Dept. of Agriculture, Dept - 2010 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal Agencies
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Dept. of Agriculture, Dept.
of Defense--Air Force, Dept.
2010 Sustainability Reporting
of Defense--Army, Dept. of of
Largest U.S. Federal Agencies
Defense--Navy, Dept. of
Pacific Sustainability Index Scores: A benchmarking tool for online sustainability reporting
Energy, Dept. of Homeland
Security, Dept. of the
Interior, Dept. of
T r a n s p o r t a t i o n ,
Dept.Housing and Urban
Dev., General Services
Administration, NASA,
U S E P A
J. Emil Morhardt, Elgeritte Adidjaja, Ryan Anderson, Virginia Anton, Juliet Marie Archer, Dante Lamarr Benson, Sara
Morgan Caldwell, Emily Aiko Coleman, Francisco Covarrubias, Jr., Blake Crawford, Kristin Almaz Dessie, Salif Doubare,
Asha Nicole Gipson, Alexander Glassmann, Starrisha Marche Godfrey-Canada, Karina Gomez, Pooja Reddy Kanipakam,
Rebecca Enid Lofchie, Jesse Maximilliano Madrigal, Natalya Ratan, Ravindra Wayne Reddy, Andre Garland Shepley,
Timothy Kareem Smedley, and Alyson Noelle Stark, and Sabrina Nicole WilliamsContents The Roberts Environmental Center has been the foremost
analyst of corporate sustainability reporting for over a
Topics Page decade. We analyze corporate online disclosure using our
Company Rankings 3 Pacific Sustainability Index (PSI) and publish the results
online.
Lead Analyst’s Commentary 4
PSI Overview 5
Industrial Sector** 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
PSI Scoring in a Nutshell 6
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Environmental Intent Topics 7
0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Environmental Reporting Topics 8
4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
Social Intent Topics 9 Aerospace and defense X X
Social Reporting Topics 10 Airlines X X
Environmental Intent Element of the PSI Scores 11 Banks, Insurance X
Environmental Reporting Element of the PSI 12 Chemicals X X X
Scores Largest Companies in China X
1
Colleges/Universities X X
Social Intent Element of the PSI Scores 13 Computer, Office Equipment, X
Social Reporting Element of the PSI Scores 14 and Services
Environmental Intent Scores Ranking 15 Consumer Food, Food X X
Environmental Reporting Scores Ranking 16 Production, & Beverages
Electronics and X X X
Environmental Performance Scores Ranking 17
Semiconductors
Social Intent Scores Ranking 18 Energy X
*
X
*
X
Social Reporting Scores Ranking 19 Entertainment X
Social Performance Scores Ranking 20 Federal Agencies X
Human Rights Reporting Element 21 Food Services X
Forest and Paper Products X X X
Visual Cluster Analysis 22
General Merchandiser X
Company Rankings Based on the Number of 23 Homebuilders X
Goals Reported Industrial and Farm X X
Analyst’s Comments, alphabetically listed by 24 Equipment
company name Mail, Freight, & Shipping X
Appendix: PSI Questionnaire 36 Medical Products & X
Equipment
*
Metals X X X
*
Questions should be addressed to: Mining, Crude Oil X X X
Motor Vehicle and Parts X X X
Municipalities X
Dr. J. Emil Morhardt, Director Oil and Gas Equipment X
(emorhardt@cmc.edu) Petroleum and Refining X X X
Roberts Environmental Center Pharmaceuticals X X X X
Scientific, Photo, & Control X
Claremont McKenna College
Equipment
925 N. Mills Ave. Claremont, CA 91711-5916, USA Telecommunications, X
Direct line: (909) 621-8190 Network, & Peripherals
* *
Utilities, Gas, and Electric X X X
Elgeritte Adidjaja, Research Fellow: (909) 621-8698
* Multiple-sector category was separated in later years.
(eadidjaja@cmc.edu)
**As of January 2011.
1
Top 50 Liberal Art Colleges.
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 2010 © by J. Emil Morhardt. All rights reserved.
www.roberts.cmc.edu 2 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal AgenciesUS Government Agencies
U.S. Largest Government Agencies Sustainability Reporting
Agency Rankings
Overall Grade
Dept. of Energy 41.30 A+ Dept. of Energy (USA)
A+ Dept. of Homeland Security (USA)
A Dept. of Defense--Navy (USA)
Dept. of Homeland
39.61 B+ Dept. of Transportation (USA)
Security
B+ General Services Administration
(USA)
Dept. of Defense--Navy B+ NASA (USA)
39.43
B Dept. of Agriculture (USA)
B Dept. of Defense--Army (USA)
Dept. of T ransportation B- USEPA (USA)
32.07
B- Dept. of the Interior (USA)
B- Dept. of Defense--Air Force (USA)
General Services C+ Dept.Housing and Urban Dev. (USA)
Administration 30.80
NASA 30.31
Dept. of Agriculture 28.99
Dept. of Defense--Army 28.68
USEPA 25.66
Dept. of the Interior 24.09
Dept. of Defense--Air
Force 23.73
Dept.Housing and Urban
Dev. 21.14
0 25 50 75 100
This report is an analysis of the voluntary environmental and social reporting of U.S.
largest goverment agencies. Data were collected from the agencies' websites
during the Spring of 2010.
www.roberts.cmc.edu 3 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal AgenciesLead Analyst’s Commentary topics. Environmental reporting, however,
By Karina Gomez, CMC ‘12 was particularly low with over half of the
agencies receiving a C or lower. Only a
The sector was led by the Department
fourth of the agencies addressed any
of Energy with a stronger focus in social
amount of quantitative data on emissions,
reporting and social performance scores,
waste, water usage, energy usage, and
which are mostly ethical and human rights
environmental incidents and violations.
topics.
The Department of Homeland Security
comes second with its intentions of
conducting operations in an
environmentally sound manner and
dedication to social accountability.
Particularly notable were efforts to reduce
environmental impact at operation sites
using the most efficient means possible.
DHS led the group in environmental intent.
The department also tied with Department
of Defense—Navy with most number of
explicit numerical goals reported.
Department of Defense – Navy ranked
third in the sector, but ranked first for
environmental reporting, presenting much
information on environmental initiatives
throughout its website.
The Department of Transportation,
ranking first in social intent, and the Navy,
following second in environmental intent,
complete the four top performing agencies.
Social intent and reporting scores
were relatively high for the federal
agencies sector with only a third of the
agencies receiving lower than a B. The
social categories with the lowest reporting
were human rights and health and safety
www.roberts.cmc.edu 4 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal AgenciesThe Pacific Sustainability Index (PSI) Overview
the PSI Scoring System
The Pacific Sustainability Index (PSI) uses two systematic questionnaires to analyze the quality of the
sustainability reporting—a base questionnaire for reports across sectors and a sector-specific
questionnaire for government agencies.
The Roberts Environmental Center
The Roberts Environmental Center is an environmental research institute at Claremont McKenna College
(CMC). Its mission is to provide students of all the Claremont colleges with a comprehensive and realistic
understanding of today’s environmental issues and the ways in which they are being and can be resolved--
beyond the confines of traditional academic disciplines and curriculum--and to identify, publicize, and
encourage policies and practices that achieve economic and social goals in the most environmentally
benign and protective manner. The Center is partially funded by an endowment from George R. Roberts
(Founding Partner of Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. and CMC alumnus),
other grants, and gifts, and is staffed by faculty and students from the
Claremont Colleges.
Methodology
Student analysts download relevant English language web pages from
the main government agencies’ website for analysis. Our scoring
excludes data independently stored outside the main city website or
available only in hard copy. We archive these web pages as PDF files
for future reference. Our analysts use a keyword search function to
search reporting of specific topics and, they fill out a PSI scoring sheet
(http://www.roberts.cmc.edu/PSI/scoringsheet.asp), and track the coverage and depths of different
sustainability issues mentioned in all online materials.
Scores and Ranks
When they are finished scoring, the analysts enter their scoring results into the PSI database. The PSI
database calculates scores and publishes them on the Center’s website. This sector report provides an in-
depth analysis on sustainability reporting of the largest government agencies of the United States.
What do the scores mean?
We normalize all the scores to the potential maximum score. Scores of subsets of the overall score are also
normalized to their potential maxima. The letter grades (A+, A, A-, B+, etc.), however, are normalized to the
highest scoring agency analyzed in the report. Government agencies with scores in the highest 4% get A+
and any in the bottom 4% get F. We assign these by dividing the maximum PSI score obtained in the sector
into 12 equal parts then rounding fractional score up or down. This means that A+ and F are under-
represented compared the other grades. The same technique applies to the separate categories of
environmental and social scores. Thus, we grade on the curve. We assume that the highest score obtained
in the sector and any scores near it represent the state-of-the-art for that sector and deserve an A+.
www.roberts.cmc.edu 5 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal AgenciesPSI Scoring in a Nutshell
Our analysis of sustainability reporting has a set of basic topics applied to all organizations as well as a series of
sector-specific topics. The topics are divided into environmental and social categories—the latter including human
rights—and into three types of information: 1) intent, 2) reporting, and 3) performance.
1. Intent
The “Intent” topics are each worth two points; one point for a discussion of intentions, vision, or plans, and a one
point for evidence of specific actions taken to implement them.
2. Reporting
The “Reporting” topics are each worth five points and are either quantitative (for which we expect numerical data)
or qualitative (for which we don’t).
For quantitative topics, one point is available for a discussion, one point for putting the information into perspective
(i.e. awards, industry standards, competitor performance, etc., or if the raw data are normalized by dividing by
revenue, number of employees, number of widgets produced, etc.), one point for the presence of an explicit
numerical goal, one point for numerical data from a single year, and one point for similar data from a previous year.
For qualitative topics, there are three criteria summed to five points: 1.67 points for discussion, 1.67 points for
initiatives or actions, and 1.67 points for perspective.
3. Performance
For each “Reporting” topic, two performance points are available.
For quantitative topics, one point is given for improvement from the previous reporting period, and one point for
better performance that the sector average (based on the data used for this sector report normalized by revenue).
For qualitative topics we give one point for any indication of improvement from previous reporting periods, and one
point for perspective.
The 11 “human rights” topics are scored differently, with five “reporting” points; 2.5 points for formally adopting a
policy or standard, and 2.5 points for a description of monitoring measures. In addition, there are two “performance”
points; one point for evidence of actions to reinforce policy and one point for a quantitative indication of compliance.
Distribution of Scores by topics
www.roberts.cmc.edu 6 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal AgenciesU.S. Government Agencies
Environmental Intent Topics
Average percent of maximum possible points. Two possible points for each topic:
Accountability
90 83.33
79.17 4 * Report contact person
77.08 77.08
80 19 * Environmental management structure
70
65.63 GRI 2005 Social Indicator for Public Agencies
323 * Administrative Efficiency
60
Management
50
16 * Environmental education
40 20 * Environmental management system
33.33
21 * Environmental accounting
30 23 * Stakeholder consultation
20 Policy
9 * Environmental policy statement
10
10 * Climate change/global warming
0 11 * Habitat/ecosystem conservation
Accountability
GRI 2005 Social Indicator for Public Agencies
Policy
Urban Environmental Accords
Management
Vision
12 * Biodiversity
13 * Green purchasing
1E+ * Participation in External Sustainability-Related
04 Programs
Urban Environmental Accords
306 * Green Building
Vision
5 * Environmental visionary statement
6 * Environmental impediments and challenges
Notes:
* These numbers correspond to the numbers in the PSI questionnaire. Items with numbers higher than 99 are sector
specific questions. Appendix 1 has the complete questionnaire.
www.roberts.cmc.edu 7 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal AgenciesU.S. Government Agencies
Environmental Reporting Topics
Seven possible points for each topic:
Energy
Percent of total possible score for all companies
combined. 26 * Energy used (total)
27 * Energy used (renewable)
25.00 Management
25
38 * Notices of violation (environmental)
39 * Environmental expenses and investments
40 * Fines (environmental)
20 Recycling
30 * Waste recycled: Solid waste
16.67 32 * Waste (office) recycled
Waste
15 34 * Waste (solid) disposed of
13.33
12.50 35 * Waste (hazardous) produced
37 * Waste (hazardous) released to the environment
Water
10 29 * Water used
7.22
5
0
Water
Energy
Management
Recycling
Waste
Notes:
* These numbers correspond to the numbers in the PSI questionnaire. Items with numbers higher than 99 are sector
specific questions.
www.roberts.cmc.edu 8 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal AgenciesU.S. Government Agencies
Social Intent Topics
Two possible points for each topic:
Average percent of maximum possible points.
Accountability
90
87.50 51 * Health and Safety, or Social organizational
structure
54 * Third-party validation
80
72.50 Management
70
17 * Workforce profile: Ethnicities/Race
18 * Workforce profile: Gender
58.33 52
60 56.25 * Workforce profile: Age
54.17
53 * Emergency preparedness program
50
82 * Employee training for career development
Policy
40 37.50
45 * Social policy statement
47 * Code of conduct or business ethics
30 49 * Supplier screening based on social or
environmental performance/ Supplier
management
20
321 * Disclosure Policy
322 * Grievance Mechanism
10
Social Demographic
0 80 * Employment for individuals with disabilities
Public Sector
Accountability
Policy
Management
Social Demographic
Vision
Vision
42 * Social visionary statement
43 * Social impediments and challenges
Notes:
* These numbers correspond to the numbers in the PSI questionnaire. Items with numbers higher than 99 are sector
specific questions. Appendix 1 has the complete questionnaire.
www.roberts.cmc.edu 9 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal AgenciesU.S. Government Agencies
Social Reporting Topics
Seven possible points for each topic:
Human Rights
Average percent of maximum possible points. 1 * Sexual harassment
7 * Political contributions
45 43.00
8 * Bribery
58 * Anti-corruption practices
40
59 * Degrading treatment or punishment of employees
35.00
60 * Elimination of discrimination in respect to
35
31.52 employment and occupation
61 * Free association and collective bargaining of
30 employees
62 * Fair compensation of employees
25
63 * Elimination of all forms of forced and compulsory
labor
20 64 * Reasonable working hours
65 * Effective abolition of child labor
15
Management
10 2 * Women in Management
7.22
Qualitative Social
5 66 * Community development
67 * Employee satisfaction surveys
0
68 * Community education
Qualitative Social
Quantitative Social
Human Rights
Management
70 * Occupational health and safety protection
72 * Employee volunteerism
Quantitative Social
3 * Employee turnover rate
74 * Recordable incident/accident rate
75 * Lost workday case rate
76 * Health and safety citations
77 * Health and safety fines
81 * Social community investment
Notes:
* These numbers correspond to the numbers in the PSI questionnaire. Items with numbers higher than 99 are sector
specific questions. Appendix 1 has the complete questionnaire.
www.roberts.cmc.edu 10 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal AgenciesU.S. Government Agencies
Environmental Intent Elements of the PSI Scores
100.0%
Environmental policy statement
91.7%
100.0%
Report contact person 83.3%
100.0%
Green purchasing 91.7%
100.0%
Environmental visionary statement
91.7%
91.7%
Habitat/ecosystem conservation 91.7%
91.7%
Green Building 83.3%
91.7%
Environmental management structure
70.8%
83.3%
Environmental education 79.2%
83.3%
Climate change/global warming 70.8%
83.3%
Environmental management system 79.2%
75.0%
Stakeholder consultation
70.8%
75.0%
Environmental impediments and challenges 62.5%
75.0%
Biodiversity 66.7%
66.7%
Participation in External Sustainability-Related Programs
62.5%
50.0%
Environmental accounting 33.3%
33.3%
Administrative Efficiency 33.3%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
= Percentage of institutions addressing the topics
= Percentage of the total possible number of points awarded to all institutions combined for each topic,
indicating the depth of reporting coverage measured by PSI criteria for each topic. If both percentages are
the same it means that each of those reporting institutions reporting on a topic got all the possible points.
www.roberts.cmc.edu 11 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal AgenciesU.S. Government Agencies
Environmental Reporting Elements of the PSI Scores
10 0 . 0 %
Energy used (total)
20.2%
83.3%
Energy used (renewable)
15 . 5 %
66.7%
Waste (solid) disposed of
11. 9 %
66.7%
Waste recycled: Solid waste
13 . 1%
Environmental expenses and 58.3%
investments 8.3%
58.3%
Water used
11. 9 %
50.0%
Waste (hazardous) produced
9.5%
Waste (hazardous) released to 33.3%
the environment 7 . 1%
33.3%
Waste (office) recycled
4.8%
Notices of violation 25.0%
(environmental) 4.8%
16 . 7 %
Fines (environmental)
2.4%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
= Percentage of institutions addressing the topics
= Percentage of the total possible number of points awarded to all institutions combined for each topic,
indicating the depth of reporting coverage measured by PSI criteria for each topic. If both percentages are
the same it means that each of those reporting institutions reporting on a topic got all the possible points.
www.roberts.cmc.edu 12 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal AgenciesU.S. Government Agencies
Social Intent Elements of the PSI Scores
100.0%
Employment for individuals with disabilities
87.5%
91.7%
Emergency preparedness program
87.5%
91.7%
Employee training for career development
79.2%
83.3%
Social visionary statement
79.2%
83.3%
Workforce profile: Ethnicities/Race
66.7%
83.3%
Workforce profile: Gender
66.7%
75.0%
Social policy statement
70.8%
75.0%
Workforce profile: Age
62.5%
66.7%
Health and Safety, or Social organizational structure
58.3%
66.7%
Third-party validation 50.0%
58.3%
Code of conduct or business ethics
58.3%
50.0%
Grievance Mechanism
41.7%
Supplier screening based on social or environmental 50.0%
performance/ Supplier management 45.8%
41.7%
Disclosure Policy 33.3%
41.7%
Social impediments and challenges
33.3%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
= Percentage of institutions addressing the topics
= Percentage of the total possible number of points awarded to all institutions combined for each topic,
indicating the depth of reporting coverage measured by PSI criteria for each topic. If both percentages are
the same it means that each of those reporting institutions reporting on a topic got all the possible points.
www.roberts.cmc.edu 13 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal AgenciesU.S. Government Agencies
Social Reporting Elements of the PSI Scores
100.0%
Sexual harassment 52.4%
Elimination of discrimination in respect to employment and 100.0%
52.4%
occupation
83.3%
Community development 33.3%
83.3%
Community education 35.7%
75.0%
Employee volunteerism 31.0%
75.0%
Occupational health and safety protection 29.8%
66.7%
Bribery 28.6%
66.7%
Women in Management 25.0%
58.3%
Social community investment 10.7%
58.3%
Employee satisfaction surveys 23.8%
58.3%
Anti-corruption practices 21.4%
50.0%
Political contributions 19.0%
50.0%
Free association and collective bargaining of employees 19.0%
33.3%
Employee turnover rate 7.1%
33.3%
Reasonable working hours 19.0%
33.3%
Degrading treatment or punishment of employees 14.3%
33.3%
Fair compensation of employees 14.3%
25.0%
Lost workday case rate 6.0%
25.0%
Recordable incident/accident rate 4.8%
8.3%
Health and safety citations 1.2%
8.3%
Health and safety fines 1.2%
8.3%
Elimination of all forms of forced and compulsory labor 7.1%
0.0%
Effective abolition of child labor 0.0%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
= Percentage of institutions addressing the topics
= Percentage of the total possible number of points awarded to all institutions combined for each topic,
indicating the depth of reporting coverage measured by PSI criteria for each topic. If both percentages are
the same it means that each of those reporting institutions reporting on a topic got all the possible points.
www.roberts.cmc.edu 14 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal AgenciesEnvironmental Intent Scores EI Scores Rankings
A+ Dept. of Homeland Security
Dept. of Homeland A General Services Administration
Security
90.6
A Dept. of Energy
A USEPA
General Services
Administration
84.4 A- Dept. of Transportation
A- Dept. of Agriculture
A- Dept. of Defense--Navy
Dept. of Energy 81.3
B+ Dept. of Defense--Air Force
B+ Dept. of Defense--Army
USEPA 81.3 B Dept. of the Interior
B Dept.Housing and Urban Dev.
C+ NASA
Dept. of T ransportation 78.1
Dept. of Agriculture 75.0
Dept. of Defense--Navy 71.9
Dept. of Defense--Air
Force
68.8
Dept. of Defense--Army 68.8
Dept. of the Interior 62.5
Dept.Housing and
Urban Dev.
62.5
NASA 46.9
0 25 50 75 100
Environmental intent scores include topics about the firm’s
products, environmental organization, vision and commitment,
stakeholders, environmental policy and certifications, environmental
aspects and impacts, choice of environmental performance
indicators and those used by the industry, environmental initiatives
and mitigations, and environmental goals and targets.
www.roberts.cmc.edu 15 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal AgenciesEnvironmental Reporting Scores ER Scores Rankings
A+ Dept. of Defense--Navy
A Dept. of Defense--Army
Dept. of Defense--Navy 25.45
A Dept. of Homeland Security
B+ USEPA
Dept. of Defense--Army 23.64 B- Dept. of Agriculture
C+ Dept. of Transportation
C Dept. of the Interior
Dept. of Homeland
Security
23.64 C- Dept. of Defense--Air Force
C- NASA
D+ General Services Administration
USEPA 18.18
D+ Dept.Housing and Urban Dev.
D+ Dept. of Energy
Dept. of Agriculture 14.55
Dept. of T ransportation 12.73
Dept. of the Interior 10.91
Dept. of Defense--Air
Force
9.09
NASA 9.09
General Services
Administration
7.27
Dept.Housing and
Urban Dev.
7.27
Dept. of Energy 5.45
0 25 50 75 100
Environmental reporting scores are based on the degree to which
the company discusses its emissions, energy sources and
consumption, environmental incidents and violations, materials use,
mitigations and remediation, waste produced, and water used. They
also include use of life cycle analysis, environmental performance
and stewardship of products, and environmental performance of
suppliers and contractors.
www.roberts.cmc.edu 16 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal AgenciesEnvironmental Performance Scores
General Services
Administration
0.00
Dept. of the Interior 0.00
Dept. of Energy 0.00
Dept. of T ransportation 0.00
Dept. of Defense--Air
Force
0.00
Dept. of Defense--Navy 0.00
Dept. of Defense--Army 0.00
Dept. of Homeland
Security
0.00
Dept. of Agriculture 0.00
Dept.Housing and
Urban Dev.
0.00
USEPA 0.00
NASA 0.00
0 25 50 75 100
None of the agencies are found to be reporting any environmental
performance topics.
Environmental performance scores are based on whether or not the
firm has improved its performance on each of the topics discussed
under the heading of environmental reporting, and on whether the
quality of the performance is better than that of the firm’s peers.
Scoring for each topic is one point if performance is better than in
previous reports, two points if better than industry peers, three
points if both.
www.roberts.cmc.edu 17 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal AgenciesSocial Intent Scores SI Scores Rankings
A+ Dept. of Transportation
A Dept. of Defense--Navy
Dept. of T ransportation 96.67
B+ Dept. of Agriculture
B Dept. of Energy
Dept. of Defense--Navy 86.67 B NASA
B Dept. of Homeland Security
B- General Services Administration
Dept. of Agriculture 70.00 B- Dept. of the Interior
C+ Dept. of Defense--Air Force
C+ Dept.Housing and Urban Dev.
Dept. of Energy 66.67
C USEPA
C- Dept. of Defense--Army
NASA 66.67
Dept. of Homeland
Security
63.33
General Services
Administration
60.00
Dept. of the Interior 56.67
Dept. of Defense--Air
Force
46.67
Dept.Housing and
Urban Dev.
46.67
USEPA 43.33
Dept. of Defense--Army 33.33
0 25 50 75 100
Social intent scores include topics about the firm’s financials,
employees, safety reporting, social management organization, social
vision and commitment, stakeholders, social policy and
certifications, social aspects and impacts, choice of social
performance indicators and those used by the industry, social
initiatives and mitigations, and social goals and targets.
www.roberts.cmc.edu 18 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal AgenciesSocial Reporting Scores SR Rankings
A+ Dept. of Energy
A- Dept. of Homeland Security
Dept. of Energy 50.43
B+ Dept. of Defense--Navy
B NASA
Dept. of Homeland B- General Services Administration
Security
40.29
B- Dept. of Defense--Army
C+ Dept. of Agriculture
Dept. of Defense--Navy 38.12 C Dept. of Transportation
C Dept. of the Interior
C Dept. of Defense--Air Force
NASA 32.75
C USEPA
C- Dept.Housing and Urban Dev.
General Services
Administration
31.30
Dept. of Defense--Army 28.84
Dept. of Agriculture 23.48
Dept. of T ransportation 23.04
Dept. of the Interior 20.43
Dept. of Defense--Air
Force
20.43
USEPA 18.99
Dept.Housing and
Urban Dev.
17.68
0 25 50 75 100
Social reporting scores are based on the degree to which the
company discusses various aspects of its dealings with its
employees and contractors. They also include social costs and
investments.
www.roberts.cmc.edu 19 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal AgenciesSocial Performance Scores SP Rankings
A+ Dept. of Energy
A- NASA
Dept. of Energy 15.22
D+ Dept. of Defense--Navy
D+ Dept. of Homeland Security
NASA 13.04 D Dept. of Transportation
D Dept. of Defense--Air Force
D Dept. of Defense--Army
Dept. of Defense--Navy 4.35
F General Services Administration
F Dept. of the Interior
Dept. of Homeland F Dept. of Agriculture
Security
4.35
F Dept. of Agriculture
F Dept.Housing and Urban Dev.
Dept. of T ransportation 2.17 F USEPA
Dept. of Defense--Air
Force
2.17
Dept. of Defense--Army 2.17
General Services
Administration
0.00
Dept. of the Interior 0.00
Dept. of Agriculture 0.00
Dept.Housing and
Urban Dev.
0.00
USEPA 0.00
0 25 50 75 100
Social performance scores are based on improvement,
performance better than the sector average, or statements of
compliance with established social standards.
www.roberts.cmc.edu 20 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal AgenciesU.S. Government Agencies
Human Rights Reporting Elements of the PSI Scores
Percent of companies reporting*
Human Rights Topics adoption reinforcement monitoring compliance
Anti-corruption practices 58.3% 8.3% 8.3% 0.0%
Bribery 66.7% 16.7% 16.7% 0.0%
Degrading treatment or punishment of employees 33.3% 8.3% 8.3% 0.0%
Effective abolition of child labor 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Elimination of all forms of forced and compulsory labor 8.3% 8.3% 8.3% 0.0%
Elimination of discrimination in respect to employment 100.0% 41.7% 41.7% 0.0%
and occupation
Fair compensation of employees 33.3% 8.3% 8.3% 0.0%
Free association and collective bargaining of 50.0% 8.3% 8.3% 0.0%
employees
Political contributions 50.0% 8.3% 8.3% 0.0%
Reasonable working hours 33.3% 16.7% 16.7% 0.0%
Sexual harassment 100.0% 41.7% 41.7% 0.0%
* Description of scoring
Adoption
We assign one point for adoption of a policy standard or for an explicit discussion of a company's stance on a particular
human rights principle or its participation to the UN Global Compact,
Reinforcement
We assign one point for a description of reinforcement actions to make a policy stronger, such as providing educational
programs, training, or other activities to promote awareness.
Monitoring
We assign one point for a description of monitoring measures including mechanisms to detect violations at an early
stage, providing systematic reporting, or establishment of committtee structure to oversee risky activities.
Compliance
We assign one point for a quantitative indication of compliance, including the frequency of instances of being in out of
compliance with the principles of the company, it's subsidiaries, or supply-chain affiliates. Describing full compliance
with a broad-brushed statement such as "we are in full compliance of the local and international law" is too general in
our opinion and does not count.
www.roberts.cmc.edu 21 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal AgenciesVisual Cluster Analysis
Visual cluster analysis multivariate data of the sort produced by the PSI are difficult to summarize. Here we have created radar diagrams
of the performance of each company analysed in the sector by its environmental and social intent, reporting, and performance sorted by
company ranking. Maximum scores will match the outer sides of the hexagon which total up to 100 percent.
EI = Environmental Intent, ER = Environmental Reporting, EP = Environmental Performance
SI = Social Intent, SR = Social Reporting, SP = Social Performance
ER ER ER ER ER
100 100 100 100 100
75 75 75 75 75
EI 50 EP EI 50 EP EI 50 EP EI 50 EP EI 50 EP
25 25 25 25 25
0 0 0 0 0
SI SP SI SP SI SP SI SP SI SP
SR SR SR SR SR
Dept. of Energy Dept. of Homeland Dept. of Defense-- Dept. of General Services
Security Navy Transportation Administration
ER ER ER ER ER
100 100 100 100 100
75 75 75 75 75
EI 50 EP EI 50 EP EI 50 EP EI 50 EP EI 50 EP
25 25 25 25 25
0 0 0 0 0
SI SP SI SP SI SP SI SP SI SP
SR SR SR SR SR
NASA Dept. of Agriculture Dept. of Defense-- USEPA Dept. of the Interior
Army
ER ER
100 100
75 75
EI 50 EP EI 50 EP
25 25
0 0
SI SP SI SP
SR SR
Dept. of Defense-- Dept.Housing and
Air Force Urban Dev.
www.roberts.cmc.edu 22 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal AgenciesNumber of Explicit numerical goals Reported
Dept. of Defense--
5
Navy
Dept. of Homeland
5
Security
Dept. of Defense--
4
Army
USEPA 2
Dept. of Energy 1
Dept. of
1
Transportation
0 5 10 15 20 25
Explicit Goals Most Frequently Reported
1 Energy used (total) 4
2 Waste (solid) disposed of 2
3 Waste recycled: Solid waste 2
4 Water used 2
5 Energy used (renewable) 2
6 Lost workday case rate 1
7 Recordable incident/accident rate 1
www.roberts.cmc.edu 23 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal AgenciesB Dept. of Dept. of Agriculture 2010 Web Pages
Agriculture
The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s sustainability webpages note that its mission is to advance its sustainable development through partnerships,
collaboration, and outreach. As a result, the USDA has implemented a number of programs that encourage green purchasing, implement fleet efficiency
through the use of alternative fuels, promote energy efficiency and water conservation, and encourage recycling and waste prevention. For example, the
agency’s green purchasing program established by the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act 2002, BioPreferred, promotes the purchasing of biological
products such as renewable agricultural and forestry materials. The USDA provides many links for the public to learn more about its other programs;
however, many of these links are not functioning. The site would benefit from updating of its links and providing more quantitative data on the progress of
USDA's environmental initiatives.
Analyst(s): Alyson Noelle Stark
E=Total Environmental Score, ESA=Environmental Sector Average Score, EI=Environmental Intent, ER=Environmental Reporting, EP=Environmental Performance, S=Total Social
Score, SSA=Social Sector Average Score, SI=Social Intent, SR=Social Reporting, SP=Social Performance
Comparison with sector averages Source of points Distribution of points
E
75 70
ES A
E S 23
S 54% 15
46% 0 0 Dept. of Agriculture
SSA
EI ER EP SI SR SP
0 25 50 75
Environmental Intent
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment
Accountability 4 4 100 Excellent
GRI 2005 Social Indicator for Public Agencies 0 2 0 Needs substantial improvement
Management 4 8 50 Good
Policy 11 12 92 Excellent
Urban Environmental Accords 2 2 100 Excellent
Vision 3 4 75 Excellent
Environmental Reporting
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment
Energy 4 14 29 Needs improvement
Management 1 21 5 Needs substantial improvement
Recycling 2 14 14 Needs substantial improvement
Waste 0 21 0 Needs substantial improvement
Water 1 7 14 Needs substantial improvement
Social Intent
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment
Accountability 0 4 0 Needs substantial improvement
Management 8 10 80 Excellent
Policy 5 6 83 Excellent
Public Sector 4 4 100 Excellent
Social Demographic 2 2 100 Excellent
Vision 2 4 50 Good
Social Reporting
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment
Human Rights 12 77 16 Needs substantial improvement
Management 0 7 0 Needs substantial improvement
Qualitative Social 9 35 26 Needs improvement
Quantitative Social 2 42 5 Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu 24 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal AgenciesB- Dept. of Defense-- Dept. of Defense--Air Force 2010 Web Pages
Air Force
The US Air Force website was lacking significant information in a number of the environmental and social categories we score. Many issues that the
department surely addresses, such as a code of conduct and fair compensation, were also impossible to locate on the site. The information that is there is
poorly labeled and difficult to find. My impression from navigating the Air Force website was that the accessibility of this information is not a priority. Some
links that looked promising led to pages that were un-locatable. Compared to the quality of the Air Force’s recruitment website, their environmental and
social pages are lacking and definitely in need of a major overhaul.
Analyst(s): Rebecca Enid Lofchie
E=Total Environmental Score, ESA=Environmental Sector Average Score, EI=Environmental Intent, ER=Environmental Reporting, EP=Environmental Performance, S=Total Social
Score, SSA=Social Sector Average Score, SI=Social Intent, SR=Social Reporting, SP=Social Performance
Comparison with sector averages Source of points Distribution of points
E
69
ES A
E S 47
20 Dept. of Defense--Air
S 55% 9
45% 0 2
Force
SSA
EI ER EP SI SR SP
0 25 50 75
Environmental Intent
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment
Accountability 3 4 75 Excellent
GRI 2005 Social Indicator for Public Agencies 0 2 0 Needs substantial improvement
Management 6 8 75 Excellent
Policy 9 12 75 Excellent
Urban Environmental Accords 1 2 50 Good
Vision 3 4 75 Excellent
Environmental Reporting
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment
Energy 2 14 14 Needs substantial improvement
Management 0 21 0 Needs substantial improvement
Recycling 0 14 0 Needs substantial improvement
Waste 2 21 10 Needs substantial improvement
Water 1 7 14 Needs substantial improvement
Social Intent
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment
Accountability 0 4 0 Needs substantial improvement
Management 7 10 70 Good
Policy 4 6 67 Good
Public Sector 0 4 0 Needs substantial improvement
Social Demographic 1 2 50 Good
Vision 2 4 50 Good
Social Reporting
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment
Human Rights 8 77 10 Needs substantial improvement
Management 3 7 43 Needs improvement
Qualitative Social 11 35 31 Needs improvement
Quantitative Social 1 42 2 Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu 25 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal AgenciesB Dept. of Defense-- Dept. of Defense--Army 2010 Web Pages
Army
The US Army’s first and second (2007 and 2009) sustainability reports are the first from any US Government agency. The Army's sustainability website has
more figures and data than found on most other agency sustainability websites as well. Future sustainability goals were highly detailed in the webpages
and abundant numerical data made it easy to chart progress over time.
Analyst(s): Starrisha Marche Godfrey-Canada
E=Total Environmental Score, ESA=Environmental Sector Average Score, EI=Environmental Intent, ER=Environmental Reporting, EP=Environmental Performance, S=Total Social
Score, SSA=Social Sector Average Score, SI=Social Intent, SR=Social Reporting, SP=Social Performance
Comparison with sector averages Source of points Distribution of points
E
69
ES A
S 33
E 24 29
Dept. of Defense--
S
58% 42% 0 2
SSA Army
EI ER EP SI SR SP
0 25 50 75
Environmental Intent
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment
Accountability 2 4 50 Good
GRI 2005 Social Indicator for Public Agencies 0 2 0 Needs substantial improvement
Management 6 8 75 Excellent
Policy 9 12 75 Excellent
Urban Environmental Accords 2 2 100 Excellent
Vision 3 4 75 Excellent
Environmental Reporting
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment
Energy 3 14 21 Needs substantial improvement
Management 3 21 14 Needs substantial improvement
Recycling 1 14 7 Needs substantial improvement
Waste 5 21 24 Needs substantial improvement
Water 1 7 14 Needs substantial improvement
Social Intent
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment
Accountability 1 4 25 Needs improvement
Management 4 10 40 Needs improvement
Policy 0 6 0 Needs substantial improvement
Public Sector 1 4 25 Needs improvement
Social Demographic 1 2 50 Good
Vision 3 4 75 Excellent
Social Reporting
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment
Human Rights 16 77 21 Needs substantial improvement
Management 3 7 43 Needs improvement
Qualitative Social 8 35 23 Needs substantial improvement
Quantitative Social 4 42 10 Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu 26 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal AgenciesA Dept. of Defense-- Dept. of Defense--Navy 2010 Web Pages
Navy
The US Navy's sustainability information is well done, but is scattered throughout their website and difficult to navigate to. If they could compile all their
sustainability information into one page, it would be one of the most informative and complete sustainability websites of any agency., but it was still above
average.
Analyst(s): Timothy Kareem Smedley
E=Total Environmental Score, ESA=Environmental Sector Average Score, EI=Environmental Intent, ER=Environmental Reporting, EP=Environmental Performance, S=Total Social
Score, SSA=Social Sector Average Score, SI=Social Intent, SR=Social Reporting, SP=Social Performance
Comparison with sector averages Source of points Distribution of points
E
87
72
ES A E
38
S 47% S 25
0 4
Dept. of Defense--
SSA 53% Navy
EI ER EP SI SR SP
0 25 50 75
Environmental Intent
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment
Accountability 4 4 100 Excellent
GRI 2005 Social Indicator for Public Agencies 2 2 100 Excellent
Management 4 8 50 Good
Policy 9 12 75 Excellent
Urban Environmental Accords 2 2 100 Excellent
Vision 2 4 50 Good
Environmental Reporting
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment
Energy 4 14 29 Needs improvement
Management 4 21 19 Needs substantial improvement
Recycling 3 14 21 Needs substantial improvement
Waste 3 21 14 Needs substantial improvement
Water 0 7 0 Needs substantial improvement
Social Intent
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment
Accountability 2 4 50 Good
Management 10 10 100 Excellent
Policy 6 6 100 Excellent
Public Sector 2 4 50 Good
Social Demographic 2 2 100 Excellent
Vision 4 4 100 Excellent
Social Reporting
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment
Human Rights 22 77 29 Needs improvement
Management 3 7 43 Needs improvement
Qualitative Social 14 35 40 Needs improvement
Quantitative Social 3 42 7 Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu 27 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal AgenciesA+ Dept. of Energy Dept. of Energy 2010 Web Pages
The Department of Energy's website indicates significant effort towards making its facilities and business management environmentally sustainable. The
“Sustainability Outreach Program” is an in-depth and overarching program that guides the Department of Energy’s environmental strategies such as, green
purchasing, green buildings, energy saving products and education. Also, this organization effectively displays worker demographics and sentiment. Oddly,
the Department of Energy falls short in providing quantitative data on energy and water consumption, as well as on hazardous waste production and
disposal, all items that are no doubt extremely carefully monitored by them.
Analyst(s): Emily Aiko Coleman
E=Total Environmental Score, ESA=Environmental Sector Average Score, EI=Environmental Intent, ER=Environmental Reporting, EP=Environmental Performance, S=Total Social
Score, SSA=Social Sector Average Score, SI=Social Intent, SR=Social Reporting, SP=Social Performance
Comparison with sector averages Source of points Distribution of points
E
81
ES A E 67
50
37%
S
S
15
5 0 Dept. of Energy
SSA
63%
EI ER EP SI SR SP
0 25 50 75
Environmental Intent
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment
Accountability 4 4 100 Excellent
GRI 2005 Social Indicator for Public Agencies 2 2 100 Excellent
Management 6 8 75 Excellent
Policy 8 12 67 Good
Urban Environmental Accords 2 2 100 Excellent
Vision 4 4 100 Excellent
Environmental Reporting
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment
Energy 1 14 7 Needs substantial improvement
Management 0 21 0 Needs substantial improvement
Recycling 2 14 14 Needs substantial improvement
Waste 0 21 0 Needs substantial improvement
Water 0 7 0 Needs substantial improvement
Social Intent
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment
Accountability 2 4 50 Good
Management 10 10 100 Excellent
Policy 4 6 67 Good
Public Sector 2 4 50 Good
Social Demographic 2 2 100 Excellent
Vision 0 4 0 Needs substantial improvement
Social Reporting
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment
Human Rights 42 77 55 Good
Management 3 7 43 Needs improvement
Qualitative Social 15 35 43 Needs improvement
Quantitative Social 3 42 7 Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu 28 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal AgenciesA+ Dept. of Homeland Dept. of Homeland Security 2010 Web Pages
Security
The Department of Homeland Security conducts numerous operations to protect the nation’s borders. In its web pages, DHS notes its 2008 policy aimed to
develop and implement sustainable practices programs to ensure its operations are carried out in an environmentally sound manner. As a result, the DHS
has been active in investigating the environmental impact of its actions, especially those of the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility, and has
implemented reasonable alternatives to help mitigate environmental damage. For example, the agency addresses facility nighttime lighting affects on
wildlife and surrounding residents, and has adjusted operation boundaries to protect natural biodiversity. The Department of Homeland Security, however,
provides little quantitative workforce data such as turnover rate, lost workday, accident indices, and information on employee health and safety.
Analyst(s): Karina Gomez
E=Total Environmental Score, ESA=Environmental Sector Average Score, EI=Environmental Intent, ER=Environmental Reporting, EP=Environmental Performance, S=Total Social
Score, SSA=Social Sector Average Score, SI=Social Intent, SR=Social Reporting, SP=Social Performance
Comparison with sector averages Source of points Distribution of points
E
91
ES A 63
E
S
S 24
40
Dept. of Homeland
52% 4
48%
0
SSA Security
EI ER EP SI SR SP
0 25 50 75
Environmental Intent
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment
Accountability 3 4 75 Excellent
GRI 2005 Social Indicator for Public Agencies 2 2 100 Excellent
Management 6 8 75 Excellent
Policy 12 12 100 Excellent
Urban Environmental Accords 2 2 100 Excellent
Vision 4 4 100 Excellent
Environmental Reporting
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment
Energy 4 14 29 Needs improvement
Management 0 21 0 Needs substantial improvement
Recycling 3 14 21 Needs substantial improvement
Waste 4 21 19 Needs substantial improvement
Water 2 7 29 Needs improvement
Social Intent
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment
Accountability 2 4 50 Good
Management 8 10 80 Excellent
Policy 3 6 50 Good
Public Sector 3 4 75 Excellent
Social Demographic 2 2 100 Excellent
Vision 1 4 25 Needs improvement
Social Reporting
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment
Human Rights 24 77 31 Needs improvement
Management 2 7 29 Needs improvement
Qualitative Social 15 35 43 Needs improvement
Quantitative Social 3 42 7 Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu 29 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal AgenciesB- Dept. of the Interior Dept. of the Interior 2010 Web Pages
The U.S. Department of the Interior’s FY 2008 Annual Environmental Management Systems Report, FY 2008-2012 Workforce and Succession Plan, Green
Purchasing Plan, Strategic Sustainability Performance Plan, and 2010 web pages contain much information on the department’s environmental and social
programs and goals. The department has numerous energy and water conservation projects including the implementation of solar panels. Although the
department has a good discussion of these programs and initiatives, and states that data are collected and reported, not much of the data is provided;
lacking are data on environmental issues such as energy use, water conservation, and waste production; and on employee data such as turnover and
accident rate. The Department of the Interior has a number of initiatives that show its dedication to the country’s Native American population; however, it
does not report similar initiatives on its responsibility to its workforce, nor does it provide a code of ethics.
Analyst(s): Karina Gomez
E=Total Environmental Score, ESA=Environmental Sector Average Score, EI=Environmental Intent, ER=Environmental Reporting, EP=Environmental Performance, S=Total Social
Score, SSA=Social Sector Average Score, SI=Social Intent, SR=Social Reporting, SP=Social Performance
Comparison with sector averages Source of points Distribution of points
E
ES A 63 57
E S 20
S 53% 11
47% 0 0 Dept. of the Interior
SSA
EI ER EP SI SR SP
0 25 50 75
Environmental Intent
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment
Accountability 2 4 50 Good
GRI 2005 Social Indicator for Public Agencies 0 2 0 Needs substantial improvement
Management 6 8 75 Excellent
Policy 7 12 58 Good
Urban Environmental Accords 1 2 50 Good
Vision 4 4 100 Excellent
Environmental Reporting
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment
Energy 2 14 14 Needs substantial improvement
Management 1 21 5 Needs substantial improvement
Recycling 1 14 7 Needs substantial improvement
Waste 1 21 5 Needs substantial improvement
Water 1 7 14 Needs substantial improvement
Social Intent
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment
Accountability 2 4 50 Good
Management 8 10 80 Excellent
Policy 0 6 0 Needs substantial improvement
Public Sector 2 4 50 Good
Social Demographic 1 2 50 Good
Vision 4 4 100 Excellent
Social Reporting
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment
Human Rights 10 77 13 Needs substantial improvement
Management 2 7 29 Needs improvement
Qualitative Social 8 35 23 Needs substantial improvement
Quantitative Social 1 42 2 Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu 30 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal AgenciesB+ Dept. of Dept. of Transportation 2010 Web Pages
Transportation
The U.S. Department of Transportation is a huge agency and provides a large amount of sustainability information on its website, but it is not centralized,
nor is there a central sustainability index for it, so it is difficult to sort out. Rather the information is provided piecemeal as it has come in from various
divisions. Similar to the sustainability issue, it is difficult to find overall departmental procedures, guidelines, and employment information for the entire
Department of Transportation. The next iteration of DOT's website should provide a more integrated approach.
Analyst(s): Jesse Maximilliano Madrigal
E=Total Environmental Score, ESA=Environmental Sector Average Score, EI=Environmental Intent, ER=Environmental Reporting, EP=Environmental Performance, S=Total Social
Score, SSA=Social Sector Average Score, SI=Social Intent, SR=Social Reporting, SP=Social Performance
Comparison with sector averages Source of points Distribution of points
E 97
78
ES A E
S 50% S 13 23 Dept. of
0 2
SSA 50% Transportation
EI ER EP SI SR SP
0 25 50 75
Environmental Intent
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment
Accountability 2 4 50 Good
GRI 2005 Social Indicator for Public Agencies 2 2 100 Excellent
Management 4 8 50 Good
Policy 11 12 92 Excellent
Urban Environmental Accords 2 2 100 Excellent
Vision 4 4 100 Excellent
Environmental Reporting
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment
Energy 1 14 7 Needs substantial improvement
Management 2 21 10 Needs substantial improvement
Recycling 0 14 0 Needs substantial improvement
Waste 4 21 19 Needs substantial improvement
Water 0 7 0 Needs substantial improvement
Social Intent
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment
Accountability 4 4 100 Excellent
Management 10 10 100 Excellent
Policy 6 6 100 Excellent
Public Sector 3 4 75 Excellent
Social Demographic 2 2 100 Excellent
Vision 4 4 100 Excellent
Social Reporting
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment
Human Rights 12 77 16 Needs substantial improvement
Management 2 7 29 Needs improvement
Qualitative Social 8 35 23 Needs substantial improvement
Quantitative Social 4 42 10 Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu 31 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal AgenciesC+ Dept.Housing and Dept.Housing and Urban Dev. 2010 Web Pages
Urban Dev.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) does not appear to have developed a comprehensive environmental department, though it has
established environmental coordinators for each region with appropriate contact information. Most environmentally related topics can be found through
direct searches on the home web page, but are typically addressed as complementary issues and rarely acknowledged as the primary target of any of the
Department's activities. For example, water and energy conservation initiatives are coordinated through housing development and community education
which may be fine, but the presentation makes it difficult to ascertain their importance to HUD. HUD could improve its website by coordinating its
environment-related topics to a single domain that is user-friendly.
Analyst(s): Ryan Anderson
E=Total Environmental Score, ESA=Environmental Sector Average Score, EI=Environmental Intent, ER=Environmental Reporting, EP=Environmental Performance, S=Total Social
Score, SSA=Social Sector Average Score, SI=Social Intent, SR=Social Reporting, SP=Social Performance
Comparison with sector averages Source of points Distribution of points
E
ES A 63
E S 47
S 55%
18 Dept.Housing and
45% 7 0 0
Urban Dev.
SSA
EI ER EP SI SR SP
0 25 50 75
Environmental Intent
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment
Accountability 3 4 75 Excellent
GRI 2005 Social Indicator for Public Agencies 0 2 0 Needs substantial improvement
Management 4 8 50 Good
Policy 10 12 83 Excellent
Urban Environmental Accords 2 2 100 Excellent
Vision 1 4 25 Needs improvement
Environmental Reporting
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment
Energy 2 14 14 Needs substantial improvement
Management 1 21 5 Needs substantial improvement
Recycling 0 14 0 Needs substantial improvement
Waste 1 21 5 Needs substantial improvement
Water 0 7 0 Needs substantial improvement
Social Intent
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment
Accountability 3 4 75 Excellent
Management 1 10 10 Needs substantial improvement
Policy 4 6 67 Good
Public Sector 1 4 25 Needs improvement
Social Demographic 2 2 100 Excellent
Vision 3 4 75 Excellent
Social Reporting
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment
Human Rights 4 77 5 Needs substantial improvement
Management 0 7 0 Needs substantial improvement
Qualitative Social 12 35 34 Needs improvement
Quantitative Social 2 42 5 Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu 32 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal AgenciesB+ General Services General Services Administration 2010 Web Pages
Administration
The GSA expresses a commitment to improving its sustainability stance as well as aiding other actors in doing the same. The use of renewable energy and
adopting LEED guidelines for its buildings illustrates the move towards a more sustainable relationship with the environment. The GSA website does not
provide information on specific policies it has adopted, however, nor any quantitative performance data. It is also silent on human rights policy issues and
measures taken to insure compliance. The GSA could easily improve its PSI rating simply by posting quantitative data it surely has.
Analyst(s): Natalya Ratan
E=Total Environmental Score, ESA=Environmental Sector Average Score, EI=Environmental Intent, ER=Environmental Reporting, EP=Environmental Performance, S=Total Social
Score, SSA=Social Sector Average Score, SI=Social Intent, SR=Social Reporting, SP=Social Performance
Comparison with sector averages Source of points Distribution of points
E
84
ES A E 60
S 50% S 31
General Services
7
50%
0 0
SSA Administration
EI ER EP SI SR SP
0 25 50 75
Environmental Intent
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment
Accountability 4 4 100 Excellent
GRI 2005 Social Indicator for Public Agencies 0 2 0 Needs substantial improvement
Management 7 8 88 Excellent
Policy 10 12 83 Excellent
Urban Environmental Accords 2 2 100 Excellent
Vision 4 4 100 Excellent
Environmental Reporting
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment
Energy 2 14 14 Needs substantial improvement
Management 0 21 0 Needs substantial improvement
Recycling 1 14 7 Needs substantial improvement
Waste 0 21 0 Needs substantial improvement
Water 1 7 14 Needs substantial improvement
Social Intent
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment
Accountability 4 4 100 Excellent
Management 6 10 60 Good
Policy 4 6 67 Good
Public Sector 0 4 0 Needs substantial improvement
Social Demographic 2 2 100 Excellent
Vision 2 4 50 Good
Social Reporting
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment
Human Rights 12 77 16 Needs substantial improvement
Management 3 7 43 Needs improvement
Qualitative Social 15 35 43 Needs improvement
Quantitative Social 1 42 2 Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu 33 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal AgenciesB+ NASA NASA 2010 Web Pages
NASA has a very user-friendly website which lists many sustainability initiatives. Although this is great, there were no data whatsoever on actual
environmental performance.
Analyst(s): Dante Lamarr Benson
E=Total Environmental Score, ESA=Environmental Sector Average Score, EI=Environmental Intent, ER=Environmental Reporting, EP=Environmental Performance, S=Total Social
Score, SSA=Social Sector Average Score, SI=Social Intent, SR=Social Reporting, SP=Social Performance
Comparison with sector averages Source of points Distribution of points
E
E 67
ES A 47
36% 33
S
S 9 0
13
NASA
SSA
64%
EI ER EP SI SR SP
0 25 50 75
Environmental Intent
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment
Accountability 3 4 75 Excellent
GRI 2005 Social Indicator for Public Agencies 0 2 0 Needs substantial improvement
Management 3 8 38 Needs improvement
Policy 7 12 58 Good
Urban Environmental Accords 0 2 0 Needs substantial improvement
Vision 2 4 50 Good
Environmental Reporting
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment
Energy 2 14 14 Needs substantial improvement
Management 0 21 0 Needs substantial improvement
Recycling 0 14 0 Needs substantial improvement
Waste 3 21 14 Needs substantial improvement
Water 0 7 0 Needs substantial improvement
Social Intent
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment
Accountability 4 4 100 Excellent
Management 10 10 100 Excellent
Policy 2 6 33 Needs improvement
Public Sector 0 4 0 Needs substantial improvement
Social Demographic 2 2 100 Excellent
Vision 2 4 50 Good
Social Reporting
Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment
Human Rights 36 77 47 Needs improvement
Management 0 7 0 Needs substantial improvement
Qualitative Social 6 35 17 Needs substantial improvement
Quantitative Social 1 42 2 Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu 34 Sustainability Reporting of Largest U.S. Federal AgenciesYou can also read
