011 web pages there is an online feedback survey. Socially, Takeda demonstrates commitment to employees
through their career development programs, training, benefits, etc.
Analyst 1: Simone Berkovitz
Source of points
E
79
ES A
62
E
50%
S
S
50%
SSA
0
25
50
34
EI
75
ER
39
18
EP
18
SI
SR
Takeda
Pharmaceutical
SP
Question Category
Accountability
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
2
4
50
Good
Management
8
8
100
Excellent
Policy
10
12
83
Excellent
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Emissions to Air
17
49
35
Needs improvement
Emissions to Water
4
21
19
Energy
4
14
29
Needs improvement
Management
3
21
14
Materials Usage
0
14
0
Recycling
6
14
43
Needs improvement
Waste
14
35
40
Needs improvement
Water
3
7
43
Needs improvement
Social Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
1
4
25
Needs improvement
Management
6
10
60
Good
Policy
5
6
83
Excellent
Social Demographic
2
2
100
Excellent
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Social Reporting
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
3
7
43
Needs improvement
Human Rights
23
77
30
Needs improvement
Management
3
7
43
Needs improvement
Qualitative Social
26
56
46
Needs improvement
Quantitative Social
7
49
14
www.roberts.cmc.edu
55
C
Teva
Pharmaceutical Inds
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited 2006 Code of
Business Conduct, 2010 United Nations Global
Compact Communication on Progress, and 2011 Web
Pages
Teva Pharmaceutical’s web pages provide limited information on its social and environmental affairs. The company has a thorough Code of Conduct that
covers relationships with its employees, customers and governments, as well as measures of compliance. Teva also has committees dedicated to the
oversight of various operations within the company, such as Community Affairs and Corporate Governance. The company has recognized the importance of
safety in the workplace and consequently has dedicated much time and efforts to ensure it. Teva completed a lengthy UN Global Compact Communication
on Progress in 2010, which covers its commitments to social and environmental responsibilities. The company does not present substantial information on
its commitment to the environment. Teva does not offer its position on climate change, nor does it provide quantitative data that reveal its direct impacts on
the environment.
Analyst 1: Whitney Ellen Dawson
Source of points
E
E
22%
ES A
50
43
40
18
S
S
78%
SSA
0
25
50
EI
6
2
ER
EP
SI
SR
Teva Pharmaceutical
Inds
SP
75
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
Question Category
3
4
75
Excellent
Management
3
8
38
Needs improvement
Policy
2
12
17
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Emissions to Air
2
49
4
Emissions to Water
0
21
0
Energy
1
14
7
Management
0
21
0
Materials Usage
1
14
7
Recycling
2
14
14
Waste
2
35
6
Water
1
7
14
Social Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
3
4
75
Excellent
Management
3
10
30
Needs improvement
Policy
5
6
83
Excellent
Social Demographic
0
2
0
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Social Reporting
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
3
7
43
Needs improvement
Human Rights
36
77
47
Needs improvement
Management
3
7
43
Needs improvement
Qualitative Social
14
56
25
Needs improvement
Quantitative Social
10
49
20
www.roberts.cmc.edu
56
A+
Merck (Germany) Responsibility Report, 2011
Corporate Responsibility Report, Code of Conduct
and 2011 Web Pages
The Merck Group
Merck does a fantastic job covering nearly all aspects of both environmental and social sustainability somewhere in its reporting, to varying degrees.
There are no gaping holes in their reporting; only fairly specific quantitative values or contextual measurements that are yet to be reported on. The only real
trend I see is a lack of supplier information other than vague mentions of the selection process. Aside from the supplier data, there are honestly not many
points for improvement in reporting. Perhaps the information could be consolidated better between the webpages and the CR and COC reports for easier
access.
Analyst 1: Quinn Chasan
Source of points
E
S
25
50
62
45
39
26
S
57%
SSA
0
92
82
E
43%
ES A
The Merck Group
EI
75
ER
EP
SI
SR
SP
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
Question Category
4
4
100
Excellent
Management
7
8
88
Excellent
Policy
8
12
67
Good
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Emissions to Air
27
49
55
Good
Emissions to Water
4
21
19
Energy
5
14
36
Needs improvement
Management
10
21
48
Needs improvement
Materials Usage
0
14
0
Recycling
5
14
36
Needs improvement
Waste
13
35
37
Needs improvement
Water
5
7
71
Good
Social Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
3
4
75
Excellent
Management
9
10
90
Excellent
Policy
6
6
100
Excellent
Social Demographic
2
2
100
Excellent
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
Social Reporting
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
3
7
43
Needs improvement
Human Rights
47
77
61
Good
Management
7
7
100
Excellent
Qualitative Social
28
56
50
Good
Quantitative Social
22
49
45
Needs improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
57
F
Toho Holdings 2011 Web Pages
Toho Holdings
In its 2011 web pages, Toho Holdings reports minimal information regarding its environmental and social performance. Reporting only a social visionary
statement and an environmental visionary statement, it is clear that Toho Holdings has room to improve its reporting. Among others, including information
on energy use, waste, and employee treatment would help Toho Holdings to start expanding its reporting.
Source of points
E
4
4
ES A
E
52%
S
S
48%
SSA
0
25
50
EI
75
0
0
ER
EP
SI
0
0
SR
SP
Toho Holdings
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
Question Category
0
4
0
Management
0
8
0
Policy
0
12
0
Vision
1
4
25
Needs improvement
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Emissions to Air
0
49
0
Emissions to Water
0
21
0
Energy
0
14
0
Management
0
21
0
Materials Usage
0
14
0
Recycling
0
14
0
Waste
0
35
0
Water
0
7
0
Social Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
0
4
0
Management
0
10
0
Policy
0
6
0
Social Demographic
0
2
0
Vision
1
4
25
Needs improvement
Social Reporting
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
0
7
0
Human Rights
0
77
0
Management
0
7
0
Qualitative Social
0
56
0
Quantitative Social
0
49
0
www.roberts.cmc.edu
58
C+
UCB 2009 Corporate Social Responsibility Report,
2011 Charter of Corporate Governance, and 2011
Web Pages
UCB
As explained in its CSR Report, UCB is continuously developing its reporting system and policies and has demonstrated its efforts by publishing its first
Corporate Social Responsibility Report. In this report, the company does well in reporting baseline data and also defines clear objectives for the future. UCB
still has room for improvement, however. The company would greatly enhance its score by expanding upon its internal measurements and reporting
processes such as those within its policies, procedures, and guidance. More specifically, UCB should include a more robust list of Environment, Health and
Safety measures.
Analyst 1: Daniel Olmsted
Source of points
E
E
45%
ES A
S
62
46
S
55%
SSA
0
25
50
31
26
11
6
EI
75
ER
EP
SI
SR
UCB
SP
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
Question Category
3
4
75
Excellent
Management
3
8
38
Needs improvement
Policy
6
12
50
Good
Vision
1
4
25
Needs improvement
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Emissions to Air
14
49
29
Needs improvement
Emissions to Water
6
21
29
Needs improvement
Energy
5
14
36
Needs improvement
Management
0
21
0
Materials Usage
0
14
0
Recycling
0
14
0
Waste
6
35
17
Water
4
7
57
Good
Social Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
4
4
100
Excellent
Management
5
10
50
Good
Policy
4
6
67
Good
Social Demographic
0
2
0
Vision
3
4
75
Excellent
Social Reporting
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
6
7
86
Excellent
Human Rights
10
77
13
Management
2
7
29
Needs improvement
Qualitative Social
23
56
41
Needs improvement
Quantitative Social
8
49
16
www.roberts.cmc.edu
59
Pharmaceuticals: Drugs and Biotechnology
Environmental visionary statement
Environmental management structure
5
-Discussion: includes a clear visionary statement expressing an organizational
commitment to good environmental performance.
-Initiatives/actions: include measures to fulfill that commitment.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
Initiatives/actions
Initiatives Pg#
Environmental impediments and challenges
Initiatives/actions
6
Initiatives/actions
42
43
Initiatives/actions
Discussion: of impediments and challenges faced by the organization in
attempting to realize its social vision and commitments.
Initiatives/actions: include measures taken to overcome them.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
Initiatives/actions
9
Initiatives/actions
Initiatives/actions
45
21
-Discussion: of environmental expenditures.
-Initiatives/actions: include detailed accounting of such expenditures.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
Initiatives/actions
4
Initiatives Pg#
-Discussion: identifies the person specifically designated to answer questions
about the report or sustainability issues. Investor relations or public relations
contact representatives are not valid contacts for this question.
-Initiatives/actions: to facilitate such contact, i.e. providing email address,
phone number, or a link for feedback and questions.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
Initiatives/actions
Initiatives Pg#
Environmental accounting
Initiatives Pg#
Report contact person
16
-Discussion: of efforts to promote environmental education and awareness of
employees, the general public, or children.
-Initiatives/actions: taken to provide such education.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
-Discussion: includes a formal statement of the company's social policy or plan.
-Initiatives/actions: include a description of how the policy is being
implemented.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
Initiatives/actions
Initiatives Pg#
Environmental education
Initiatives Pg#
Social policy statement
23
-Discussion: of consultation and dialogue with stakeholders about the
organization's environmental aspects or impacts.
-Initiatives/actions: include identification of specific consultation activities.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
-Discussion: includes a formal statement of the organization's environmental
policy or plan.
-Initiatives/actions: include a description of how the policy is being
implemented.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
Initiatives/actions
Initiatives Pg#
Stakeholder consultation
Initiatives Pg#
Environmental policy statement
51
-Discussion: of organizational structure or staffing for ensuring health and
safety or social responsibility.
-Initiatives/actions: include identification of the individuals currently holding
the staff positions.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
Initiatives Pg#
Social impediments and challenges
Initiatives Pg#
Health and safety, or social organizational structure
-Discussion: includes a clear visionary statement expressing an organizational
commitment to good social performance.
-Initiatives/actions: include measures taken to fulfill that commitment.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
Initiatives/actions
20
-Discussion: includes a statement of adoption of ISO 14001 or other formal
environmental management system.
-Initiatives/actions: include information on the extent to which the system has
been implemented.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
Initiatives Pg#
Social visionary statement
Initiatives Pg#
Environmental management system
-Discussion: of impediments and challenges faced by the organization in
attempting to realize its environmental vision and commitments.
-Initiatives/actions: include measures to overcome them.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
Initiatives/actions
19
-Discussion: of the organization's environmental management structure or
staffing.
-Initiatives/actions: include identification of individuals currently holding the
staff positions.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
54
-Discussion: of the value (or lack thereof) of third-party auditing or validation.
-Initiatives/actions: include formal auditing or validation by a qualified
external third-party source.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
Initiatives/actions
Initiatives Pg#
Initiatives Pg#
Climate change/global warming
10
-Discussion: of the organization's position on climate change and/or global
warming.
-Initiatives/actions: include measures taken by the organization to decrease its
contribution to climate change.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
Initiatives/actions
www.roberts.cmc.edu
60
Initiatives Pg#
Habitat/ecosystem conservation
Workforce profile: age
11
-Discussion: of the organization's position on conserving natural ecosystems
and habitat.
-Initiatives/actions: taken to increase conservation of natural ecosystems either
associated with or separate from the organization's business activities.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
Initiatives/actions
Initiatives/actions
Initiatives Pg#
Biodiversity
Initiatives/actions
Initiatives Pg#
Initiatives/actions
Initiatives/actions
Initiatives/actions
26
Sum of the energy used by the organization in all different forms, including
electricity, fuel, natural gas and others.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Context Pg#:
Context
Initiatives Pg#
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
17
Year
Initiatives Pg#
Workforce profile: gender
Initiatives Pg#
Energy used (total)
-Discussion: of racial or ethnic distribution of workforce.
-Initiatives/actions: taken to avoid racial or ethnic discrimination.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
Initiatives/actions
47
-Discussion: includes a formal organizational code of conduct or of ethical
behavior.
-Initiatives/actions: include measures to assure that the code of conduct is
followed.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
194
Workforce profile: ethnicities/race
Initiatives Pg#
Code of conduct or business ethics
Green Chemistry is the design of chemical products and processes that reduce
or eliminate the use and generation of hazardous substances. Whereas
environmental chemistry is the chemistry of the natural environment, and of
pollutant chemicals in nature, green chemistry seeks to reduce and prevent
pollution at source. In 1990 the Pollution Prevention Act was passed. This act
helped create a modus operandi for dealing with pollution in an original and
innovative way.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
Initiatives/actions
82
-Discussion: of training, skills and learning programs appropriate to support
employees' upward mobility.
-Initiatives/actions: taken to implement such training.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
Initiatives Pg#
Green Chemistry
Initiatives Pg#
Employee training for career development
49
-Discussion: or description of procedures to evaluate and select suppliers on
their ability to meet the requirements of the company's social or environmental
policy and principles.
-Initiatives/actions: include measures to implement or assure such screening or
selection.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
Initiatives/actions
53
-Discussion: of emergency preparedness programs to prepare employees or the
public to cope with potential emergencies at the organization's facilities.
-Initiatives/actions: include measures taken to implement such programs.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
Initiatives Pg#
Supplier screening based on social or environmental
performance/ supplier management
Initiatives Pg#
Emergency preparedness program
13
-Discussion: about preferential purchasing of eco-friendly (non-polluting,
recycled, recyclable, etc.) products.
-Initiatives/actions: taken to implement such purchasing.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
Initiatives/actions
80
-Discussion: of appropriate actions to accommodate employees with disabilities.
-Initiatives/actions: taken to implement such accommodations.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
-Discussion: of the organization's position on biodiversity.
-Initiatives/actions: taken by to the organization to foster biodiversity.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
Green purchasing
Initiatives Pg#
Employment for individuals with disabilities
12
Initiatives/actions
52
-Discussion: of age distribution of workforce.
-Initiatives/actions: include measures taken to avoid age discrimination or to
encourage a balanced age structure.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
Data Values
Goal Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Units
18
-Discussion: of gender distribution of workforce.
-Initiatives/actions: taken to avoid gender discrimination and achieve
appropriate balance
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
Initiatives/actions
Initiatives Pg#
www.roberts.cmc.edu
61
Energy used (renewable)
27
Energy used from renewable sources such as wind, solar, hydroelectric, or
other renewable sources.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Context
Goal
Year
Data Values
Context Pg#:
Goal Pg#:
Context
Goal
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Units
Year
Sum of all solid waste recycled, including hazardous waste.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Year
Data Values
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Units
35
Sum of all hazardous materials remaining after production, irrespective of
final disposition. Hazardous wastes include items identified as TRI, PRTR,
HAP (Hazardous Air Pollutants), and similar indices, and may include
mercury or lead. Depending on the nationality of the organization, this could
be labeled "TRI" (Toxic Release Inventory,) "substance releases" , or
something else.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Context Pg#:
Goal Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Context
Goal
Improve Pg#
Units
Year
Data Values
Context Pg#:
Goal Pg#:
30
Context
Goal
34
Includes solid hazardous and non-hazardous waste landfilled, incinerated, or
transferred.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Data Values
Context Pg#:
Goal Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Units
32
Office recycling of paper, cardboard, metal, or plastic.
Discussion
Context
Goal
Year
Data Values
Discussion Pg#:
Context Pg#:
Goal Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Units
Context
Goal
Year
www.roberts.cmc.edu
37
Amounts of hazardous materials released into the environment, total (TRI,
PRTR, HAP (Hazardous Air Pollutants), and similar indices), may include
mercury or lead. Depending on the nationality of the organization, this could
be labeled "TRI" (Toxic Release Inventory), "substance releases," or
something else.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Quant Pg#:
62
Data Values
Context Pg#:
Goal Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Units
Water used
109
The amount of waste materials specified as packaging materials by the
organization, and not reused or recycled.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Context
Goal
Year
Data Values
Discussion
Context
Goal
Context Pg#:
Goal Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Year
Context
Goal
Improve Pg#
Units
Discussion
Context
Goal
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
110
Year
Data Values
Discussion Pg#:
Context Pg#:
Goal Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Units
Units
148
Goal
83
The sum of all greenhouse gases released, which could include CO2, CH4
(methane), N2O (nitrous oxide), SF6 (Sulphur hexafluoride), PFCs
(Perfluorocarbons) and HFCs (hydrofluorocarbons).
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Materials such as cardboard, plastics, or wood, used to package any goods
sold or delivered to a disributor or an end user. Likely to be specifically
referred to as "packaging materials".
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Context Pg#:
Context
Data Values
Goal Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Amount of waste water released into natural waters.
Context Pg#:
Goal Pg#:
Year
Context Pg#:
145
Description and quantification of hazardous materials use.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Data Values
Data Values
Discussion Pg#:
Units
Year
29
Sum of all water used during operations.
Context
Goal
Goal Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Year
Data Values
Context Pg#:
Goal Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Units
Units
www.roberts.cmc.edu
63
114
Total emissions of volatile organic compounds, airborn chemicals most often
released during the painting process.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Context
Goal
Year
Data Values
Discussion
Context
Goal
Context Pg#:
Goal Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Year
Discussion
Context
Goal
Discussion Pg#:
Context Pg#:
Goal Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Units
Quant Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Units
119
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Units
127
Emissions of all sulfur oxides, including sulfur dioxide (SO2).
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Context Pg#:
Context
Goal
Goal Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Units
www.roberts.cmc.edu
Data Values
Context Pg#:
Goal Pg#:
Sulfur oxides (SOx)
Total ozone-depleting substances include CFCs (Class I); and halons, carbon
tetrachloride, methyl chloroform, and HCFCs (Class II), not a CO2 emission.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Context
Goal
123
Context
Goal
Prev Quan Pg#:
Data Values
Goal Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
"Particulate matter" usually refers to all material emitted to air smaller than 10
microns in diameter (PM10). Smaller, more toxic material such as PM 2.5,
smaller than 2.5 microns, may also be called out.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Year
Year
Context Pg#:
118
Carbon Monoxide (CO) released.
Data Values
Data Values
Discussion Pg#:
Units
Year
121
Emissions of all nitrogen oxides to air.
Year
64
Data Values
Context Pg#:
Goal Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Units
129
A measure of the amount of solids in wastewater. TSS can include a wide
variety of material, such as silt, decaying plant and animal matter, industrial
wastes, and sewage.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Context
Goal
Year
Data Values
3
Annual employee turnover rate.
Discussion
Context
Goal
Context Pg#:
Goal Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Year
Improve Pg#
Data Values
Discussion Pg#:
Context Pg#:
Goal Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Units
Units
Number of employee incidents or accidents, such as: “total case incident
rate,” “incident rate,” or "accident rate."
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Context Pg#:
Context
130
Measure the amount of organic compounds in water. Most applications of
COD determine the amount of organic pollutants found in surface water (e.g.
lakes and rivers). Compare with BOD, COD is less specific since it measures
total organic levels rather than simply levels of biologically active organic
matter.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Context
Goal
Year
Data Values
74
Goal
Context Pg#:
Goal Pg#:
Year
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Data Values
Goal Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Units
Improve Pg#
Units
131
Context
Goal
BOD is a measure of the concentration of biodegradable organic matter
present in water and refers either wastwater effluent or receiving waters.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Context
Goal
Year
Data Values
75
Number of employee injuries or illnesses that resulted in one or more lost
workdays.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Context Pg#:
Goal Pg#:
Year
Quant Pg#:
Data Values
Context Pg#:
Goal Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Units
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Units
www.roberts.cmc.edu
65
157
The number of training hours/number of staff.
Discussion
Context
Goal
Year
Data Values
Discussion Pg#:
Context Pg#:
Context
Goal
Goal Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Units
Year
81
Year
Data Values
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Year
Data Values
Data Values
Context Pg#:
Goal Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Units
76
Number of health and safety citations or notices of violation. If it is stated that
there were none, check lines 1,2,3, 4, and 6.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Context
Goal
Goal Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Units
Year
www.roberts.cmc.edu
40
38
Notices of violation (NOVs) for environmental infractions.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Context Pg#:
Context
Year
Units
Context
Goal
Units
Goal
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Government imposed fines for environmental infractions.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Goal Pg#:
Data Values
Context Pg#:
Goal Pg#:
Amount of money spent on community outreach, including education grants,
donations, and relief effort funds.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Context Pg#:
Context
Goal
39
An accounting of money spent or invested specifically to decrease
environmental damage or to benefit the environment.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
66
Data Values
Context Pg#:
Goal Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Units
77
Fines levied against a company for health and safety violations.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Context
Goal
Year
Data Values
66
Efforts to participate in social activities that improve the quality of life of
communities including that of indigenous people, where the organization operates.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Context Pg#:
Initiative Pg#:
Initiatives/Action
Context Pg#:
Context
Improvement Over Previous Improve Pg#:
Goal Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Community education
Units
68
Efforts to support education in the communities where the company is located.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Initiative Pg#:
Initiatives/Action
Context Pg#:
Context
192
Codes and standards for preventing cruelty and abuse in animal testing.
Industry specific, mainly for pharmaceuticals.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Initiative Pg#:
Initiatives/Action
Efforts to make results from late-stage clinical trials available to the public, even if
they reveal unfavorable information about a drug.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Initiative Pg#:
Initiatives/Action
Context Pg#:
Context
Context Pg#:
Context
Women in management
2
Discussion Pg#:
Initiative Pg#:
Context Pg#:
Context Pg#:
Context
Improve Pg#:
67
Surveys to monitor employee satisfaction.
Discussion
Initiatives/Action
Context
Initiative Pg#:
Context Pg#:
Improve Pg#:
Context Pg#:
Context
70
Sexual harassment
Efforts to provide a safe and healthy working environment at all sites.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Adoption of Policy
Action to Reinforce Policy
Monitoring
Quant. Indication of Compliance
72
Policy Adopt Pg#:
Initiative Pg#:
Monitoring Pg#:
Qty Perf Pg#:
Efforts to promote employee volunteerism in social or environmental projects.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
7
Policy about political contributions.
Initiative Pg#:
Initiatives/Action
Context Pg#:
Context
www.roberts.cmc.edu
1
Rejection of any form of sexual harassment.
Initiative Pg#:
Initiatives/Action
Context Pg#:
Context
193
Efforts to invest in drug research and development for the world’s most neglected
diseases that are potentially yield minimal return for the pharmaceuticals industry.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Initiative Pg#:
Initiatives/Action
Discussion Pg#:
154
Efforts to provide access to affordable health care in low income communities and/or
developing countries. Specific to pharmaceuticals.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Initiative Pg#:
Initiatives/Action
Relative numbers of women in management.
Discussion
Initiatives/Action
Context
153
Adoption of Policy
Monitoring
67
Policy Adopt Pg#:
Initiative Pg#:
Monitoring Pg#:
Qty Perf Pg#:
Bribery
8
Rejection of bribery
Adoption of Policy
Monitoring
Policy Adopt Pg#:
Adoption of Policy
Monitoring
Initiative Pg#:
Monitoring Pg#:
Qty Perf Pg#:
58
Initiative Pg#:
Monitoring Pg#:
Qty Perf Pg#:
65
Rejection of illegal child labor by the company or its affiliates.
Adoption of Policy
Monitoring
Policy Adopt Pg#:
Initiative Pg#:
Monitoring Pg#:
Qty Perf Pg#:
Policy Adopt Pg#:
Efforts to uphold the highest standards of business ethics and integrity. May be found
under a Code of Conduct.
Adoption of Policy
Monitoring
63
Assurance that all employees enter employment with the company of their own free
will, not by compulsion.
Policy Adopt Pg#:
Initiative Pg#:
Monitoring Pg#:
Qty Perf Pg#:
62
Assurance that wages paid meet or exceed legal or industry minimum standard.
Adoption of Policy
Monitoring
Policy Adopt Pg#:
Initiative Pg#:
Monitoring Pg#:
Qty Perf Pg#:
64
Compliance with applicable laws and industry standards on working hours, including
overtime.
Adoption of Policy
Monitoring
Policy Adopt Pg#:
Initiative Pg#:
Monitoring Pg#:
Qty Perf Pg#:
59
Commitment to oppose any corporal/hard labor punishment, mental/physical
coercion, or verbal abuse.
Adoption of Policy
Monitoring
Policy Adopt Pg#:
Initiative Pg#:
Monitoring Pg#:
Qty Perf Pg#:
Elimination of discrimination in respect to employment and
occupation
60
Commitment not to engage in any kind of discrimination based on ethnicity, caste,
religion, disability, sex, age, sexual orientation, union membership, or political
affiliation in hiring practices or employee treatment.
Adoption of Policy
Monitoring
Policy Adopt Pg#:
Initiative Pg#:
Monitoring Pg#:
Qty Perf Pg#:
Free association and collective bargaining of employees
61
Efforts to respect the right of employees to form and join trade unions of their choice
and to bargain collectively.
Adoption of Policy
Monitoring
www.roberts.cmc.edu
Policy Adopt Pg#:
Initiative Pg#:
Monitoring Pg#:
Qty Perf Pg#:
68
McKesson, Cardinal Health,
AmerisourceBergen, Johnson &
J o h n s o n , P fi z e r , R o c h e G r o u p ,
GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis,
Sanofi-Aventis, AstraZeneca, Abbott
Laboratories, Merck & Co, Eli Lilly,
Bristol-Myers Squibb, Suzuken, Takeda
Pharmaceutical, Amgen, Teva
Pharmaceutical Inds, The Merck
Group, Astellas Pharma, Novo Nordisk,
Daiichi Sankyo, Toho Holdings, EISAI,
Gilead Sciences, Mylan Laboratories,
Genzyme, Allergan, Biogen Idec Inc.,
a
n
d
U
C
B
Roberts Environmental Center
The Roberts Environmental Center is a research institute at Claremont McKenna College, endowed by George R.
Roberts, Founding Partner, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. The Center is managed by faculty and staff, and its research,
including the material in this report, is done by students at the Claremont Colleges.
Claremont McKenna College
Claremont McKenna College, a member of the Claremont Colleges, is a highly selective, independent, coeducational,
residential, undergraduate liberal arts college with a curricular emphasis on economics, government, and public
affairs.
The Claremont Colleges
The Claremont Colleges form a consortium of five undergraduate liberal arts colleges and two graduate institutions
based on the Oxford/Cambridge model. The consortium offers students diverse opportunities and resources typically
found only at much larger universities. The consortium members include Claremont McKenna College, Harvey Mudd
College, Pitzer College, Pomona College, Scripps College, Keck Graduate Institute of Applied Life Sciences, and the
Clremont Graduate University which—includes the Peter F. Drucker and Masatoshi Ito Graduate School of
Management.
Contact Information
Dr. J. Emil Morhardt, Director, Phone: 909-621-8190, email: emorhardt@cmc.edu
Elgeritte Adidjaja, Research Fellow, Phone: 909-621-8698, email: eadidjaja@cmc.edu
Roberts Environmental Center, Claremont McKenna College, 925 N. Mills Avenue, Claremont, CA 91711-5916, USA.

Pharmaceuticals - Roberts Environmental Center

Transcription

Similar documents

the presentation.

EMMA ROBERTS

Application Form

Life on the Edge

Historic Coil Pot Examples

01 Campus COVER-17E.indd

San Antonio Express-News article: "Hidden Theaters"

Biotechnology Overview Presentation.

A.P. Moller-Maersk, ABN AMRO Holding, Air France

Greystripe signs ten more channel partners | Mobile Industry