The precise methodology of the ranking and the results of the process are fully disclosed.

Similar documents
CSR / Sustainability Governance and Management Assessment By Coro Strandberg President, Strandberg Consulting

RobecoSAM s Corporate Sustainability Assessment Companion

CDP Supplier Engagement Rating Introduction

Statement of Verification of Climate Data for the Carbon Disclosure Project Owens Corning

Key Opinion Leader Development. Tony Moses President, A-Z Eye Consultants National Manager, eyecheck LLC

MATERIALITY ASSESSMENT AND GRI INDEX FISCAL YEAR 2015

CDP Reporting Roadmap Supply Chain 2016

CDP 2017 Supplier Engagement Rating methodology Introduction

2016 RobecoSAM Corporate Sustainability Assessment - Annual Scoring and Methodology Review

GOVERNANCE BODIES AND COMMITTEES AND THEIR FUNCTION

Guidance for first-time responders to CDP

A Summary of the Government of British Columbia s Crown Agency Accountability System

Webinar on An Evolving Corporate Reporting Landscape

Carbon Footprint Protocol

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE KING III COMPLIANCE

SBTi Target Submission Form Guidance. TWG-INF-003 Version August 2017

CSC Separating Into Two Industry Leading Public Companies. May 19, 2015

KING III ON CORPORATE GOVERNANCE. The AEEI level of compliance continually increases since the introduction of the Code.

VOLUNTARY CODE OF CONDUCT IN RELATION TO EXECUTIVE REMUNERATION CONSULTING IN THE UNITED KINGDOM

BERMAZ AUTO BERHAD (formerly known as Berjaya Auto Berhad) (Company No M) BOARD CHARTER

Sydbank s statement concerning the recommendations of the Committee on Corporate Governance

Unleashing the Enormous Power of Call Center KPI s. Call Center Best Practices Series

JPMorgan Global Investment Management EMEA Remuneration Policy

BOARD OF DIRECTORS CHARTER AMENDED MARCH 2016

EcoVadis CSR Rating Methodology: Scoring Principles

Reporting criteria for selected key performance indicators in the 2016 Responsible Business Reporting

PPK GROUP LIMITED ( PPK ) BOARD CHARTER

PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL, INC. CORPORATE GOVERNANCE PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES

Sydbank s statement concerning the recommendations of the Committee on Corporate Governance

Juniper Networks, Inc. Corporate Governance Standards. (As amended on October 6, 2009)

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE PRINCIPLES

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE KING III COMPLIANCE REGISTER 2017

ACCENTURE PLC CORPORATE GOVERNANCE GUIDELINES

Chief Executive Officer Compensation in Federally Qualified Health Centers Highlights of the Second Edition

Enactment of the Corporate Governance Policy

Approaches to Managing EHS & Sustainability Data

The Audit Committee of the Supervisory Board of CB&I

International Forum of Independent Audit Regulators Report on 2013 Survey of Inspection Findings April 10, 2014

Carbon Footprint Standard Qualification Requirements. 3 January Issue 1.1

Human Resources and Social and Ethics Committee Terms of Reference

Herman Miller s commitment to DfE includes requiring all new products be evaluated within the MBDC Protocol.

Re: Concept Release on Audit Quality Indicators, PCAOB Rulemaking Docket Matter No. 041

BTG plc Terms of Reference of the Remuneration Committee ( Committee ) of the Board of Directors ( Board ) of BTG plc ( Company )

HUMAN RESOURCES COMMITTEE CHARTER

Annual Report of Moody s Investors Service Singapore Pte Ltd for financial year ended 31/12/2015

CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY

Protocols, Standards, and Registries. Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) Climate Action Reserve (CAR) Voluntary Carbon Standard (VCS)

Applied / Partially. Explanation / Compensating Practices. Not Applied. Chapter Principle Principle Description

Corporate governance. codes compared. Corporate governance codes compared 01

How to Submit your Question

Executive Compensation

BOARD OF DIRECTORS MANDATE

ANNUAL CORPORATE GOVERNANCE STATEMENT 2015/16

CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY LIMITED AND CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY BOARD OF DIRECTORS TERMS OF REFERENCE

People and Safety Committee Charter

Leading GHG Management Strategies and Metrics

Estia Health Limited ACN ( Company ) Approved by the Board on 17 November 2014

G4 DEVELOPMENT. Document 2 of 12 Statistics: Quantitative Online Feedback. Second G4 Public Comment Period: Submissions.

KING III COMPLIANCE ANALYSIS

Creating a Culture of Compliance Through Effective Program Structure 2012 HCCA Compliance Institute

Cover design to be confirmed from the ARA design. Investing for a better future. Definitions for our Key Performance Indicators

Rating Ontario School Boards Energy Efficiency: Top Energy Performing Boards Report Methodology White Paper

Lincoln National Corporation Board of Directors Corporate Governance Guidelines

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE King III - Compliance with Principles Assessment Year ending 31 December 2015

Office of the Secretary Public Company Accounting Oversight Board 1666 K Street, N.W. Washington, D.C Dear Office of the Secretary:

CARBON NEUTRAL PROGRAM PUBLIC DISCLOSURE SUMMARY Carbon Neutral Program

RECORD KEEPING RULES ON INITIAL REPORTS RELATING TO ACCOUNTING SEPARATION

Transformative Leadership: Stepping Back to Move from Management Speed to Leadership Significance

Action amid uncertainty. The business response to climate change

The Call Center Balanced Scorecard

BOARD GUIDELINES ON SIGNIFICANT CORPORATE GOVERNANCE ISSUES

Analysis of the application of the 75 corporate governance principles as recommended in the King III report

ENHANCING CORPORATE GOVERNANCE IN ASIA THROUGH BETTER EXECUTIVE REMUNERATION DISCLOSURES

Allergan plc Board of Directors Corporate Governance Guidelines

The Service Desk Balanced Scorecard By Jeff Rumburg. Managing Partner at:

King lll Principle Comments on application in 2013 Reference in 2013 Integrated Report

SUPPLIER PERFORMANCE PROGRAM

Atlas Copco annual report GRI Index 2017

2013 UPS Corporate Sustainability Report: Supplemental Data

Product Carbon Footprint Protocol

The Balanced Scorecard

Report of Independent Accountants

Green Star Performance. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Calculator Guide

Using collaborative supply chain accreditation to drive responsible sourcing objectives

GOLD FIELDS LIMITED. ( GFI or the Company ) BOARD CHARTER. (Approved by the Board of Directors on 16 August 2016)

Corporate Governance Statement of Suominen Corporation for 2013

SUSTAINABILITY ACCOUNTING STANDARDS BOARD (SASB ) Job Description

Corporate Governance Statement

GRI Content Index 2016

King lll Principle Comments on application in 2016 Reference Chapter 1: Ethical leadership and corporate citizenship Principle 1.

Charged or static. Which European electric utilities are prepared for a low carbon transition? Executive Summary

September 19, 2007 San Francisco Chapter

Best Practice Environmental Social and Governance (ESG) Reporting

Audit Committee and other Board Committees Roles and responsibilities under the Companies Act, 2013

Impax. Environmental Impact Report 2017

Case Sell-it Products Inc.

SRI RESEARCH/RATING QUALITY STANDARD

Guidelines for Investor and Company Engagement (Draft)

OMV Aktiengesellschaft

Statutory report on corporate governance for TORM A/S for the financial year 2014 (regarding the Danish Financial Statement Act sec. 107b).

Transcription:

2016 Newsweek Green Rankings: The Newsweek Green Rankings are one of the world s most recognized assessments of corporate environmental performance. Based on research from and HIP (Human Impact + Profit) Investor Inc., the Newsweek Green Rankings project ranks the 500 largest publicly-traded companies in the United States (the U.S. 500) and the 500 largest publicly-traded companies globally (the Global 500) on overall environmental performance. Assessment of Environmental Performance: The 2016 Newsweek Green Rankings measures the environmental performance of large public companies using eight clearly defined key performance indicators. The methodology is clear and rulesbased, and meets the test of being replicable by a third party. The Newsweek Green Rankings follows six core principles: Transparency The precise methodology of the ranking and the results of the process are fully disclosed. Objectivity Eligible companies will only be assessed using quantitative data and performance indicators. Public data Only data-points that are part of the public domain are used Comparability Companies are compared against their industry group peers based on performance indicators for which the underlying data are reasonably well disclosed by their industry group globally. Engagement Companies eligible for the ranking will be informed prior to the ranking, so as to have an opportunity to ensure the necessary data is made available publicly.

2 Stakeholders Stakeholder feedback is actively solicited throughout the project. A Panel of Experts, consisting of 8 leading sustainability practitioners, reviewed and commented on all aspects of the Newsweek Green Rankings methodology. Panel of Experts: Bob Eccles Professor Harvard Business School Jessica Fries Executive Chairman The Prince s Accounting for Sustainability Project (A4S) Michael Meehan Chief Executive Global Reporting Initiative Hunter Lovins President Natural Capital Solutions William McDonough Co-Founder The Cradle to Cradle Products Innovation Institute Doug Miller Chairman GlobeScan Jessica Robinson CEO Kathleen Rogers President Earth Day Network Association for Sustainable and Responsible Investment (ASrIA) Key Performance Indicators: Environmental performance is measured using eight key performance indicators (KPI). The KPIs are described in Figure 1.A company s overall score is a weighted average of their eight KPI scores (the weight of each KPI is outlined in the last column of Figure 1). Figure 1: KPI Definitions and Scoring Weight KPI Description Weight 1. Combined Energy In the first step, each company's Energy is calculated for 2014, with Energy defined as Revenue ($US) / Total Energy Consumption (GJ). Each company s Energy is then percent-ranked against that of all Industry Group peers in the EN3) CKC research universe and multiplied by 0.75. The Global Industry Classification Standard (GICS) definition of Industry Group will be used. In the second step, the change in each company s Energy from 2012-2014 is calculated and percent-ranked against that of all same-industry Group peers within the CKC research universe. If the company s percent-ranked 2014 Energy is top quartile, their percent-ranked change in Energy for 2012-2014 is multiplied by 1 and then by 0.25. If the company s percent-ranked 2014 Energy is second quartile, their percent-ranked change in Energy for 2012-2014 is

3 2. Combined GHG EN15, EN16 and EN17) multiplied by 0.75 and then by 0.25. If the company s percent-ranked 2014 Energy is third quartile, their percent-ranked change in Energy for 2012-2014 is multiplied by 0.5 and then by 0.25. If the company s percent-ranked 2014 Energy is bottom quartile, their percent-ranked change in Energy for 2012-2014 is multiplied by 0.25 and then by 0.25. In the first step, each company's GHG is calculated for 2014, with GHG defined as Revenue ($US) / Total Greenhouse gas (GHG) Emissions (CO2e). Only Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions are included according to the GHG Protocol. Each company s GHG is then percent-ranked against that of all Industry Group peers in the CKC research universe and multiplied by 0.75. In the second step, the change in each company s GHG company s percent-ranked 2014 GHG is top quartile, their percent-ranked change in GHG for 2012-2014 is 2014 GHG is second quartile, their percent-ranked change in GHG for 2012-2014 is multiplied by 0.75 and then by 0.25. If the company s percent-ranked 2014 GHG is third quartile, their percent-ranked change in GHG for 2012-2014 is multiplied by 0.5 and then by 0.25. If the company s percent-ranked 2014 GHG is bottom quartile, their percent-ranked change in GHG for 2012-2014 is multiplied by 0.25 and then by 0.25. totaled and then multiplied by 0.9. In the fourth step, if the company disclosed Scope 3 GHG emissions in 2014, a score of 100% is attributed and then multiplied by 0.1. Otherwise, a score of 0% is given. 3. Combined Water EN8 and EN10) In the final step, the scores from the third and fourth steps are added. In the first step, each company's Water is calculated for 2014. Water is defined as Revenue ($US) / Total water use (m3). Each company s Water is then percent-ranked against that of all Industry Group peers in the CKC research universe and multiplied by 0.75. In the second step, the change in each company s Water company s percent-ranked 2014 Water is top quartile, their percent-ranked change in Water for 2012-2014 is 2014 Water is second quartile, their percent-ranked change in Water for 2012-2014 is multiplied by 0.75 and then by 0.25. If the company s percent-ranked 2014 Water

4 4. Combined Waste EN23) 5. Green Revenue Score is third quartile, their percent-ranked change in Water for 2012-2014 is multiplied by 0.5 and then by 0.25. If the company s percent-ranked 2014 Water is bottom quartile, their percent-ranked change in Water for 2012-2014 is multiplied by 0.25 and then by 0.25. In the first step, each company's Waste is calculated for 2014. Waste is defined as Revenue ($US) / [Total waste generated (metric tonnes) waste recycled/reused (metric tonnes)]. Each company s Waste is then percent-ranked against that of all Industry Group peers in the CKC research universe and multiplied by 0.75. In the second step, the change in each company s Waste company s percent-ranked 2014 Waste is top quartile, their percent-ranked change in Waste for 2012-2014 is 2014 Waste is second quartile, their percent-ranked change in Waste for 2012-2014 is multiplied by 0.75 and then by 0.25. If the company s percent-ranked 2014 Waste is third quartile, their percent-ranked change in Waste for 2012-2014 is multiplied by 0.5 and then by 0.25. If the company s percent-ranked 2014 Waste is bottom quartile, their percent-ranked change in Waste for 2012-2014 is multiplied by 0.25 and then by 0.25. The Green Revenue Score is calculated by HIP (Human Impact + Profit) Investor Inc., an investment adviser and portfolio management firm involved in impact investing, ratings, portfolio construction and consulting. The Green Revenue Score analyzes the revenue associated with each line of business reported by the company, and is multiplied by its associated Industry Segment Green Rating for each line of revenue disclosed. For example, if Company A s revenue is broken down as Medical Equipment (60%) and Pharmaceuticals (40%) and the Segment Green Rating for Medical Equipment is (0.75) and Pharmaceuticals is 0.70, Company A s Green Revenue Score is (60% x 0.75 + 40% x 0.70) 73%. The Industry Segment Green Rating is based on HIP Investor s assessment of the environmental and social impacts during production, consumption and post-usage lifecycle of those products and services. 20%

5 6. Sustainability Pay Link (G4: 51) 7. Sustainability Board Committee (G4: 54) 8. Audited Environmental Metrics (G4: 33) A mechanism to link the remuneration of any member of a company's senior executive team with the achievement of environmental performance targets. The existence of such a link is awarded a score of 100%. A score of 0% is attributed if there is no such mechanism in place. The existence of a committee at the Board of Directors level whose mandate is related to the sustainability of the company, including but not limited to environmental matters. A score of 100% is awarded if such a committee exists, and a score of 0% is given in cases where such a committee is absent. The company provides evidence that the latest reported environmental metrics are audited by a third party. A score of 100% is awarded if such an audit has been performed, and a score of 0% is given in cases where such an audit was not performed. 10% 5% 5% Data sources: Data is obtained from HIP (Human Impact + Profit) Investor Inc., Bloomberg and the Carbon Disclosure Project (via Bloomberg). All companies are contacted, where contacts are available for data verification once all available items of data have been obtained.