Sustainability Measurement GIN
Sustainability Measurement GIN
Sustainability Measurement GIN
Battelle Memorial Institute Life Cycle Management Group 505 King Avenue Columbus, Ohio 43201-2693 (614) 424-5730 [email protected]
1999 Greening of Industry Network Conference Best Practice Proceedings ABSTRACT A number of leading companies in the U.S., Europe and Japan have made a commitment to become sustainable enterprises, and have launched proactive programs to improve the environmental and social performance of their products, processes, services, and facilities. However, one of the key challenges faced by these companies is how to track their progress towards sustainability and communicate it to both employees and other important stakeholders. This paper is intended to assist business decision-makers who wish to initiate continuous measurement and improvement of their triple bottom line, i.e., the economic, environmental, and societal performance of their products, facilities, and enterprise. First, a set of guiding principles is presented, suggesting that performance measurement should: 1) focus on both resource and value indicators, 2) explicitly represent the triple bottom line, 3) consider the full product life cycle, and 4) combine both leading and lagging indicators. Next, a comprehensive performance measurement process is described, including specific steps for planning, implementation, and review, based upon established practices within the business community. Finally, examples are given of five well-known companies that are recognized leaders in the field of sustainability measurement. The intent of this paper is to provide both a conceptual understanding of the state of the art, and a survey of best practices across several industries, thus creating a pragmatic foundation for establishing a customized sustainability measurement process within any company. The paper is based upon Battelles experience in developing and implementing performance measurement processes for a variety of industrial clients, including several leaders in the sustainability movement. In particular, the performance measurement process is based on the results of a multi-year program sponsored by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI).
INTRODUCTION
As the new millennium dawns, many leading companies in the U.S., Europe and Japan are responding to the challenges of global population growth and environmental pressures by adopting a commitment to sustainability (Hart, 1996). Business leaders speak of sustainable development, sustainable growth, sustainable products, sustainable processes, and sustainable technologies. Many have launched proactive programs that include life cycle accounting, design for eco-efficiency, community outreach, clean technology development, and a variety of other initiatives. In 1999, a group of U.S. companies including DuPont and General Motors collaborated in supporting a high-visibility National Town Meeting on Sustainability. Their motivations are not purely altruistic recent research has demonstrated that pursuit of sustainability can not only result in environmental improvements and societal benefits, but can also increase economic value for the firm (Kiernan and Martin, 1998; Dixon, 1999). Yet few, if any, companies can respond definitively to the question, Which of our products, processes, services, and facilities are sustainable? Answering this question requires the ability to measure sustainability in a quantitative, or at least qualitative fashion. However, measuring sustainability differs from measuring other dimensions of business performance in several important respects. First, this practice is relatively new, so that there is a lack of commonly accepted or mandated measurement standards. Second, sustainability is complex and multi-faceted, covering a broad spectrum of topics from habitat conservation, to energy consumption, to stakeholder satisfaction and financial results. Finally, measurement of sustainability extends beyond the boundaries of a single company and typically addresses the performance of both upstream suppliers and downstream customers in the value chain. While many firms are beginning to address this challenge, so far the main focus has been on the choice of appropriate performance indicators. For practitioners of performance measurement, there are many additional issues that need to be addressed , including the timing, data requirements, accountability assignments, communication, and pragmatic utilization of these indicators. We argue that sustainability performance measurement (SPM) must be approached as a systematic business process in order to be integrated effectively into company strategic planning and day-to-day operations. This paper sets forth some fundamental principles for SPM, and describes a three-phase process for planning, implementing, and reviewing an SPM process. The focus is on the initial planning phase, which begins with articulation a sustainability policy and concludes with establishment of specific performance targets. The paper illustrates the application of the SPM principles and process by drawing upon industry best practices. Some important lessons can be learned from the companies that have already begun their journey towards sustainability, and are already measuring and reporting on their performance. A review of publicly available data shows that The Body Shop, BP Amoco, Collins & Aikman Floorcovering, Monsanto, and Volvo are applying these principles and following most of the SPM process steps. Analysis of their policies, objectives, performance indicators, and targets provides a number of insights about how the above-mentioned challenges can be addressed. It is our hope that the approach and best practices presented here will help other companies to develop and improve their SPM practices, enabling a more rapid and widespread transition towards sustainable products and processes. We believe that the pressures of population growth, economic development, and resource scarcity will eventually compel all companies to address sustainability issues. Moreover, we argue that achievement of worldwide sustainable development will require the emergence of companies that routinely seek competitive advantage through simultaneous measurement and improvement of environmental, economic and social performance.
Resource
Energy Material Water Land Waste Cost Human capital Investment capital
Value
Functional performance Information content Customer satisfaction Environmental quality Economic value added Business competency Human health Social welfare
Continuous Improvement
10.Gather Feedback
Review Phase
5. Determine Targets
3. Establish Objectives
Plan Phase
Companies have applied a variety of approaches to perform review and select the aspects that are most important for performance tracking. One recommended approach involves a sequence of three tasks: 1. Identify all aspects of sustainability that are potentially important 2. Assess or estimate the magnitude of these aspects using available indicators 3. Rank the aspects in terms of relative importance. Completing the first task requires activities such as conducting brainstorming sessions, reviewing previous successes and problems, and interviewing stakeholder organizations. Assessing the magnitude of the sustainability aspects identified requires either quantifying them in terms of resource or value metrics, or at least qualitatively rating them on a semantic scale. Finally, the organization is left to determine the most significant environmental aspects by assessing their relative importance, which can be accomplished through various group voting techniques. Having determined which aspects are most significant, decision-makers can then proceed to select the few that merit performance tracking.
Eliminating usage of toxic materials Increasing material utilization ratios Improving the ecosystem quality on managed properties Reducing the costs of waste management activities Developing inherently clean and safe technologies Increasing employee satisfaction and well-being Supporting reduction of poverty in developing countries
As shown by these examples, objectives should address the triple bottom line, and should be oriented towards either resource conservation or value creation.
Performance indicators
A sustainability performance indicator (SPI) is defined as a quantifiable attribute of an enterprises activities that characterizes the potential contributions of these activities toward the enterprises sustainability objectives. Examples of SPIs include air emissions, stakeholder satisfaction ratings, contributions for conserving habitat, and revenues associated with clean technology applications. Note that it is important to have a balanced set of both leading and lagging indicators; neither are sufficient on their own. Examples of lagging and leading sustainability indicators are shown in Figure 3.
Leading examples
No. of eco-efficiency audits No. of process re-designs % of employees receiving sustainability training
Lagging examples
Mass throughput reduction CO2 emission reduction Stakeholder satisfaction
feedback
effects
1. Comprehensive. Does the set of performance indicators address all of the organizations major aspects and objectives? 2. Controllable. Can the organization, group, manager or employee significantly influence the desired results? 3. Cost-Effective. Can the necessary data be obtained from existing sources or otherwise easily collected? 4. Manageable. Is the set of indicators limited to the minimal number required to meet the other criteria? 5. Meaningful. Will individuals throughout the organization and external stakeholders easily understand the indicators? 6. Robust. Do the indicators address inputs and processes (leading indicators) and outcomes (lagging indicators)? 7. Timely. Can measurement occur with sufficient frequency to enable timely, informed decision-making?
These guidelines support successful implementation by avoiding commonly experienced problems. For example, if managers are held accountable for indicators that they cannot significantly influence, resentment or apathy can easily result. Similarly, some personnel evaluation programs have faltered because an unwieldy number of indicators made the program overly complex.
Performance Metrics
A performance metric defines a specific means of measuring and tracking a performance indicator. In general, a variety of metrics can be chosen for any given performance indicator. For instance, potential metrics for solid waste include annual volume (tons/year), annual improvement (% reduction), or quantity avoided (tons recycled/year). Metrics can be classified in several different ways. For example, qualitative metrics are those that rely on semantic ratings based on observation and judgement, while quantitative metrics are those that rely on empirical data. A second important distinction is between absolute and relative metrics. Absolute metrics are defined with respect to a fixed measurement scale, e.g., total annual hazardous waste generated. Relative metrics are those that are defined with respect to another metric or variable, e.g., total hazardous waste per unit of energy produced. Another approach is to use time-based relative metrics, i.e., those which compute the change in a particular quantitative metric over a given time period; for example, the percent reduction of total hazardous waste from 1992 to 1993." Finally, several companies are striving to use normalized metrics, which measure sustainability performance per unit of production. Normalization enables comparability over time, but can also introduce anomalies. For example, a well-performing company might wish to acquire a high-volume business with relatively poor sustainability performance, which would skew the companys overall performance results. Similarly, a manufacturing company that reduced a major waste stream from its facility by outsourcing the production to a supplier should not receive credit for that reduction (assuming that the supplier continued to generate the waste stream.)
10
REMAINING STEPS
The fifth step concludes the Plan phase. Afterwards, companies begin using the set of objectives, indicators, and targets to report and improve their performance. As described at the beginning of this section, these steps can be organized into an implementation phase and a continuous improvement phase.
COMPANY PROFILES
A summary of each companys sustainability measurement program is provided in the Appendix, however brief profiles of the programs are provided below. The Body Shop has expressed its pro-active environmental stance since they began business in 1976. The Body Shops aim is to become a sustainable business, and its widely publicized Environmental Values report in 1995 was the first of its kind. The report, consisting of three independently verified
11
The Ford Motor Company recently acquired the automotive division of Volvo. This analysis is based upon Volvos activities prior to the acquisition.
12
Value
Monsanto demonstrated increased eco-efficiency of one manufacturing improvement, which saved $6 million in raw materials usage, decreased waste handling, and increased manufacturing capacity.
90%
80%
70%
Indicator Composition
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
Company
Financial
Environmental
Societal
13
Yes
Yes
Yes
Monsanto
Yes
Volvo
Yes
14
In summary, each of the best practice companies is, to varying degrees, implementing each of sustainability measurement principles. Moreover, some of their measurement practices are particularly noteworthy. For companies beginning sustainability programs, these examples demonstrate how they can tackle the unique challenges of measuring and reporting sustainability performance.
15
The Body Shop is dedicated to the pursuit of social and environmental change. It has a holistic mission statement, embracing human and civil rights, ecological sustainability and animal welfare. BP Amocos goals are simply stated- no accidents, no harm to people, and no damage to the environment. We will continue to drive down the environmental and health impact of our operations by reducing waste, emissions, and discharges, and using energy efficiently. We will produce quality products that can used safely by our customers. Collins and Aikman believes that business can and must play a leadership role in transitioning from exploitive to sustainable manufacturing systems so that people, business, and the environment can prosper. The conditions of our world- the stresses being placed on natural and social systems that sustain us- eventually will require all of us to solve the sustainable development puzzle. Monsanto is determined to be a leader among businesses in this effort. We committed to this course several years ago, and we think our scientific and technological skills can provide us special opportunities to have an impact. Environmental Care is a Volvo Core Value. Volvo is to be ranked as a leader in terms of Environmental Care among the worlds top producers of automotive and transport products, equipment, and systems. Volvos environmental programs shall be characterized by a holistic view, continuous improvement, technical development, and resource efficiency. Volvo shall, by these means, gain competitive advantage and contribute to a sustainable development.
Only two companies (BP Amoco and Collins &Aikman) track the revenues associated with their sustainability efforts. While all of the companies are reporting at least one dimension of economic performance, none are currently tackling the complex issue of measuring the externalities associated with their company. All of the companies are tracking a wide variety of environmental indicators, ranging from greenhouse gas emissions to solar energy production. All of the companies are attempting to measure employee satisfaction but generally have few other societal indicators. Two unique efforts are Collins & Aikmans tracking of the impacts that their products have on indoor air quality and Monsantos measurement of Medicinal Drug Access.
16
BP Amoco
Solar Power Revenues Env. Costs Env. Disasters, Fines
Monsanto
Volvo
Environmental R&D
Economic
Public Concern Water and Waste Recycling Energy, Non-fossil Fuels Water Recycling, LCA Energy, Fuel Water Recycling, LCA Energy, Fuel
Water Recycling Energy, Solar Energy. Clean Fuel Discharges, Oil Spills, Habitat Loss, Hazardous Waste Hydrocarbon Emissions, Injection Wells Greenhouse Gases, CO2 Employee
Energy Environmental
Local
Dyeing Wastes
Hazardous Waste
Regional
Incineration
Air Emissions
Global Quality of Life Societal Peace of Mind Illness Accident Health & Wellnes
2
CO2
CO2
Assessments, Teams
Many of these indicators could fit into two or more aspect categories. For example, air emissions could certainly influence stakeholder satisfaction and financial performance but is included in the environmental category.
17
BP Amoco Collins and Aikman Monsanto To make the industrys first green competitive product To create value while reducing waste
To reduce greenhouse gas emissions To increase overall materials efficiency To improve soil quality
To enable better health, better nutrition, improved quality of life To involve all employees in environmental activities
Volvo
To track environmentally To take account of related investment and complete product lifeproduct development cycle costs
18
Surveys
While using innovative indicators and metrics might be the preferred choice for company decisionmakers, many external stakeholders are advocating that companies standardize their sustainability performance reporting process. Unlike financial reports, sustainability results generally cannot be easily compared between companies or industries. As shown in Table 8, comparing the results of the best practice companies would be fairly difficult. Recently, Canadas National Round Table on the Environment and Economy piloted a program with eight companies3 who tested a set of standard indicators. The study concluded that some indicators, such as
3
3M Canada, Alcan Aluminum, Bell Canada, Monsanto, Noranda, Nortel Networks, Procter & Gamble, and Pacific Northern Gas (representing WestCoast Energy) participated in the study.
19
Volvo
Most
20
REMAINING STEPS
Much of the specific information about how the companies implement and improve their performance measurement process is not publicly available; however, two points are observable and worth noting. The first point concerns how companies report their performance (implementation). Each of the best practice companies reports its current and historical levels of performance so that external and internal stakeholders clearly understand how much the company has improved (see Table 10).
The second important point is relative to the companies continuous improvement efforts. To support this effort, three of the best practice companies externally report their performance relative to other organizations. As with the trend data, these benchmarks help stakeholders evaluate how the company is progressing (see Table 11).
21
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Some important lessons can be learned from the companies that are already tackling the challenge of measuring and reporting their path towards sustainability. A review of publicly available data shows that The Body Shop, BP Amoco, Collins & Aikman Floorcovering, Monsanto, and Volvo are applying the four principles and following most of the measurement steps. For example, all of these companies:
q
q q
q q q
Measure and report the three dimensions of sustainability: economic, environmental, and societal. Report their efforts to conserve resources and create value. Consider the entire life cycle of their products and services, rather than concentrating exclusively on their core operations. Track both leading and lagging indicators. Have a clearly articulated sustainability policy. State how company activities can hinder or enable sustainability, and how the company intends to improve performance Measure and report innovative metrics that are relevant to their organizations program
While each of these companies measurement programs is commendable, some important differences exist.
q
As expected, the choice of measures of value generated by company activities varies widely; for example, Collins & Aikman measures air quality improvement due to VOC reduction, while Monsanto measures soil conservation due to improved agricultural practices. Only one company, The Body Shop, has applied an extensive stakeholder auditing process to measure societal performance and is attempting to quantify many societal indicators by scoring Stakeholder Perception. The specific indicators used by companies vary considerably and thus the measurement results are not directly comparable. Only two companies, BP Amoco and Collins & Aikman, publicly track the revenues associated with their sustainability efforts. One company, Monsanto, states few targets for company-wide future performance because of significant variations between the types of value created and wastes generated by the different business units. Three of the companies benchmark their progress relative to competing firms (se Table 11).
Finally, one of the dominant themes that emerges from these similarities and differences is the continued focus of sustainability measurement on the environmental dimension. This focus is a legacy of historical practices, and continues to occupy most of the attention of external stakeholders. As mentioned earlier, the practice of societal reporting is relatively new and being led by a few path breaking companies, including The Body Shop. With regard to economic performance measurement, financial reporting is well established but generally focused on business performance as defined by generally accepted accounting practices (GAAP) and driven by the finance organization. In contrast, environmental reporting among large corporations is usually the responsibility of the environmental, health and safety organization. An important step in moving toward triple bottom line integration will be the recognition that economic impacts need to be addressed through a life cycle accounting framework that extends beyond traditional financial boundaries.
22
q q
Designers assess how the sustainability profiles of competing product concepts compare Marketers analyze how their product or service satisfy their customers by lowering the cost of ownership and creating tangible and less tangible benefits Production managers apply life cycle costing methods to quantify hidden environmental costs Strategic planners assess the consequences of environmentally driven scenarios.
The need for sustainability awareness is becoming an imperative, as global pressures intensify. The world population will soon surpass six billion, while concerns about climate, water, land, and habitat preservation continue to mount. Rapidly developing economies around the world are creating growing markets for goods and services. These conditions are creating opportunities for companies to fundamentally change how they engage suppliers, operate facilities, and service customers. In addition to new technologies, new production methods, and new management systems, these companies will need a new language to communicate their performance goals and progress. A well conceived sustainability performance measurement process will respond to that final, fundamental need.
23
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Baker, K. The Development of Organization and Program Performance Indicators. Pacific Northwest Laboratory. 1999. Bennett, Martin, and James, Peter. Sustainable Measures: Evaluation and Reporting of Environmental and Social Performance. Greenleaf, Sheffield, UK. 1999. The Body Shop web site. The Values Report, 1997. http://www.the-body-shop.com/aboutus/values.html, (June 23, 1999). BP Amoco web site, Environmental and Safety Report, 1998. http://www.bpamoco.com/reports/enviro/, (June 21, 1999). BP Amoco web site, Health, Safety, and Environmental Data, 1998. http://www.bpamoco.com/reports/enviro/, (June 22, 1999). Bridger, Mac. Carpet In/ Carpet Out: The Continuing Journey at Collins and Aikman. Industrial Ecology IV, The Future 500 Conference, April 29, 1999. Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants. Reporting on Environmental Performance. CICA, Toronto. 1994. Collins and Aikman, Catalyst: Elements of Change, 1998. Collins and Aikman web site, Environmental Statement, 1999. http://www.collinsandaikman.com/environmental/index.html, (June 24, 1999). Collins and Aikman, Practical Vision Interiors and Sources Magazine, 1998. Dixon, Frank, Environmental Leaders Achieve Superior Stock Market Performance in the Electric Utility Sector, The Annual Public Utility Reporters Environmental Conference, New Orleans, LA. May 25, 1999. EPRI. Environmental Performance Measurement: Design, Implementation, and Review Guidance for the Utility Industry. TR-111354. 1998. EPRI. Environmental Performance Measurement: A Framework for the Utility Industry. TR-106078. 1996. Epstein, Mark J. Measuring Corporate Environmental Performance: Best Practices for Costing and Managing an Effective Environmental Strategy. Institute of Management Accountants, Foundation for Applied Research. Irwin, Chicago, IL. 1996. Fava, James, and Smith, Joyce. Integrating Financial and Environmental Information for Better Decision Making. Journal of Industrial Ecology. Winter 1998. Fiksel, Joseph; McDaniel, Jeff; and Spitzley, David. Measuring Product Sustainability. The Journal of Sustainable Product Design. 1998. Fiksel, Joseph. Metrics, Decisions, and Strategies: Environmental Performance Measurement in the Electric Utility Industry. Total Quality Environmental Management. 1995. Fiksel, Joseph. Practical Issues in Environmental Performance Evaluation, in Tibor, T. and I. Feldman, Implementing ISO 14001. 1997. Hart, Stuart J. Beyond Greening: Strategies for a Sustainable World. Harvard Business Review. January/February 1997.
24
25
Objective
Conserve natural resources and control air pollution
Indicator
CO2 emissions
Leading/ Lagging
Lagging
Metric
Compensation for CO2 emissions via tree planting Tons emitted % reduction
Target
Compensate for all CO2 emissions through tree planting or other initiatives by the year 2010 By 2000, reduce proportion of export freight going by air to no more than 2.5% of total export freight By the year 2000, all UK shops will reduce energy use to 35,000 kWh per annum
Air freight
Leading
Lagging
% reduction kWh
Lagging
kWh Total use per 1,000 packs distributed from warehouse % increase in efficiency % increase Liters m 3 m per 1,000 unit packs distributed from warehouse m Monthly burden to sewer Ecological wastewater treatment systems will be established at UK and US sites by the year 2000 Investigate transfer of treated water to surface water instead of sewers in 1998.
3 3
Water
Effluent treated
Lagging
A1
Indicator
EMAS certification Recycling Disposal to landfill Disposal incinerated Spills Social audit process Ethical audit Supplier environmental rating Customer satisfaction Employee satisfaction Shareholder satisfaction Absences Accidents
Leading/ Lagging
Leading Lagging Lagging Lagging Lagging Leading Leading Leading Lagging Leading Leading Lagging Lagging Leading Leading
Metric
# sites certified Tons of waste recycled (by material) Tons Tons Numbers Scores Scores Scores Scores Scores Scores Rate per 1,000 employees Rates per 1,000 employees Scores $ (not in place as of 1998) Number of assessments % decrease in raw materials purchased % of cost
Target
By August 1998, all principal UK operating sites will be audited and verified to EMAS standards. By 2000, all solid waste arising from waste water treatment at Watersmead will be utilized on-site through ecological treatment processes
Waste
Audits Conserving natural resources and controlling pollution To become a sustainable business Implement best practices in environmental management Environmental expenditure
By 1998, the Body Shop will investigate the implementation of a full cost accounting system
LCA
Leading
Stock disposals
Lagging
Annual stock disposals will be no more than 2% of the cost of exwarehouse sales by end of 1997
A2
BP AMOCO
Aspect Objective Indicator
On-site emissions Reduce greenhouse gas emissions Air Achieve year-on-year reduction of air emissions per unit of throughput Reduce hydrocarbon emissions CO2 emissions Hydrocarbon emissions Greenhouse gas emissions Energy consumption Solar energy production Fuel production Clean fuel program Achieve year-on-year reduction of water consumption and discharges per unit of throughput Water consumption Discharges to water Environmental disasters Land Habitat loss Environmental conservation programs Lagging
Leading/ Lagging
Lagging
Target
Establish baselines of emissions Create short and long term targets for improvement
Lagging
Lagging Lagging Lagging Lagging Leading Lagging Lagging Lagging Lagging Leading
Energy Use
Increase solar turnover to 1 billion by 2007 Become an unleaded company in the next three years Take clean fuel program into more than 40 cities worldwide over the next two years
Water
Tons/year by process Number % reduction Number of programs Financial contributions for protecting habitat % reduction in habitat loss
A3
BP AMOCO (continued)
Aspect Objective Indicator
Hazardous waste Achieve year-on-year improvement by reducing sum of waste emissions per unit of throughput Recycling Releases to injection wells People management appraisals Social Responsibility Social investment Days away from work Employee satisfaction Peer reviews and self-assessments Audits Environmental Management Performance Risk assessment and management programs Environmental operating costs Public opinion surveys Fines Oil spills
Leading/ Lagging
Lagging Lagging
Metric
Target
Waste
Lagging
Leading
Scores Feedback # of projects Days per 200,000 hours % improvement Scores Feedback Scores # performed Scores Scores Become ISO 140001 certified at major sites and publish verified site improvement reports
Create trust and mutual advantage in all relationships Reduce fatal accidents in operations
A4
Indicator
Total air emissions CO2 emissions
Leading/ Lagging
Lagging Lagging
Air
Lagging
Metric Lbs/yd2 of product % reduction Lbs/yd2 of product % reduction Comparison to industry average % reduction Mg/m2*hr Comparison to industry average
mBTU/yd of product % reduction
2
Target
Realize a 90% overall reduction in total air emissions during the years 1993 to 1999 Achieve a 37% overall reduction in CO2 emissions during the years 1993 to 1999
Lagging
Achieve a 37% overall decrease in normalized energy use during the years 1993 to 1999
Realize a 45% overall reduction in normalized water use during the years 1993 to 1999
Percentage Lbs/yd of product % reduction Comparison to industry average Scores Comparison to top-ranked companies Comparison to industry average Percentage Revenues from green products
2
Achieve a 82% overall reduction in normalized waste generation during the years 1993 to 1999
Social Responsibility
Financial
A5
MONSANTO
Aspect Air Objective Improve air quality Indicator On-site emissions CO2 emissions Energy consumption Fuel consumption Water consumption Soil conservation Hazardous waste Recycling Waste Create value /reduce waste Increasing efficiency throughout the lifecycle of products Releases to injection wells LCA Social responsibility assessment Medicinal drug access programs Lagging Leading/ Lagging Lagging Lagging Lagging Lagging Lagging Lagging Lagging Lagging Metric Target
Thousand pounds Billion pounds Million giga-joules % reduction Liters saved per hour Billion tons lost % reduction Waste to product Tons Thousand pounds Reduction in waste Reduction in disposal costs Reduction in footprint # of activities feasibility of activities # served Complete streamlined LCA evaluations for at least three major product uses in 1998
Energy
Reduce energy use Improve water quality Reduce water use Improve soil quality Make land as productive as possible; feeding people, protecting habitat
Water Land
Leading
Social responsibility
Enable better health, better nutrition, improved quality of life Support enhanced personal productivity
Leading
Lagging
A6
MONSANTO (continued)
Aspect
Environmental Management Performance
Objective
Indicator
Audits Sustainable development teams Information sharing networks
Leading/ Lagging
Leading Leading Leading
Metric Scores
Percent participation Success stories Number Amount ($) Total costs ($) number Number of sites % increase in crop yields
Target
Fines Environmental expenditures Chemical spills Responsibility for superfund sites Technology programs
A7
VOLVO
Aspect Objectives
Minimize the quantity of air emissions Reduce total atmospheric emissions attributable to transport operations Lower contribution to greenhouse effect of CO2 emissions from buses Minimize the energy consumed by our products Become a world leader in the development of low-emission gas turbines (smaller than 10 MW) Lower water consumption
Indicators
Total solvent emissions SO2 equivalents NOX emissions Greenhouse gas emissions CFC11 equivalents CO2 emissions during use phase Energy consumption
Leading/ Lagging
Lagging Lagging Lagging
Targets
In 1998, achieved target of a 25% solvent emissions reduction Over the next five years, atmospheric emissions attributable to the Groups transport operations will decrease by 5% per ton-kilometer In 1998, achieved 5% reduction of NOx emissions
Air
Compared with 1995, the contribution to the greenhouse effect of CO2 emissions from buses sold in 1999 shall be 11% lower in the case of city buses, and 4% lower in the case of intercity buses and tourist coaches In 1998, achieved target of a 10% reduction in energy consumption
Lagging
Energy
Fuel consumption
Lagging
% reduction
Fuel consumption of new cars sold in the EU in 2008 shall be 25% lower than in 1995 The average fuel consumption of engines complying with Euro2 standard shall be 5% lower in 1999 than in 1995. Water consumption shall be reduced by 30% over a five-year period. In 1998, achieved target of a 10% water consumption reduction
Water
Water consumption
Lagging
A8
VOLVO (continued)
Aspect Objectives
Improve control of chemicals Minimize consumption of raw materials and production of waste and residual products Facilitate safe waste management Waste Address complete product life cycle, including energy and raw material consumption, and waste and byproducts generation Develop intelligent transport solutions with low environmental impact Social Responsibility
Indicators
Noise Hazardous waste Recycling
Leading/ Lagging
Lagging Lagging Lagging Leading
Metrics
dB(A) Tons Kg # of items recycled recycling research
Targets
Reduce the noise level of Volvo wheel loaders by 4-5 dB(A) from present levels by the year 2002
Create dismantling instructions that simplify the recycling of the Volvo 5000 and 7000 bus models in 1999 Reduce waste to landfill by 10%
LCA
Leading
# programs
In 1998, achieved target of integrating LCA in ten major product development projects
Employee Surveys
Leading
A9
VOLVO (continued)
Aspect Objectives
Taking a leading position regarding environmental standards, wherever we operate Ensuring a similar degree of environmental concern is exercised by our working partners
Indicators
Audits European environmental certifications
Leading/ Lagging
Leading
Metrics
Scores Number of audits Number of products and plants with certifications
Targets
Complete environmental audits in all majority-owned production plants By 2001, marine and industrial equipment will be in accordance with EU standards Parts of truck product range shall comply with Euro3 Establish and implement global communication program in 1999 Enhance the skills of its personnel within its corporate structure in Sweden no later than 1999 Develop new services for electronic information processing and a globally integrated infrastructure in 1999 Establish environmental management systems in 40 of the Groups units Ensure that 75% of all Volvo employees are satisfied with the companys environmental management program.
Leading
Leading
Leading
# of plants and units that have implemented programs Environmentrelated investment as % of total investment Environmentrelated R&D costs as % of total R&D costs
Track variation of environmentrelated investment and product development costs Env. Related investment Lagging
A10