ahold, carrefour, cencosud, china resources enterprise, colruyt

Ahold, Carrefour, Cencosud, China R e s o u r c e s E n t e r p r i s e , C o l r u y t ,Delhaize Group, Empire, George W e s t o n , G r u p o P ã o d e A ç ú c a r ,Herbalife, J Sainsbury, Jeronimo Martins, Kesko, Kroger, Lawson, Metcash , Metro AG, Metro Inc , Safeway, Seven & I Holdings, ShopriteHoldings, Stater's Bros Inc., Supervalu, Sysco, Tesco, Wesfarmers, Whole F o o d s M a r k e t , W m M o r r i s o nSupermarkets, Woolworths, and X5R e t a i l G r o u p

2012 Sustainability Reporting of the World’s Largest Food Retail Companies

Pacific Sustainability Index Scores:

A benchmarking tool for online sustainability repor ng

Contents Topics Page Company Rankings 3 Director’s Commentary 4 Lead Analyst’s Commentary 5 PSI Overview 8 PSI Scoring in a Nutshell 9 Sector Performance 10 Visual Cluster Analysis 11 Environmental Topics 12 Social and Human Rights Topics 13 Environmental Intent Scores Ranking 14 Environmental Reporting Scores Ranking 15 Environmental Performance Scores Ranking

16

Social Intent Scores Ranking 17 Social Reporting Scores Ranking 18 Social Performance Scores Ranking 19 Human Rights Reporting Element 20 Performance by Country 21 Relationship Between PSI Scores and Financial Variables

22

Explicit numerical goals Reported 25 Topics Showing Performance Improvement over Previous Year Data

28

Topics in which Performance was Better than Sector Average

34

Commentaries alphabetically listed by company name

36

Appendix: PSI Questionnaire 134 Questions should be addressed to: Dr. J. Emil Morhardt, Director ([email protected], 909-621-8190) Elgeritte Adidjaja, Research Fellow ([email protected], 909-621-8698) Roberts Environmental Center Claremont McKenna College 925 N. Mills Ave. Claremont, CA 91711-5916 USA

The Roberts Environmental Center has been the foremost analyst of corporate sustainability reporting for over a decade. We analyze corporate online disclosure using our Pacific Sustainability Index (PSI) and publish the results online. 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 students at the Roberts Environmental Center:

Lead Analyst Hilary Haskell

Sustainability Management Analyst

Simone Fine

Environmental Analyst Damini Marwaha

Social and Human Rights Analyst

Erin Rebecca Larsen

Special Project Manager Lucas Van Houten

Media/Public Relation

Quinn Chasan Sierra Gibson Jacob Shimkus

Copyright 2013 © by J. Emil Morhardt. All rights reserved.

www.roberts.cmc.edu 2 Sustainability Reporting of the World's Largest Food Retail Companies

2.954.52

7.09

8.2710.85

15.94

19.87

23.63

25.14

27.27

30.63

33.57

33.58

38.32

38.73

40.85

42.44

46.85

47.72

50.45

50.57

52.22

52.28

54.59

55.67

55.90

56.42

58.76

63.38

0 20 40 60 80 100

Stater Bros. holdings

Cencosud

George Weston

X5 Retail Group

Lawson

Herbalife

China Resources Enterprise

Metcash

Shoprite Holdings

Colruyt

Sysco

Supervalu

Empire

Whole Foods Market

Metro Inc

J Sainsbury

Jeronimo Martins

Kroger

Safeway

Metro AG

Wm Morrison Supermarkets

Ahold

Seven & I Holdings

Kesko

Carrefour

Tesco Plc

Wesfarmers

Delhaize Group

Grupo Pão de Açúcar

Woolworths

Company Rankings

Grade Company Name Country

A+ Woolworths AustraliaA+ Grupo Pão de Açúcar BrazilA+ Delhaize Group BelgiumA Wesfarmers AustraliaA Tesco Plc United KingdomA Carrefour FranceA Kesko FinlandA- Seven & I Holdings JapanA- Ahold NetherlandsA- Wm Morrison Supermarkets United KingdomA- Metro AG GermanyB+ Safeway United StatesB+ Kroger United StatesB Jeronimo Martins PortugalB J Sainsbury United KingdomB Metro Inc CanadaB Whole Foods Market United StatesB- Empire CanadaB- Supervalu United StatesC+ Sysco United StatesC Colruyt BelgiumC Shoprite Holdings South AfricaC Metcash AustraliaC- China Resources Enterprise Hong Kong-ChinaD+ Herbalife Cayman IslandsD Lawson JapanD X5 Retail Group RussiaD- George Weston CanadaD- Cencosud ChileD- Stater Bros. holdings United States

64.21


Director’s Commentary

T his report, and two other new ones, one for the food processing sector and another for the beverages sector, not only have a new look and additional substance, they have been produced with a new technology developed in the Roberts Center over the last year. This real-time report production software results in the automatic partial production of reports as the data are entered by the student analysts, and has been quite effective in catching errors as they occur. It has also encouraged more topic-specific written analysis to go along with the numbers we have historically reported. Even more important, both the analysts and student managers can

see what they have accomplished and how far they have to go in real time, and can often see the finished product before they leave for the summer. Previously we used the summer to assemble reports and clean up any deficiencies, so this new system works out better for everybody associated with the analysis. On another note, as we also see in the new beverages sector report, in this food retail sector report there is a striking (log) linear relationship between the overall PSI score and revenues. The largest companies are almost all doing a stellar job of reporting. This is good news; over the decade that we have been doing this, sustainability awareness and practices have become firmly entrenched at the top and are beginning to move down the supply chain. Clearly, though, there is still plenty of room for improvement at the bottom.

J. Emil Morhardt, Ph.D. Roberts Professor of Environmental Biology

Director, Roberts Environmental Center


Lead Analyst’s Commentary Hilary Haskell ‘14

The top three

companies of the Food Retail Industry earned overall Pacific Sustainability Index (PSI) score of “A +.”

These companies included Grupo Pão de Açúcar, Woolsworths, and Delhaize Group. The three companies that earned the lowest PSI score of “D-,” included George Weston, Cencosud, and Stater Bros. Holdings. Green Food Purchasing, Locally Grown Organic Food, Sustainable Seafood, and Animal Welfare were the most reported sector-specific environmental topics. For the social aspect of the PSI score, Customer Wellness and Nutrition was reported far more frequently than any other scoring parameter, given its pertinence to the sector. Further initiatives to unite reporting efforts across social and environmental topics could be an important area for improvement in the Food Retail industry.

Sustainable procurement from supply chains that demonstrate commitment to both social and environmental responsibility is an essential aspect of the Food Retail Industry. One way in which companies can achieve more responsible supply chain procurement is through locally grown, organic food options that are becoming an increasingly popular market for consumers. According to the Economic Research Service from the USDA, “Organic foods now occupy prominent shelf space...most mainstream U.S. food retailers... [which] have pushed retail sales of organic foods up to $21.1 billion in 2008 from $3.6 billion in 1997.”1 However, caveats exist in the procurement and retail sale of these organic, locally grown options. Considerable confusion often arises in the organic certification and labeling process, an issue that the USDA has worked to address in recent years. The Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) of 1990

1 United States. United States Deparment of Agriculture. Economic Research Service.Marketing U.S. Organic Foods Recent Trends From Farms to Consumers. By Dimitri Carolyn and Lydia Oberholtzer. United States Department of Agriculture, Sept. 2009. Web. 16 Mar. 2013.

“requires the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to develop national standards for organically produced agricultural products to assure consumers that agricultural products marketed as organic meet consistent, uniform standards.” The Act also requires USDA to establish an organic certification program based on recommendations of a 15-member National Organic Standards Board.”2 In order to address issues regarding organics certification, the USDA has determined that organic products must be produced without methods such as genetic engineering, ionizing radiation, or sewage sludge; only use “allowed” substances from the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances; and be overseen by a USDA National Organic Program-authorized certifying agent that follows all USDA organic regulations.ibid. Organic certification and labeling are not mutually exclusive. Without USDA certification, there must not be any organic claims present on the main labeling display of a product. Only the “certified organic ingredients...and percentage of organic ingredients” may be displayed on the product, without USDA organic certification. There are additional parameters by which “organic” can be defined for food products. 100% Organic, Organic, “Made With” Organic, and “Specific Organic Ingredients” are the varying degrees in which a product may be organically certified, ranging in degree from the most stringent to lax regulations by the USDA.3 Interestingly, according to the USDA’s economic research report, the main factor in determining organic food consumption is “education” ibid. The report indicates that “Consumers of all ages, races, and ethnic groups who have higher levels of education are more likely to buy organic products than less-educated consumers. Other factors, such as race, presence of children in the household, and income, do not have a consistent effect on the likelihood of buying organic products”ibid. This finding emphasizes the importance of accurate and consistent certification and labeling processes as propagated by the USDA, in ensuring that consumers are well-aware of the purchasing decisions they make. The prominence of organic foods in conventional grocery markets has also expanded considerably, growing from 7% to 46% over the course of the years 1991–2006, and organic food was found to be available in 82% of food retail stores in 2007. Prior to the recent boom in conventional market retail of organic foods, Whole Food’s Market “365 Organic” was one of the only organic private labels in the mid-1990s.ibid.

Another way in which companies can demonstrate responsible purchasing practices is 2 "Organic Farming." EPA. Environmental Protection Agency, n.d. Web. 18 Mar. 2013. 3 "Labeling Organic Products." Agricultural Marketing Service. United States Department of Agriculture, Oct. 2012. Web. 17 Mar. 2013.


through sustainable seafood procurement, which is most commonly identified through the Marine Stewardship Council’s “Ecolabel” program. This label indicates that the seafood product was procured from a certified sustainable fishery. The MSC promulgates two standards in its certification, sustainable fishing and seafood traceability.4 The sustainable fishing standard promotes three overall criteria: sustainable fish stocks by maintaining an operating level sustainable for the fishing population that does not overexploit the resource; minimized environmental impacts on structure, productivity, function, and diversity of the ecosystem the fishery depends; and effective fishery management that complies with all local, national, and international laws.ibid. For seafood traceability, the MSC implemented the Chain of Custody certification, which requires that businesses obtain external auditing in order to demonstrate seafood source traceability, storage, and record-keeping systems. Like organic product labeling, sustainable seafood practices are dependent upon certification, labeling, and consumer education. Greenpeace USA ranked Safeway as the #1 Supermarket Seafood Sustainability retailer for the second consecutive year in 2012. Safeway’s exemplary practices include setting a goal that all seafood be “responsibly sourced” by the end of 2015, by partnering with “FishWise” of Santa Cruz, California, to work with seafood supply chains to establish sustainable seafood practices. Furthermore, Safeway maintains a “Sustainable Seafood Taskforce,” support groups such as the “Conservation Alliance for Seafood Solutions and the World Wildlife Fund’s Aquaculture Dialogues,” and adheres to the Marine Life Protection Act in California.5 Similar to the Marine Stewardship Council’s sustainable seafood procurement guidelines are the Global Animal Partnership’s “5 Step Animal Welfare Standards” specific to a variety of livestock. Adherence to these standards demonstrates compliance with third party audits over the course of a fifteen month certification process. Currently, Whole Foods Market sells products that meet the “5 Step Animal Welfare Standards.”6 In 2006, the International Finance Corporation took note of the growing importance of animal welfare in food procurement and retail. In its “Good Practice Note: Animal Welfare in Livestock Operations” the IFC propagates the UK’s Farm Animal Welfare Council’s “Five Freedoms of Animal Welfare,” which outline freedom from hunger and thirst; discomfort; pain, injury or disease; fear and distress; and the expression of normal behavior as guidelines 4 "MSC Standards." — MSC. Marine Stewardship Council, n.d. Web. 20 Mar. 2013. 5 "Seafood Sustainability | Safeway CSR." Safeway CSR. Safeway, n.d. Web. 20 Mar. 2013. 6 "Our Process." Global Animal Partnership. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Mar. 2013.

necessary to maintaining animal welfare. Furthermore, the IFC discusses the importance of the Animal Welfare Audit Program, which has been jointly developed by producers, the National Council of Chain, Restaurants, and the Food Marketing Institute. This voluntary audit analyzes a facility’s animal welfare management practices relative to industry best practices.7 The most recent standards developed by The World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) were developed at the Third OIE Global Conference on Animal Welfare in 2012, which focused on the implementation of the Terrestrial Animal Health Code that provides guidelines for animal welfare practices.8 An emerging trend in the Food Retail Industry, which also presents a labeling and certification issue, are fair trade procurement practices for a variety of products. According to Fair Trade USA, fair trade is based on a basic outline of principles that benefit 1.2 million farming families in 70 developing countries throughout the world. The Fair Trade network certifies coffee, tea and herbs, cocoa, fresh fruit and vegetables, sugar, beans and grains, flowers, nuts, oils and butters, honey and spices, wine and apparel, and certified ingredients are now used in ready-to-drink beverages, body care products and liquor. Fair trade certification is based upon principles that include fair prices and credit through democratically organized farming groups with a minimum price provided to sellers; fair labor conditions with freedom of association; safe working conditions; fair wages; prevention of child and slave labor; community development such as schools and business for farmers; environmental sustainability through removal of pesticides and chemical additives or GMOs; direct trade with unnecessary intermediaries between producers and retailers; and democratic and transparent organization.9 However, similar to organic certification, the fair trade certification process is not without implementation and monitoring issues. An underreported environmental quantitative topic in the PSI score is Hazardous Materials Released to Environment. This reporting parameter is unique to the Food Retail Sector in that refrigeration systems within food retail establishments emit hazardous air pollutants. The U.S. EPA initiated the “Green Chill” program with food retailers “to reduce refrigerant emissions and decrease their impact on the ozone layer and climate change.” The program works in conjunction with food retailers to “lower refrigerant 7 Ryan, Oliver. Animal Welfare in Livestock Operations. Rep. no. 6. International Finance Corporation, World Bank Group, Oct. 2006. Web. 19 Mar. 2013. 8 "Introduction." Third OIE Global Conference on Animal Welfare. World Organization for Animal Health, Nov. 2012. Web. 20 Mar. 2013. 9 "Frequently Asked Questions." Fair Trade USA. Fair Trade USA, 2010. Web. 01 Apr. 2013.


charge sizes and eliminate leaks” and “adopt green refrigeration technologies through the “Food Retailer Corporate Emissions Reduction Program,” the “Store Certification Program for Advanced Refrigeration,” and the “Advanced refrigeration Promotion Program.”10 The regulatory context for this program is the gradual phase out of the ozone depleting substances (ODS) as part of the Montreal Protocol, an international treaty to protect the ozone in the stratosphere and the EPA’s regulations through the Clean Air Act. Most retail food stores use an ozone depleting refrigerant (HCFC-22) in their stores, and this program will help to address the issue. Furthermore, leaks in refrigeration equipment are controlled under Section 608 of the Clean Air Act. With the Green Chill program, the EPA is assisting food retailers in finding alternatives to ODS through the Significant New Alternatives Program (SNAP). Of the companies scored, across the United States, a number of Stater Bros. and Whole Foods markets have achieved bronze through platinum Green Chill Certification.11

The most reported social topic of the PSI score is by far Customer Wellness and Nutrition, reported by 80% of the companies analyzed. For the Food Retail Industry, this is an important scoring parameter, due to the relative influence that the sector is able to exert on consumers’ lifestyle choices. The Consumer Health and Nutrition Survey of 2007, compiled by the Institute for the Future recognized this issue, and sought to “...to provide retailers with greater insight into how customers are thinking about and acting on health and its connection with food and sustainability.”12 One of the most important conclusions from this study is that improving the “nutritional IQ of consumers” is necessary in encouraging consumers to buy more healthy foods.”ibid. With the looming obesity crisis in the United States, this is essential for preventing health epidemics such as cardiovascular disease and diabetes. Furthermore, the study also found that “nutritional IQ is also lower among those with low incomes or lower formal education levels.” Therefore, food retailers are in the position to provide nutritional education to these socio economic statuses, and improve health and reduce obesity across the nation.

10 "About Green Chill." Greenchill. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 11 Feb. 2013. Web. 25 Mar. 2013. 11 "Green Chill Certification Awards." Green Chill. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 22 Mar. 2013. Web. 22 Mar. 2013. 12 Bishop, Bill, Rod Falcon, Crystal Keeler, Neela Nuristani, and Mani Pande. "The Future of Health & Welnnes in Food Retailing." Institute for the Future. Health Horizons Program, Apr. 2008. Web. 23 Mar. 2013.

The Food Retail Sector can improve socially through greater cohesion between zero waste initiatives and food waste donations to food banks and food rescue programs. Doing so would benefit both the social and environmental reporting scores for companies analyzed. SuperValu, Whole Foods, Albertsons, have already implemented notable zero waste programs. SuperValu recently reported that it will be adding forty new zero waste stores in the next few years. Part of the initiatives involved in zero waste food retailers involves food donation programs, such as the nearly 60 million pounds of food donated through SuperValu Fresh Rescue programs across the nation in 2010.13 The Food Retail Industry is in a unique position to address many sustainability challenges, with far-reaching consequences. Sustainable procurement practices, whether they are organic food products, local produce, fair trade, sustainable seafood, or humanely raised livestock, are part of interwoven efforts that can be mutually beneficial to corporations and society. Food waste and community contributions to food banks, organic unprocessed food and consumer health and wellness, are examples of these interdependent efforts. Although the Sector as a whole performed considerably well, there is room for improvement, especially in collaborative efforts across social and environmental topics. -------------------------------------------------------------------

13 "SuperValu to Add 40 New Zero Waste Stores." MNN - Mother Nature Network. Mother Nature Network, 29 July 2011. Web. 02 Apr. 2013.


The Pacific Sustainability Index (PSI) Overview

The PSI Scoring System

The Paci�ic Sustainability Index (PSI) uses a systematic questionnaire to analyze the quality of the overall industry corporate sustainability reporting (CSR), as well as the individual companies' CSRs. Sample companies are the largest corporations listed by the current Forbes list. This report provides a summary �indings of CSR analyses conducted by a team of undergraduate students of the Claremont Colleges--mostly of Claremont McKenna College of which Roberts Environmental Center was founded--for a semester-long research--typically a four month period. The assigned team pre-selected the topics for current analysis from the preliminary review of the downloaded reports, based on the topic's prevalence to the sector and relevance to the current issues faced by the industry.

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 con�ines 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 and Co. and CMC alumnus), other grants and gifts, and is staffed by faculty and students from the Claremont Colleges.

MethodologyThe team downloads revelant English languages web pages from the main corporate website for the �irst month of analysis and convert them into a PDF format, then a survey of topics for inclusion in the questionnaire is underway. Data exclusively and independently available outside the main corporate website are omitted to keep transparancy score only to include innate information provided by the company. Although we aim to be objective in our analysis, our analysts are encouraged to expressed their subjective view of what they see in the report, allowing creativity to permeate in the individual analyzes of companies and the industry-wide reporting of topics.

Scores and RanksWe offer the opportunity for all companies/institutions analyzed in this report to give answers to the PSI questionnaire we are using, as long as the source of information provided are publicly available online. Our analysts would go through the website analyzing the same questionnaire, irrespective of the response, and merge the results. After scoring is �inalized, we issue a draft report and make it available for companies’ review. We encourage all companies to provide feedback and should it put out additional new online materials within the publication timeline, we will incorporate the new information into our analysis. We will use the contact information speci�ied online or provided in the report for these purposes, however, if the contact information is not provided, we will write a letter to the Public Relation Staff of the company requesting a review our report prior to publication. When response is not received in the time, usually within four weeks, we will publish the results without company’s review.

What do the Score Means?

We normalize all the scores to the potential maximum score. Scores of subsets of the overall score are also normalized to their potential maxima. The letter grades (A+, A, A-, B+, etc.), however, are normalized to the highest scoring company analyzed in the report. Grades of individual companies in the report might be different from grades posted online on the Roberts Environmental Center's website, since the normalization of scores of an individual company online is not limited to the companies analyzed in the sector report, but also includes other companies of the same sector irrespective of the year of analysis.

Companies with scores in the highest 4% get an A+ and any in the bottom 4% get an F. We assign these by dividing the maximum PSI score obtained in the sector into 12 equal parts then rounding fractional score up or down. This means that A+ and F are under-represented compared to the other grades. The same technique applies to the separate categories of environmental and social scores. Thus, we grade on the curve. We assume that the highest score obtained in the sector and any scores near it represent the state-of-the-art for that sector and deserve an A+.


Environmental, Qualitative

1%

Social, Quantitative

9%

Social, Qualitative

10%

Social, Human Rights

17%

Social, Intent20%

Environmental, Intent24%

Environmental, Quantitative

19%

Distribution of Scores by Topics

PSI Scoring in a Nutshell

Types of Information

Our analysis of sustainability reporting 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.

3. PerformanceFor each “Reporting” topic, two performance points are available.

For quantitative topics, one point is given for improvement from the previous reporting period, and one point for better performance than the sector average (based on the data used for this sector report normalized by revenue).

For qualitative topics, we give one point for any indication of improvement from previous reporting periods, and one point for perspective.

The “human rights” topics are scored differently, with �ive “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.

2. ReportingThe “Reporting” topics are each worth �ive points and are either quantitative (for which we expect numerical data) or qualitative (for which we don’t).

For quantitative topics, one point is available for a discussion, one point for putting the information into perspective (i.e. awards, industry standards, competitor performance, etc., or if the raw data are normalized by dividing by revenue, number of employees, number of widgets produced, etc.), one point for the presence of an explicit numerical goal, one point for numerical data from a single year, and one point for similar data from a previous year.

For qualitative topics, there are three criteria summed up to �ive points: 1.67 points for discussion, 1.67 points for initiatives or actions, and 1.67 points for perspective.

1. Intent

The “Intent” topics are each worth two points; one point for a discussion of intentions, vision, or plans, and one point for evidence of speci�ic actions taken to implement them.


Sector Performance

Each vertical-line—sorted by the companies with the highest to lowest overall PSI scores—illustrates the range of the total environmental and social score of each company, divided right in the center with a tick-mark, which is also the PSI overall score. The longer the line, shows the larger discrepancies between the amount of the environmental or social topics reported.

Discriptive Statistics of the Overall Environmental, Social, and PSI Scores

-55

1525

3545

5565

7585

Woo

lwor

ths

Gru

po P

ão d

eD

elha

ize

Gro

upW

esfa

rmer

sT

esco

Plc

Car

refo

urK

esko

Seve

n &

I H

oldi

ngs

Aho

ldW

m M

orri

son

Met

ro A

GSa

few

ayK

roge

rJe

roni

mo

Mar

tins

J Sai

nsbu

ryM

etro

Inc

Who

le F

oods

Mar

ket

Empi

reSu

perv

alu

Sysc

oC

olru

ytSh

opri

te H

oldi

ngs

Met

cash

Chi

na R

esou

rces

Her

balif

eLa

wso

nX

5 R

etai

l Gro

upG

eorg

e W

esto

nC

enco

sud

Stat

er B

ros.

hol

ding

s

E n v iro n m e n ta l S o c ia l O v e ra l l

Environmental Score Social Score Overall Score

64.21

2.95

18.78

37.09

62.06

0.00

19.22

35.04

5.90

72.43

20.12

39.14

Minimum Score

Standard Deviation

Average Score (mean)

Maximum Score


Visual cluster analysis multivariate data of the sort produced by the PSI are dif�icult to summarize. Here we have created radar diagrams of the performance of each company analyzed in the sector by its environmental and social intent, reporting, and performance sorted by company ranking. Maximum scores will match the outer sides of the hexagon, which total up to 100 percent. A proportional spider-web shape suggests a balance of reporting in all areas.

Visual Cluster Analysis

EI = Environmental Intent, ER = Environmental Reporting, EP = Environmental PerformanceSI = Social Intent, SR = Social Reporting, SP = Social Performance

Woolworths

- 5 E

+2 6

1

E R

E P

SP

SR

SI

E I


- 5 E

+2 6

1

E R

E P

SP

SR

SI

E I

Delhaize Group

- 5 E

+2 6

1

E R

E P

SP

SR

SI

E I

Wesfarmers

- 5 E

+2 6

1

E R

E P

SP

SR

SI

E I

Tesco Plc

- 5 E

+2 6

1

E R

E P

SP

SR

SI

E I

Carrefour

- 5 E

+2 6

1

E R

E P

SP

SR

SI

E I

Kesko

- 5 E

+2 6

1

E R

E P

SP

SR

SI

E I

Seven & I Holdings

- 5 E

+2 6

1

E R

E P

SP

SR

SI

E I

Ahold

- 5 E

+2 6

1

E R

E P

SP

SR

SI

E I


- 5 E

+2 6

1

E R

E P

SP

SR

SI

E I

Metro AG

- 5 E

+2 6

1

E R

E P

SP

SR

SI

E I

Safeway

- 5 E

+2 6

1

E R

E P

SP

SR

SI

E I

Kroger

- 5 E

+2 6

1

E R

E P

SP

SR

SI

E I

Jeronimo Martins

- 5 E

+2 6

1

E R

E P

SP

SR

SI

E I

J Sainsbury

- 5 E

+2 6

1

E R

E P

SP

SR

SI

E I

Metro Inc

- 5 E

+2 6

1

E R

E P

SP

SR

SI

E I

Whole Foods Market

- 5 E

+2 6

1

E R

E P

SP

SR

SI

E I

Empire

- 5 E

+2 6

1

E R

E P

SP

SR

SI

E I

Supervalu

- 5 E

+2 6

1

E R

E P

SP

SR

SI

E I

Sysco

- 5 E

+2 6

1

E R

E P

SP

SR

SI

E I

Colruyt

- 5 E

+2 6

1

E R

E P

SP

SR

SI

E I

Shoprite Holdings

- 5 E

+2 6

1

E R

E P

SP

SR

SI

E I

Metcash

- 5 E

+2 6

1

E R

E P

SP

SR

SI

E I


- 5 E

+2 6

1

E R

E P

SP

SR

SI

E I

Herbalife

- 5 E

+2 6

1

E R

E P

SP

SR

SI

E I

Lawson

- 5 E

+2 6

1

E R

E P

SP

SR

SI

E I

X5 Retail Group

- 5 E

+2 6

1

E R

E P

SP

SR

SI

E I

George Weston

- 5 E

+2 6

1

E R

E P

SP

SR

SI

E I

Cencosud

- 5 E

+2 6

1

E R

E P

SP

SR

SI

E I


- 5 E

+2 6

1

E R

E P

SP

SR

SI

E I


0.37

0.42

0.40

0.10

0.02

0.27

0.67

0.39

0.42

0.31

0.05

0.77

0.29

0.40

0.31

0.83

0.03

0.53

0.42

0.21

0.31

0.70

0.27

0.24

0.32

0.11

0.44

0.39

0.31

0.63

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Water used

Waste recycled: solid waste

Waste (solid) disposed of

Waste (office) recycled

Waste (hazardous) released to the environment

Waste (hazardous) produced

Sustainable Seafood

Stakeholder consultation

Report contact person

Renewable energy used

(environmental )Notices of violation

Locally grown organic food

Habitat/ecosystem conservation

Greenhouse gases (or CO2 equivalents), total

Green purchasing

Green food purchasing

(environmental )Fines

Environmental visionary statement

Environmental policy statement

Environmental management system

Environmental management structure

Environmental labelling

Environmental impediments and challenges

Environmental expenses and investments

Environmental education

Environmental accounting

(total )Energy used

Climate change/global warming

Biodiversity

Animal Welfare

Percentage of Companies Addressing Environmental Topics


0.230.13

0.110.27

0.240.39

0.450.39

0.260.32

0.350.27

0.150.32

0.420.18

0.240.000.02

0.270.180.18

0.320.16

0.400.21

0.130.37

0.180.210.23

0.800.44

0.470.44

0.270.35

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Workforce profile: genderWorkforce profile: ethnicities/race

Workforce profile: ageWomen in management

Third-party validation

/Supplier screening based on social or environmental performancesupplier management

Social visionary statement

Social policy statementSocial impediments and challenges

Social community investmentSexual harassment

Recordable incident/accident rate

Reasonable working hoursPolitical contributions

Occupational health and safety protectionLost workday case rate

Health and safety, or social organizational structureHealth and safety fines

Health and safety citationsFree association and collective bargaining of employees

Fair compensation of employees

Employment for individuals w ith disabilitiesEmployee volunteerismEmployee turnover rate

Employee training for career development

Employee satisfaction surveysEmergency preparedness program

Elimination of discrimination in respect to employment and occupationElimination of all forms of forced and compulsory labor

Effective abolition of child labor

Degrading treatment or punishment of employeesCustomer wellness and nutrition

Community educationCommunity development

Code of conduct or business ethics

BriberyAnti-corruption practices

Percentage of Companies Addressing Social and Human Rights Topics


0.002.94

8.82

11.76

11.76

14.71

32.35

41.18

41.18

52.94

58.82

62.50

67.65

73.53

76.47

76.47

76.47

76.47

76.47

88.24

88.24

88.24

88.24

88.24

88.24

91.18

91.18

91.18

94.12

0 20 40 60 80 100


Cencosud

George Weston

Herbalife

X5 Retail Group

Lawson

Shoprite Holdings

China Resources

Sysco

Supervalu

Colruyt

Metcash

Seven & I Holdings

Wesfarmers

Safeway

Ahold

Jeronimo Martins

Metro Inc

Empire

Carrefour

Woolworths

J Sainsbury

Kroger

Delhaize Group

Whole Foods Market

Wm Morrison

Tesco Plc

Kesko


Metro AG

Environmental Intent Rankings


A+ Metro AG GermanyA+ Grupo Pão de Açúcar BrazilA Kesko FinlandA Wm Morrison Supermarkets United KingdomA Tesco Plc United KingdomA Delhaize Group BelgiumA Woolworths AustraliaA Carrefour FranceA Kroger United StatesA J Sainsbury United KingdomA Whole Foods Market United StatesB+ Ahold NetherlandsB+ Safeway United StatesB+ Metro Inc CanadaB+ Jeronimo Martins PortugalB+ Empire CanadaB+ Wesfarmers AustraliaB Seven & I Holdings JapanB Metcash AustraliaB- Colruyt BelgiumB- Supervalu United StatesC Sysco United StatesC China Resources Enterprise Hong Kong-ChinaC- Shoprite Holdings South AfricaD Lawson JapanD- Herbalife Cayman IslandsD- X5 Retail Group RussiaD- George Weston CanadaF Cencosud ChileF Stater Bros. holdings United States


0.000.00

1.54

1.54

3.08

12.82

14.87

15.90

15.90

18.46

26.66

29.74

30.77

32.30

32.82

33.33

33.84

35.38

35.90

35.90

36.92

38.97

40.00

50.77

50.77

52.30

52.82

52.82

56.92

0 20 40 60 80 100

George Weston


Cencosud

X5 Retail Group

Lawson

Shoprite Holdings

Metcash

Sysco


Herbalife

Colruyt

Supervalu

Whole Foods Market

Tesco Plc

Safeway

J Sainsbury

Metro Inc

Wm Morrison

Seven & I Holdings

Kroger

Empire

Jeronimo Martins

Kesko

Ahold

Carrefour

Metro AG

Delhaize Group

Woolworths

Wesfarmers


Environmental Reporting Rankings


A+ Grupo Pão de Açúcar BrazilA+ Wesfarmers AustraliaA Delhaize Group BelgiumA Woolworths AustraliaA Metro AG GermanyA Carrefour FranceA Ahold NetherlandsB Kesko FinlandB Jeronimo Martins PortugalB Empire CanadaB- Seven & I Holdings JapanB- Kroger United StatesB- Wm Morrison Supermarkets United KingdomB- Metro Inc CanadaB- J Sainsbury United KingdomB- Safeway United StatesB- Tesco Plc United KingdomC+ Whole Foods Market United StatesC+ Supervalu United StatesC+ Colruyt BelgiumC- Herbalife Cayman IslandsD+ China Resources Enterprise Hong Kong-ChinaD+ Sysco United StatesD+ Metcash AustraliaD+ Shoprite Holdings South AfricaD- Lawson JapanF X5 Retail Group RussiaF Cencosud ChileF Stater Bros. holdings United StatesF George Weston Canada

57.43


0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

3.85

3.85

7.69

7.69

7.69

7.69

11.54

15.38

15.38

15.38

19.23

19.23

19.23

23.08

23.08

23.08

26.92

26.92

26.9226.92

30.77

0 20 40 60 80 100

Metcash

Cencosud

Colruyt

George Weston

Lawson

X5 Retail Group

Shoprite Holdings


Sysco

Metro Inc

Herbalife

Seven & I Holdings


Metro AG

Wm Morrison

J Sainsbury

Supervalu

Safeway

Kesko

Wesfarmers

Jeronimo Martins

Whole Foods Market

Delhaize Group

Tesco Plc

Ahold

Kroger

Woolworths

Carrefour

EmpireGrupo Pão de Açúcar

Environmental Performance Rankings


A+ Grupo Pão de Açúcar BrazilA Empire CanadaB+ Woolworths AustraliaB+ Carrefour FranceB+ Ahold NetherlandsB+ Kroger United StatesB Delhaize Group BelgiumB Tesco Plc United KingdomB Whole Foods Market United StatesB- Kesko FinlandB- Wesfarmers AustraliaB- Jeronimo Martins PortugalC J Sainsbury United KingdomC Safeway United StatesC Supervalu United StatesC- Wm Morrison Supermarkets United KingdomD+ China Resources Enterprise Hong Kong-ChinaD+ Seven & I Holdings JapanD+ Metro AG GermanyD+ Herbalife Cayman IslandsD- Sysco United StatesD- Metro Inc CanadaF Stater Bros. holdings United StatesF Cencosud ChileF George Weston CanadaF Colruyt BelgiumF Metcash AustraliaF Shoprite Holdings South AfricaF Lawson JapanF X5 Retail Group Russia

34.61


7.69

11.54

15.38

15.3815.38

26.92

30.77

38.46

38.46

46.15

46.15

46.15

53.85

53.85

53.85

57.69

57.69

61.54

65.38

65.38

65.38

73.08

76.92

76.92

80.77

80.77

80.77

92.31

92.31

0 20 40 60 80 100


Cencosud

Lawson

George Weston

Herbalife

Metcash

X5 Retail Group


Empire

Supervalu

Whole Foods Market

Kroger

Jeronimo Martins

Shoprite Holdings

Colruyt

Metro Inc


Safeway

Delhaize Group

J Sainsbury

Sysco

Carrefour

Ahold

Metro AG


Wesfarmers

Seven & I Holdings

Tesco Plc

Woolworths

Kesko

Social Intent Rankings


A+ Kesko FinlandA+ Woolworths AustraliaA+ Tesco Plc United KingdomA Wesfarmers AustraliaA Seven & I Holdings JapanA Grupo Pão de Açúcar BrazilA- Metro AG GermanyA- Ahold NetherlandsA- Carrefour FranceB+ Delhaize Group BelgiumB+ Sysco United StatesB+ J Sainsbury United KingdomB Safeway United StatesB Wm Morrison Supermarkets United KingdomB Metro Inc CanadaB- Jeronimo Martins PortugalB- Shoprite Holdings South AfricaB- Colruyt BelgiumC+ Supervalu United StatesC+ Whole Foods Market United StatesC+ Kroger United StatesC China Resources Enterprise Hong Kong-ChinaC Empire CanadaC- X5 Retail Group RussiaC- Metcash AustraliaD George Weston CanadaD Herbalife Cayman IslandsD Lawson JapanD Cencosud ChileD- Stater Bros. holdings United States

96.15


5.55

7.92

11.11

13.88

14.17

14.72

18.05

22.91

23.61

25.69

28.19

29.16

30.97

36.66

38.47

39.71

47.91

49.44

49.71

53.05

54.71

61.66

64.71

65.27

66.38

69.57

71.66

72.21

77.07

0 20 40 60 80 100

X5 Retail Group

Stater Bros.

Cencosud

China Resources

George Weston

Empire

Colruyt

Metcash

Lawson

Herbalife

J Sainsbury

Whole Foods

Shoprite Holdings

Sysco

Supervalu

Metro Inc

Metro AG

Jeronimo Martins

Kesko

Ahold

Kroger

Carrefour

Safeway

Tesco Plc

Wesfarmers

Seven & I


Wm Morrison

Woolworths

Delhaize Group

Social Reporting Rankings


A+ Delhaize Group BelgiumA+ Woolworths AustraliaA+ Wm Morrison Supermarkets United KingdomA+ Grupo Pão de Açúcar BrazilA+ Seven & I Holdings JapanA Wesfarmers AustraliaA Tesco Plc United KingdomA Safeway United StatesA- Carrefour FranceB+ Kroger United StatesB+ Ahold NetherlandsB Kesko FinlandB Jeronimo Martins PortugalB Metro AG GermanyB- Metro Inc CanadaC+ Supervalu United StatesC+ Sysco United StatesC Shoprite Holdings South AfricaC Whole Foods Market United StatesC J Sainsbury United KingdomC- Herbalife Cayman IslandsC- Lawson JapanC- Metcash AustraliaD+ Colruyt BelgiumD Empire CanadaD George Weston CanadaD China Resources Enterprise Hong Kong-ChinaD Cencosud ChileD- Stater Bros. holdings United StatesD- X5 Retail Group Russia

77.21


0.00

0.00

2.08

2.08

4.174.17

6.25

8.33

12.50

14.58

14.58

16.67

16.67

18.75

20.83

20.83

20.83

20.83

29.17

29.17

31.25

31.25

33.33

35.42

35.42

41.67

41.6745.83

47.92

0 20 40 60 80 100

Cencosud

X5 Retail Group



Empire

George Weston

Colruyt

Lawson

Whole Foods Market

J Sainsbury

Metcash

Herbalife

Jeronimo Martins

Supervalu

Sysco

Shoprite Holdings

Metro Inc

Metro AG

Kroger

Ahold

Kesko

Tesco Plc

Carrefour

Safeway



Wesfarmers

Delhaize Group

Woolworths

Seven & I Holdings

Social Performance Rankings


A+ Seven & I Holdings JapanA Woolworths AustraliaA Delhaize Group BelgiumA- Wesfarmers AustraliaA- Grupo Pão de Açúcar BrazilB Wm Morrison Supermarkets United KingdomB Safeway United StatesB Carrefour FranceB- Tesco Plc United KingdomB- Kesko FinlandB- Kroger United StatesB- Ahold NetherlandsC Sysco United StatesC Metro AG GermanyC Metro Inc CanadaC Shoprite Holdings South AfricaC- Supervalu United StatesC- Jeronimo Martins PortugalC- Herbalife Cayman IslandsD+ J Sainsbury United KingdomD+ Metcash AustraliaD+ Whole Foods Market United StatesD Lawson JapanD- Colruyt BelgiumD- Empire CanadaD- George Weston CanadaF Stater Bros. holdings United StatesF China Resources Enterprise Hong Kong-ChinaF Cencosud ChileF X5 Retail Group Russia

52.08


ecnailpmoCgnirotinoMtnemecrofnieRnoitpodAscipoT sthgiR namuH

Human Rights Reporting Elements of the PSI Scores

Percent of Companies Reporting*

Anti-corruption practices 73.33% 63.33% 56.67% 13.33%

Bribery 56.67% 46.67% 33.33% 0.00%

Degrading treatment or punishment of employees 46.67% 40.00% 36.67% 6.67%

Effective abolition of child labor 43.33% 26.67% 20.00% 3.33%

Elimination of all forms of forced and compulsory labor

36.67% 23.33% 20.00% 3.33%

Elimination of discrimination in respect to employment and occupation

76.67% 66.67% 50.00% 23.33%

Fair compensation of employees 36.67% 20.00% 20.00% 3.33%

Free association and collective bargaining of employees

56.67% 43.33% 30.00% 10.00%

Political contributions 63.33% 46.67% 36.67% 6.67%

Reasonable working hours 30.00% 20.00% 13.33% 0.00%

Sexual harassment 63.33% 53.33% 43.33% 3.33%

We assign one point for adoption of a policy standard or for an explicit discussion of an organization’s stance on each of 11 human rights principles.

Adoption

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.

Reinforcement

We assign one point for a description of monitoring measures including mechanisms to detect violations at an early stage, providing systematic reporting, or establishment of committee structure to oversee risky activities.

Monitoring

We assign one point for a quantitative indication of compliance, such as a description of incidences of failure of compliance, or a statement that there were no such incidences.

Compliance

Basis of Scores


Average Overall, Environmental, and Social PSI Scores Performance by Country

Australia

Australia

Australia

Belgium

Belgium

Belgium

Brazil

Brazil

Brazil

Canada

Canada

Canada

Cayman Islands

Cayman Islands

Cayman Islands

Chile

Chile

Chile

Finland

Finland

Finland

France

France

France

Germany

Germany

Germany

Hong Kong-ChinaJapan

Japan

Japan

Netherlands

Netherlands

Netherlands

Portugal

Portugal

Portugal

Russia

Russia

Russia

South Africa

South Africa

South Africa

United Kingdom

United Kingdom

United Kingdom

United States

United States

United States

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Social

Environmental

Overall

This graph illustrates the average PSI in three categories--overall, environmental, and social--breakdown by countries. Since our sample size follows the world's largest companies from the Forbes list, several countries have only one company score to represent the whole country's sustainability reporting in the sector.

Country N

United States 6United Kingdom 3South Africa 1Russia 1Portugal 1Netherlands 1Japan 2Hong Kong-China 1Germany 1France 1Finland 1Chile 1Cayman Islands 1Canada 3Brazil 1Belgium 2Australia 3

Hong Kong-China

Hong Kong-China


llarevOemaNynapmoCScore

Sales ($B) Log Sales Profits ($B) Log Profits Assets ($B) Log Assets Market Value ($B)

Log MarketValue

Relationship Between Overall PSI Score and Financial Indicators

Tesco Plc 55.90 99.10 2.00 4.30 0.63 76.70 1.88 41.70 1.62

Wesfarmers 56.42 58.40 1.77 2.10 0.32 43.20 1.64 35.50 1.55

Seven & I Holdings 52.28 62.60 1.80 1.40 0.15 45.30 1.66 25.00 1.40

Woolworths 64.21 58.00 1.76 2.30 0.36 22.00 1.34 33.30 1.52

Metro AG 50.45 86.60 1.94 0.80 -0.10 44.10 1.64 13.40 1.13

Carrefour 55.67 113.20 2.05 0.50 -0.30 62.10 1.79 17.30 1.24

Ahold 52.22 39.20 1.59 1.30 0.11 18.90 1.28 15.20 1.18

Kroger 46.85 90.40 1.96 0.60 -0.22 23.50 1.37 13.70 1.14

Sysco 30.63 41.00 1.61 1.10 0.04 11.50 1.06 17.30 1.24

Wm Morrison Supermarkets 50.57 27.80 1.44 1.10 0.04 15.60 1.19 12.00 1.08

J Sainsbury 40.85 33.80 1.53 1.00 0.00 18.30 1.26 9.00 0.95

George Weston 7.09 31.80 1.50 0.60 -0.22 20.90 1.32 7.90 0.90

Grupo Pão de Açúcar 63.38 25.00 1.40 0.40 -0.40 17.40 1.24 14.30 1.16

Cencosud 4.52 15.70 1.20 0.60 -0.22 13.50 1.13 15.20 1.18

Safeway 47.72 43.60 1.64 0.50 -0.30 15.10 1.18 5.90 0.77

Delhaize Group 58.76 27.40 1.44 0.60 -0.22 15.90 1.20 5.30 0.72

China Resources Enterprise 19.87 14.20 1.15 0.40 -0.40 14.50 1.16 9.40 0.97

Jeronimo Martins 42.44 12.70 1.10 0.40 -0.40 5.70 0.76 11.90 1.08

Whole Foods Market 38.32 10.50 1.02 0.40 -0.40 4.50 0.65 15.50 1.19

Shoprite Holdings 25.14 10.70 1.03 0.40 -0.40 3.00 0.48 9.90 1.00

Colruyt 27.27 10.30 1.01 0.50 -0.30 4.30 0.63 6.90 0.84

Supervalu 33.57 36.50 1.56 -0.50 (0) 12.80 1.11 1.30 0.11

X5 Retail Group 8.27 11.20 1.05 0.30 -0.52 8.60 0.93 6.70 0.83

Metro Inc 38.73 11.30 1.05 0.40 -0.40 5.00 0.70 5.20 0.72

Empire 33.58 16.40 1.21 0.30 -0.52 6.50 0.81 3.80 0.58

Herbalife 15.94 3.50 0.54 0.40 -0.40 1.40 0.15 8.20 0.91

Metcash 23.63 7.40 0.87 0.30 -0.52 6.50 0.81 13.40 1.13

Lawson 10.85 5.40 0.73 0.20 -0.70 5.60 0.75 5.90 0.77

Kesko 54.59 12.30 1.09 0.20 -0.70 5.40 0.73 3.20 0.51

Stater Bros. holdings 2.95 3.70 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00


Log MarketValue #Name?

R2 = 0.4575

0

10

2 0

3 0

4 0

5 0

6 0

7 0

0 0 .5 1 1.5 2 2 .5

Log Sales ($B)

Ove

rall

PSI S

core

s

R2 = 0.3486

0

10

2 0

3 0

4 0

5 0

6 0

7 0

0 0 .5 1 1.5 2

Log Assets ($B)

Ove

rall

PSI S

core

s


R2 = 0.1592

0

10

2 0

3 0

4 0

5 0

6 0

7 0

- 0 .8 - 0 .6 - 0 .4 - 0 .2 0 0 .2 0 .4 0 .6 0 .8

Log Profits ($B)

Ove

rall

PSI S

core

s

R2 = 0.1931

0

10

2 0

3 0

4 0

5 0

6 0

7 0

0 0 .5 1 1.5 2

Log Market Value ($B)

Ove

rall

PSI S

core

s


5

1

2

2

1

3

3

4

4

4

1

5

4

5

4

2

3

4

5

7

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65

Woolworths


Whole Foods Market

Wesfarmers

Tesco Plc

Supervalu

Seven & I Holdings

Safeway

Metro Inc

Metro AG

Kroger

Kesko

Jeronimo Martins

J Sainsbury


Empire

Delhaize Group

Colruyt

Carrefour

Ahold

Number of Explicit Numerical Goals Reported

Topics reported: Companies reporting: Energy used (total) AholdCarrefourColruytDelhaize GroupEmpireJ SainsburyJeronimo MartinsKeskoKrogerMetro AGMetro IncSeven & I Holdings


Topics reported: Companies reporting: Energy used (total) Whole Foods MarketEnvironmental expenses and investments WoolworthsGreenhouse gases (or CO2 equivalents), total AholdCarrefourColruytDelhaize GroupEmpireGrupo Pão de AçúcarJeronimo MartinsMetro AGSafewaySeven & I HoldingsTesco PlcWm Morrison SupermarketsWoolworthsRecordable incident/accident rate KrogerWesfarmersWm Morrison SupermarketsWoolworthsRenewable energy used AholdColruytGrupo Pão de AçúcarJ SainsburyMetro AGSafewayWm Morrison SupermarketsSocial community investment Metro IncWoolworthsWaste (hazardous) produced AholdCarrefourEmpire


Topics reported: Companies reporting: Waste (hazardous) produced Metro AGTesco PlcWoolworthsWaste (solid) disposed of AholdEmpireGrupo Pão de AçúcarJ SainsburyJeronimo MartinsKrogerMetro IncSafewayWm Morrison SupermarketsWoolworthsWaste recycled: solid waste CarrefourGrupo Pão de AçúcarJeronimo MartinsKrogerMetro IncSeven & I HoldingsSupervaluWesfarmersWater used Grupo Pão de AçúcarJ SainsburyJeronimo MartinsWm Morrison SupermarketsWoolworths


55

87

441

75

33

95

87

112

713

189

11

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65

WoolworthsWm Morrison Supermarkets

Whole Foods MarketWesfarmers

Tesco PlcSysco

SupervaluShoprite Holdings

Seven & I HoldingsSafeway

Metro IncMetro AG

KrogerKesko

Jeronimo MartinsJ Sainsbury

HerbalifeGrupo Pão de Açúcar

EmpireDelhaize Group

China Resources EnterpriseCarrefour

Ahold

Number of Topics Showing Performance Improvement Over Previous Year Data

Topics reported: Companies reporting: Community development AholdDelhaize GroupJ SainsburyWesfarmersCommunity education Delhaize GroupGrupo Pão de AçúcarCustomer wellness and nutrition AholdDelhaize GroupJ Sainsbury


Topics reported: Companies reporting: Customer wellness and nutrition Metro IncSeven & I HoldingsWesfarmersWoolworthsEmployee satisfaction surveys Metro AGWesfarmersEmployee turnover rate Delhaize GroupWm Morrison SupermarketsWoolworthsEmployee volunteerism Grupo Pão de AçúcarSafewayWhole Foods MarketEnergy used (total) AholdCarrefourChina Resources EnterpriseDelhaize GroupEmpireGrupo Pão de AçúcarJ SainsburyJeronimo MartinsKeskoKrogerSafewaySeven & I HoldingsSupervaluSyscoTesco PlcWhole Foods MarketWoolworthsEnvironmental expenses and investments Grupo Pão de AçúcarWesfarmersGreen food purchasing


Topics reported: Companies reporting: Green food purchasing EmpireKeskoKrogerGreenhouse gases (or CO2 equivalents), total AholdCarrefourDelhaize GroupEmpireGrupo Pão de AçúcarHerbalifeKeskoKrogerSafewaySupervaluTesco PlcWm Morrison SupermarketsWoolworthsLost workday case rate CarrefourDelhaize GroupGrupo Pão de AçúcarJeronimo MartinsSeven & I HoldingsWoolworthsOccupational health and safety protection Delhaize GroupJeronimo MartinsKrogerMetro IncSafewaySeven & I HoldingsSyscoTesco PlcWesfarmersWoolworthsRecordable incident/accident rate Delhaize Group


Topics reported: Companies reporting: Recordable incident/accident rate Grupo Pão de AçúcarJ SainsburyJeronimo MartinsKrogerMetro IncSeven & I HoldingsSyscoTesco PlcWesfarmersWm Morrison SupermarketsRenewable energy used EmpireJeronimo MartinsKrogerWhole Foods MarketSocial community investment Delhaize GroupGrupo Pão de AçúcarShoprite HoldingsWoolworthsWaste (hazardous) produced AholdCarrefourEmpireTesco PlcWaste (hazardous) released to the environment EmpireWaste (office) recycled CarrefourGrupo Pão de AçúcarSeven & I HoldingsWaste (solid) disposed of AholdDelhaize GroupEmpireGrupo Pão de AçúcarJ Sainsbury


Topics reported: Companies reporting: Waste (solid) disposed of Jeronimo MartinsKrogerSupervaluWhole Foods MarketWoolworthsWaste recycled: solid waste AholdCarrefourDelhaize GroupGrupo Pão de AçúcarJ SainsburyJeronimo MartinsKeskoKrogerSupervaluWesfarmersWoolworthsWater used AholdCarrefourJ SainsburyJeronimo MartinsKrogerMetro AGSafewayTesco PlcWesfarmersWhole Foods MarketWm Morrison SupermarketsWoolworthsWomen in management AholdCarrefourDelhaize GroupGrupo Pão de AçúcarKeskoMetro AG


Topics reported: Companies reporting: Women in management Seven & I HoldingsSyscoTesco PlcWm Morrison SupermarketsWoolworths


1

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

4

1

2

1

1

1

3

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65

Woolworths

Whole Foods Market

Wesfarmers

Tesco Plc

Sysco

Supervalu


Shoprite Holdings

Seven & I Holdings

Safeway

Metro Inc

Kroger

Kesko

Jeronimo Martins


George Weston

Delhaize Group


Carrefour

Ahold

Number of Topics in which Performance was Better than Sector Average*

Topics reported: Companies reporting: Environmental expenses and investments China Resources EnterpriseGrupo Pão de AçúcarWesfarmersWoolworthsGreenhouse gases (or CO2 equivalents), totalTesco PlcRenewable energy used Delhaize GroupGrupo Pão de AçúcarSafewayWhole Foods Market


Topics reported: Companies reporting: WoolworthsSocial community investment AholdCarrefourDelhaize GroupGeorge WestonGrupo Pão de AçúcarJeronimo MartinsKeskoKrogerMetro IncSafewaySeven & I HoldingsShoprite HoldingsStater Bros. holdingsSupervaluSyscoTesco PlcWesfarmersWoolworthsWaste (office) recycled Grupo Pão de Açúcar


Ahold is one of the leaders in the Food Retail sector. It covers most of the topics in the PSI Sustainability Management Section, Environmental Quantitative data, and, Social Qualitative data. However, there is definite room for improvement concerning the company's Social Quantitative scores. Notably, Ahold looks to the future of its sustainability reporting more so than many other companies in the sector. It reports five specific numerical goals. For example, Ahold has the goal of reducing CO2 per square meter of sales area by 20% by 2015 against a baseline of 55kg.

A-

Environmental Grade: A-Social Grade: A-

Overall Grade: A-

0 2 5 50 75 10 0

E

ESAE

49%

S51%

Comparison with sector averages Source of points Distribution of pointsE=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

EI SI ER SR EP SP

A hold

76 7 7

51 53

27 2 9

Sustainability Management TopicsAhold covers the majority of the topics covered by the Pacific Sustanability Index. The main area improvement for the company includes its environmental management and Accounting systems, which are not reported. In addition, there should be more focus on the company's environmental labeling practices, to achieve a higher PSI score. This area is especially important to the sector as a whole, and thus require greater attention. The company's focus on its environmental management structue is commendable, as well as the supplier screening process for ethical and environmental procurment. Providing labeling for these practices would benefit consumers.

Ahold

Topics Percent Coverage Environmental visionary statement 100

Environmental impediments and challenges 100

Environmental policy statement 100

Climate change/global warming 100

Habitat/ecosystem conservation 100

Biodiversity 0

Green purchasing 100

Environmental education 100


Environmental TopicsAhold reports its energy consumption, water used, recycling, waste disposal, hazardous waste production, and greenhouse gas production very thoroughly. This is achieved through goals such as the the company's comprehensive waste-management programs in place at each operating company, and the goal of reducing CO2 per square meter of sales area by 20% by 2015 against a baseline of 55kg.

Environmental management structure 100

Environmental management system 0

Environmental accounting 0

Stakeholder consultation 100

Social visionary statement 100

Social impediments and challenges 100

Social policy statement 100

Code of conduct or business ethics 100

Supplier screening based on social or environmental performance/ supplier management

100

Health and safety, or social organizational structure 0

Workforce profile: age 50

Workforce profile: gender 100

Workforce profile: ethnicities/race 50

Emergency preparedness program 0

Third-party validation 100

Employment for individuals with disabilities 100

Employee training for career development 100

Locally grown organic food 100

Environmental labelling 0

Animal Welfare 100

Sustainable Seafood 100

Report contact person 100


Social and Human Rights TopicsWhile decently strong in social qualitative, Ahold needs to do a better job quantifying this information to receive points for Social Quantitative. Ahold also needs to establish a better system for monitoring human rights conditions.Topics Percent Coverage Anti-corruption practices 14.29

Bribery 14.29

Political contributions 14.29

Degrading treatment or punishment of employees 50.00


14.29

Free association and collective bargaining of employees 14.29

Fair compensation of employees 14.29

Elimination of all forms of forced and compulsory labor 14.29

Reasonable working hours 14.29

Effective abolition of child labor 14.29

Community development 100.00

Employee satisfaction surveys 80.00

Topics Percent Coverage Energy used (total) 85.71

Renewable energy used 28.57

Water used 71.43

Waste recycled: solid waste 42.86

Waste (office) recycled 0.00

Waste (solid) disposed of 71.43

Waste (hazardous) produced 85.71

Waste (hazardous) released to the environment 0.00

Notices of violation (environmental) 0.00

Environmental expenses and investments 14.29

Fines (environmental) 0.00

Greenhouse gases (or CO2 equivalents), total 85.71

Green food purchasing 80.00


Community education 80.00

Occupational health and safety protection 40.00

Employee volunteerism 40.00

Recordable incident/accident rate 0.00

Lost workday case rate 0.00

Health and safety citations 0.00

Health and safety fines 0.00

Social community investment 42.86

Employee turnover rate 0.00

Women in management 100.00

Sexual harassment 14.29

Customer wellness and nutrition 100.00


Carrefour ranks near the top of the sector in its overall sustainability reporting. Although all of the PSI topics are covered fairly well, each one could be improved at least somewhat. The overall organization of Carrefour's sustainability report is concise, clear, and easily understood. Division of the report into obvious sections such as "Approach and Strategy" or "Environment" are especially helpful in navigating the report. There's a great deal of contextualized information, as well as total amounts for different reporting areas.

A

Environmental Grade: ASocial Grade: A-

Overall Grade: A

0 2 5 50 75 10 0

E

ESAE

50%

S50 %


EI SI ER SR EP SP

Carref our

8873

516 2

27 3 3

Sustainability Management TopicsCarrefour's depth in its sustainability reporting is impressive. However, the company's failure to report its workforce profile in ethnicity and race is something that could easily be improved upon for communicating the company's diversity measures. Already, the company reports the workforce profile in gender, as well as discussing initiatives for its workforce profile in age. Sustainable procurment practices are obviously a priority for the company, as reflected by its initiatives in locally grown organic food, animal welfare, sustainable seafood, and green purchasing. Some initiatives include Forest Stewardship Council certified wood and the introduction of a sutainable fishing policy with the Marine Stewardship Council. The company also ensures that this information is provided to its consumers by its environmental labeling focus.

Carrefour






Biodiversity 100




Environmental TopicsCarrefour heavily reports on energy and water usage, waste recycling, hazardous waste production, and greenhouse gas production. The company could improve its reporting on other environmental quantitative data, especially renewable energy used and waste disposal. The company has a separate policy, just for waste management, that includes three levels of action: preventing waste generation, optimal recycling of store waste, and encouraging customers to sort and recycle, to achieve maximal effectiveness.










100











Animal Welfare 100




Social and Human Rights TopicsCarrefour had impressive policies and initiatives that are intended to promote diversity, especially its programs committed to encouraging youth employment. Carrefour can improve its score by supplying a recordable accident rate and by making human rights policies more explicit.Topics Percent Coverage Anti-corruption practices 50.00

Bribery 0.00




28.57










Water used 71.43












Cencosud has room for a great deal of improvement in its sustainability reporting. There is very little obvious commitment to sustainability management, no environmental quantitative data, and no accessible Corporate Governance document. Thus, there was very little scorable information available to include in the PSI score for the company.D-

Environmental Grade: FSocial Grade: D-

Overall Grade: D-

0 2 5 50 75 10 0

E

ESAE

17%S

8 3 %


EI SI ER SR EP SP

Cencosud3

12

2

11

0 0

Sustainability Management TopicsCencosud's reporting on its Sustainability Management Topics is sparse: there is only information for and Environmental Visionary Statement and Social Visionary Statement. However, this is grounds to begin to foster a greater emphasis on corporate sustainability for the company in the future.

Cencosud






Biodiversity 0

Green purchasing 0







Environmental TopicsThe company provides absolutely no quantitative data for its Environmental Quantiative scoring topics. Some areas are addressed briefly, however, much more emphasis much be placed on providing quantitative information to support these discussions of environmental qualitative data throughout the report.






0











Animal Welfare 0





Water used 0.00







Social and Human Rights TopicsCencosud's poor performance in these three catagories mainly derives from their lack of transparency and reporting. Although it appears that they have a Corporate Governance document, it is not viewable and therefor no points can be granted. This is most likley the reason for Cencosud's poor performance in the Huma Right's topic area. Cencosud's score could be radically improved by ensuring that the Corporate Governance document is accessible and that human rights policies that are upheld by the company are put into writing.Topics Percent Coverage Anti-corruption practices 0.00

Bribery 0.00




0.00





















China Resources Enterprise has the beginnings of a strong sustainability reporting initiative By increasing Sustainability Management reporting beyond basics such as environmental and social visionary statements, the company could achieve progress by initiating environmental management systems and environmental accounting. Furthermore, providing quantitative data to support its demonstrated commitment to environmental sustainability would also increase its PSI score. By increasing the scope of its social reporting that is already in place, by giving total amounts of community investment aside from amounts for specific projects, the company also has the ability to easily improve its PSI score.

C-

Environmental Grade: C-Social Grade: D+

Overall Grade: C-

0 2 5 50 75 10 0

E

ESAE

54%

S4 6 %


EI SI ER SR EP SP

ChinaResources

41 3 8

1 6 148

2

Sustainability Management TopicsChina Resources Enterprise has a strong basis for the future of its corporate sustainability reporting, as seen in its Sustainability Management Topics. With clear Environmental and Social Visionary and Policy Statements, as well as environmental management systems in place, the company will be able to move towards more thorough corporate sustainability reporting. Establishing an Environmental Management Structure or reporting environmental accounting would be ways to improve the company's PSI score. Verifying this through third party validation would also substantiate the corporate sustainability report for the company.







Biodiversity 0

Green purchasing 0



Environmental TopicsAlthough China Resources Enterprise discusses many of the Environmental Quantitative PSI topics, the company fails to provide any quantitative data. If the company were to provide more data, it would greatly increase its PSI score.










100











Animal Welfare 0





Water used 14.29



Social and Human Rights TopicsChina Resources Enterprise's poor performance in these catagories is due to the minimal information they provide on their website. The scope of topics discussed on their website also needs to be increased. For example, rather than giving small examples of community development it would be better if overarching community giving was provided as well. Also, it is interesting to note that while they do reference the establishment of workplace saftey policies, each business unit is allowed to develop its own policies which results in no uniform coroporate policy.Topics Percent Coverage Anti-corruption practices 0.00

Bribery 0.00




0.00





















Not yet completedC

Environmental Grade: C+Social Grade: C

Overall Grade: C

0 2 5 50 75 10 0

E

ESAE

52%

S4 8 %


EI SI ER SR EP SP

Colruy t

59 54

27 180 6

Sustainability Management Topics

Colruyt






Biodiversity 50












Environmental Topicsnotes on colruyt for commentary(damini): they mention a lot of initiatives and what they do; however thye could have done better if they had given more quantitative data.


100











Animal Welfare 0





Water used 28.57












Social and Human Rights TopicsLike many other companies, Colruyt failed to quantify most of their social performance. Their score come be improved by providing numerical values for the activities covered by the social qualitative topic area that it is obvious they are already doing.Topics Percent Coverage Anti-corruption practices 0.00

Bribery 0.00




0.00





















Delhaize group provides not only a great deal of information on its sustainability reporting, but also, in a clearly organized, concise format. The company reports extensive Sustainability Management practices, Environmental Qualitatitive data, and anti-corruption practices. The company is obviously committed to tracking its long term progress, as reflect through previous quantiative data for environmental and social reporting.

A+

Environmental Grade: ASocial Grade: A

Overall Grade: A+

0 2 5 50 75 10 0

E

ESA E47%

S53 %


EI SI ER SR EP SP

Delhaize Group

8 865 53

77

2346

Sustainability Management TopicsDelhaize Group provides extensive Sustainability Management reporting. However, the company does not report on its eco-friendly purchasing practices, which would be an easily incorporated area, considering the company does include information on its locally grown organic food, animal welfare, and sustainable seafood. Furthermore, an age profile of workers would improve the company's reporting on promotion of diversity.

Delhaize Group






Biodiversity 100

Green purchasing 0





Environmental TopicsDelhaize group's reporting on Environmental Quantitative data is especially impressive. There is a great deal of quantiative information for many scoring topics, including greenhouse gas emissions and energy usage. To further improve its PSI score, the company could also committ to more future goals in areas such as reducing waste, or using more renewable energy.








100











Animal Welfare 100





Water used 57.14




Social and Human Rights TopicsDelhaize group had very impressive anti-corruption practices and an impressive corruption monitoring infrastructure to ensure that company's code of conduct is effectively upheld. Delhaize also did a very good job providing information to compare their social performance and improvements over the years. Their human rights score could be improved by making sure that initiatives are carried out to reinforce all human rights policies.Topics Percent Coverage Anti-corruption practices 50.00

Bribery 50.00




64.29






















Empire has a demonsrated commitment to sustainability. However, the company could be more transparent in its anti-discrimination measures and attempts to create a diverse workforce. Furthermore, although many Ennvironmental Quantitative topics are addressed, there is little information to substantiate much of this information. Still, the company is obviously committed to sustainable procurment practices, as demonstrated by its Sustainable Fisheries Partnership, and participation in the Global Social Compliance Program and Consumer Goods Forum Deforestation Initiative. The company introduced 50 eco-label (Marine Stewardship Council and Best Aquacultural Practices) sustainable seafood products. Also, the company has devoted itself to two notable goals for December 31, 2013: to reduce landfill waste by 30% and Greenhouse Gas emissions by 15% . The company's social sustainability is the most under -reported category, and would definitely improve the company's PSI score if it was more adequately reported. Including quantitative information for injury and accident rates or employee turnover would be good starting points, as well ad adoption of more policies to ensure human rights within the company.

B-

Environmental Grade: B+Social Grade: D+

Overall Grade: B-

0 2 5 50 75 10 0

E

ESA

E72%

S2 8 %


EI SI ER SR EP SP

Empire

76

3 8 3715

3 1

4

Sustainability Management TopicsEmpire Company Limited provides a considerable amount of information regarding its Sustainability Management practices. However, the company definitely needs to include more information on its workforce profile, in ethnicity/race, gender, and age. Furthermore, to improve the company's PSI score, more hiring practices for disabled individuals should be included in reporitng. Sustainable sourcing is obviously a priority for the company, as seen through programs such as the Sustainable Fisheries Partnership, and participation in the Global Social Compliance Program and Consumer Goods Forum Deforestation Initiative. The company introduced 50 eco-label (Marine Stewardship Council and Best Aquacultural Practices) sustainable seafood products.

Empire






Environmental TopicsAlthough the company addresses most of the Environmental Quantitative topics of the PSI score, the company lacks quantiaative data to support much of this discussion. The company does provide a generally thorugh view of the topics through context and goals, as well as implied improvement over previous years. However, more quantitative data must be included. The company sets two commendable goals for December 31, 2013: to reduce landfill waste by 30% and Greenhouse Gas emissions by 15% .


Biodiversity 100












100











Animal Welfare 100




Social and Human Rights TopicsEmpire reports very little Social Qualitative information, and absolutely no Social Quantitative information. The company could greatly improve its PSI score by including more of this information in its sustainability reporting. Furthermore, its Human Rights policies are significantly lacking in areas such as harassment, bribery, treatment of employees and hiring practices.Topics Percent Coverage Anti-corruption practices 50.00

Bribery 0.00




0.00









Water used 0.00












George Weston's sustainability reporting is not very thorough. The most reported topic is Sustainability Management, which only provides information funadmental aspects from this scoring section, such as Visionary and Policy Statements, and a Code of Conduct. There is no Environmental Quantitative data available. Furthermore, the company's social reporting is not very transparent and could also be improved considerably.

D-

Environmental Grade: D-Social Grade: D

Overall Grade: D-

0 2 5 50 75 10 0

E

ESAE

21%S

79 %


EI SI ER SR EP SP

George Wes ton9

15

0

1 4

04

Sustainability Management TopicsGeorge Weston's Sustainability Management reporting is very basic. The company only provides information on fundamental sustainability reporting topics such as an Environmental Visionary and Policy Statement and a Code of Conduct. Although this information is foundational, it serves as a starting point for the company to improve upon its sustainability reporting efforts in the future.

George Weston






Biodiversity 0

Green purchasing 0






Environmental TopicsGeorge Weston does not provdie any information on Environemtnal Quantiative topics, and should provide this information in the future in order to improve its PSI score.







0











Animal Welfare 0





Water used 0.00







Social and Human Rights TopicsGeorge Weston's performance was very weak in all three of these topic areas. To achieve a better score they simply must provide more trasnparent information regarding their performance for the public.Topics Percent Coverage Anti-corruption practices 50.00

Bribery 0.00




14.29
























Grupo Pao de Acucar is extremely thorough in its Sustainability Management Reporting, however, could still improve its PSI score by reporting its workforce profile diversity. The Quantitative Environmental data is well-reported,with clearly labled and coherently contextualized graphs and charts. Furthermore, unlike most other companies in the sector, there is substantial social quantitative information. However, the Human Rights PSI score could be improved with a greater focus on enforcing the policies adopted.

A+

Environmental Grade: A+Social Grade: A+

Overall Grade: A+

0 2 5 50 75 10 0

E

ESAE

49%

S51%


EI SI ER SR EP SP

Grupo Pão deA çúcar

9 481

5 77 2

35 42

Sustainability Management TopicsGrupo Pao de Acucar provides a substantially thorough report on its Sustainability Management Topics. The company could easily improve its PSI score by including the workforce profile for ethncity and race along with its profile on gender and age that are already reported. With already a clear commitment to sustainable procurement practices, greater efforts towars environmental labeling would also be an area for improvement. The company's report is also especially well-organized, easy to navigate, and provides clear, concise information.







Biodiversity 100






Environmental TopicsGrupo Pao de Acucar's reporting of Environmental Quantiative topics is both thorugh and easy to understand. With clearly labeled and coherently contextualized graphs and charts, the information is both easy to understand and conceptualized. In addition, although the effort is not necessarily an aspect of any PSI socring point, the company's efforts to encourage the usage of reusable bags and decrease plastic bags is commendable in that the company is attempting to eradicate free distribution of plastic bags at the cash register.








100











Animal Welfare 100





Water used 71.43



Social and Human Rights TopicsGrupo Pao de Acucar did an impressive job in the social quantitative topic area relative to other food retail companies. Their human rights score could be improved by making sure that they are actively taking measures to ensure that the policies outlined in the code of conduct are being upheld.Topics Percent Coverage Anti-corruption practices 64.29

Bribery 14.29




64.29























Herbalife's sustainability reporting is very basic. Although most areas are somewhat reported, there is a lack of depth thoroughness through out the company's sustainability reporting initiatives. There is no Environmental Quantitative information at all, and this greatly affects the company's PSI score for this area. Although there is a basic Code of Conduct, Herbalife should expand the topics covered in this document and ensure that the topics covered are more thoroughly reported.

D+

Environmental Grade: DSocial Grade: D+

Overall Grade: D+

0 2 5 50 75 10 0

E

ESA E40%S

6 0 %


EI SI ER SR EP SP

Herbalif e12

1 5 1 826

817

Sustainability Management TopicsOverall, Herbalife's Sustainability Management reporting is quite basic. Most of the information is provided through Environmental and Social Visionary statements, and a Code of Conduct. Aside from this however, the company could improve its PSI score a great deal if it reported more Sustainability Management topics in the future.

Herbalife






Biodiversity 0

Green purchasing 0






Environmental TopicsHerbalife does not provide any quantiative information whatsoever for its Environmental Quantiative reporting. By doing so in the future, the company could substantiate its discussion of these areas addersed in its reporting, while simultaneously increasing its PSI score. The company has been commended for its Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED).







0











Animal Welfare 0





Water used 28.57





Social and Human Rights TopicsHerbalife needs to provide more information about their social initiatives to improve their score. Human rights policies also need to be more explicitly stated to receive points.Topics Percent Coverage Anti-corruption practices 50.00

Bribery 14.29




14.29
























J Sanisbury provides a great deal of information in its sustainability report in a well-organized format. It could improve its Sustainability Management reporting by including information on the diversity of its workforce, as well as its green purchasing practices. There is a clear lack of Environmental Quantitative data, but the company is committed to sending zero wastes to landfills by 2011. The lack of a Code of Conduct greatly decreases the social performance of the company, and including one would greatly improve its Human Rights score.

B

Environmental Grade: B+Social Grade: B-

Overall Grade: B

0 2 5 50 75 10 0

E

ESAE

56%

S4 4 %


EI SI ER SR EP SP

J Sainsbury

8 865

33 281 5 15

Sustainability Management TopicsJ Sainsbury provides an extensive report on its Sustainability Management Topics. The company could still improve its score if it reported its workforce's ethnic/racial and gender makeup, in addition to its already reported age composition. Green purchasing, along with sustainable procurment through local/organic food, animal welfare, and sustainable seafood are obvious priorities, especially as reflected through the company's environmental labeling initiatives. The company is the largest UK retailer in Fairtrade products by value, thus also reflecting the relative importance of supplier screening. Still, including third party assurance of the company's sustainability reporting is definitely an area for improvement and for a higher PSI score.

J Sainsbury






Biodiversity 100




Environmental TopicsDespite the fact that the company addresses almost all of the areas for Environmental Quantitative Topics, it fails to provide substantiating quantiative data for almost every topic. The company's zero waste to landfill goal by 2011 deserves recognition, especially considering that the company diverts 85% of its waste currently.










100











Animal Welfare 100




Social and Human Rights TopicsJ Sainbury could greatly improve their score by having a code of conduct that outlines human rights policies available online.Topics Percent Coverage Anti-corruption practices 0.00

Bribery 0.00




50.00











Water used 57.14












Jeronimo Martins could increase its PSI score by discussing its initiatives to employ a diverse workforce. Also, the company could provide even more detailed information surrounding its sustainable procurment and green purchasing practices. There is little quantitative data for past years in the Environmental Quantitative section, although some data is present. A more transparent approach to policy adaption in the Human Rights area of scoring would also increase the company's PSI score.

B

Environmental Grade: B+Social Grade: B-

Overall Grade: B

0 2 5 50 75 10 0

E

ESAE

53%

S4 7%


EI SI ER SR EP SP

JeronimoMartins

765 4

3 94 9

1 9 17

Sustainability Management TopicsJeronimo Martins can improve its PSI score through reporting its workforce ethnicity/race, along with its workforce's anti-gender and age discrimination initiatives. Already, the company has a fairly thorough report of its Sustainability Management practices. For animal welfare and seafood sustainability, the company could also include more information to accompany its locally/organic food reporting practices.

Jeronimo Martins






Biodiversity 100







Environmental TopicsThe company provides quantiative data for many of its Environmental Quantitative reporting topics. However, by including more information from past years, not only could more previous quantative data points be earned, but also, improvement over previous points as well. The company's Greenhouse Gas emissions reporting is very thorough, in providing context through Scope 1, 2, and 3.







100











Animal Welfare 0





Water used 57.14





Social and Human Rights TopicsJernimo Martins could improve their score in the human rights section by explicitly stating their policies, rather than just hinting at them. For example, it appears that they reject compulsory labor, but in order to receive a point for discussion the actual policy must be verbalized.Topics Percent Coverage Anti-corruption practices 50.00

Bribery 14.29




64.29























Kesko reports by far some of the most information compared to any other company in the sector. However, its report is not as organized or easy to navigate as it could be considering the amount of information reported. The company contextualizes a great deal of its quantitative data by region, type, etc. However, in many cases, it fails to report an overall amount to be scored as current /previous data in a PSI score. Furthermore, to improve its PSI score for Human Rights, it should focus more upon its own initiatives and policy reinforcment/monitoring rather than that of its suppliers.

A

Environmental Grade: A-Social Grade: A

Overall Grade: A

0 2 5 50 75 10 0

E

ESA E46%

S54 %


EI SI ER SR EP SP

Kesko

9 1 9 6

40 50

1 931

Sustainability Management TopicsKesko's Sustainability Management reporting is extremely thorough. One of the only area's for improvement is through more detailed discussion of enironmental accounting and supplier screening practices. If the company included information on its environmental education initiativies, it would receive a perfect PSI score for Sustainability Management. Although not a topic of the PSI Index, Kesko is also contributing to sustainable development, using guidelines and standards from the Green Building Council Finland, as well as the British BREEAM and American LEED in building and contracting its stores. Furthermore, the Environmental Management Structure at Kesko is highly developed with a variety of specialties and focuses, from the Steering Group for Responsible Purchasing to the Corporate Responsibility Advisory Board.

Kesko

Topics Percent Coverage Locally grown organic food 100


Animal Welfare 100



Environmental visionary statement 100




Environmental TopicsKesko provides substantial reporting on its Environmental Quantitative topics. However, this area could still be improved upon by providing more quantitative data, especially for Greenhouse Gas emissions and waste recycling. There is a great deal of quantitaitive information in the report. However, much of it is highly fragmented and contextualized, without any total amounts for the company as a whole. Consolidating this information would increase the company's PSI score. However, the company should retain its specific data as well, in that it offers excellent context. Kesko's 92% waste recovery rate for its companies in Finland deserves recognition.



Biodiversity 100












50










Social and Human Rights TopicsKesko has the ability to make a few very small changes and see a drastic improvement in their score. For exmaple, rather than only providing the employee turnover rate for each individual country they need to provide the overall turnover rate. The overall injury rate and lost workdays also needs to be provided for all countries of operation, rather than exclusively for Finland. Kesko must also discuss its own human rights efforts and policies, rather than the human rights policies it requires from its suppliers. Although, it is likley that Kesko upholds the purchasing principles it requires for its suppliers, the companies own policies must be explicitly stated.Topics Percent Coverage Customer wellness and nutrition 40.00

Anti-corruption practices 64.29

Bribery 50.00




14.29





Topics Percent Coverage Green food purchasing 100.00

Energy used (total) 85.71


Water used 42.86











Kroger is comprehensive in its Sustainability Management reporting, and provides information clearly and concisely. However, there is very little quantiative data to support the company's commitment to the environment. The company does demonstrate an obvious emphasis on environmental sustainability, especially over the years, but data for improvement over previous years is lacking. Still, the company does demonstrate impressive safety initiatives, and reduction of accidents over time.

B+

Environmental Grade: A-Social Grade: B

Overall Grade: B+

0 2 5 50 75 10 0

E

ESAE

54%

S4 6 %


EI SI ER SR EP SP

Kroger

88

4636

55

2 7 29

Sustainability Management TopicsKroger's reporting of its Sustainability Management is largely comprehensive. However, the company's PSI score would improve with a greater focus on reporting the diversity of the workforce's composition, from age, gender, and ethnic background. In addition, a greater focus on environmental management and accounting, as assured by a third party source, would also increase the company's PSI score. The company is obviously committed to locally grown products Fair Trade, which is thus reflected in its PSI score. Recently the company has more than doubled its Fair Trade Certified products. Furthermorethe company promotes sourcing sustainable seafood, with 100% of top 20 wild-caught species from fisheries approved by the Marine Stewardship Council.

Kroger






Biodiversity 100




Environmental TopicsKroger reports many initiatives in its Environmental Quantiative/Qualitative topics. However, the quantiative information is especially lacking, and if provided, would greatly improve the company's PSI score. Many topics cite improvement over previous years, but lack current and previous data to back up this claim. In adition, Koger has reduced its overall in store energy consumption by 31% by the end of 2011, and also, company-wide, saved 2.34 billion kilowatt hours of electricity.










100











Animal Welfare 100




Social and Human Rights TopicsKroger had very impressive and unparelled safety initiatives. They also should be appalauded for their effective reduction of accidents.Topics Percent Coverage Anti-corruption practices 50.00

Bribery 50.00




50.00











Water used 71.43












Lawson only provides very basic information in its sustainability reporting initiatives. There is no Environmental Quantitative data, and the company only discusses briefly its waste and recycling practices. There is little evidence of Lawson's commitment to the community either, through eduction, service, or customer wellness.D

Environmental Grade: D-Social Grade: D+

Overall Grade: D

0 2 5 50 75 10 0

E

ESAE

27%S

73 %


EI SI ER SR EP SP

Law son15 15

3

24

08

Sustainability Management TopicsIn its Sustainability Management Reporting, Lawson only provides very basic information: Environmental and Social Visionary Statements and a Code of Conduct. This is definitely a starting point to build further sutainability reporting from in the future, however, Lawson has not demonstrated substantail Sustainability Management reporting thus far.

Lawson



Animal Welfare 0








Biodiversity 0


Environmental TopicsThe only topic that Lawson covers in its Environmental Quantitative or Qualitative reporting is that of its waste and recycling practices. However, even for this area, the company does not provide any quantitative data, goals, etc. to substantiate its reporting.

Green purchasing 0











0












Water used 0.00





Social and Human Rights TopicsLawson could easily improve their human rights section score by making sure that all of their policies are outlined and provided online. Lawson also needs to imprve their commitment to community development, community education, and customer wellness and nutrition to even have a chance at being competitive in the social qualitative topic area.Topics Percent Coverage Customer wellness and nutrition 0.00


Bribery 50.00




50.00





















Metcash can improve its overall PSI score by including information to compliment the reporting already present in its Sustainability Management section, such as reporting on local/organic food alongside its policies in place already surrounding animal welfare and seafood sustainability. Furthermore, the company should include more information on its environmental quantitative data to increase its overall PSI score considerably.C

Environmental Grade: CSocial Grade: C-

Overall Grade: C

0 2 5 50 75 10 0

E

ESAE

55%

S4 5%


EI SI ER SR EP SP

Metcash

63

2 715 23

015

Sustainability Management TopicsMetcash could easily improve its PSI score by including information on its locally or organically grown food, in its addition to its already reported stance on animal welfare and seafood sustainability. Furthermore, in expanding its more socialy-focused reporting, focusing on triaining employees as well as ensuring that they are not discriminated against by race, age, or gender would also improve the company's PSI score. The company's strongest points are its sustainability management and "pro-labeling" stance of its Sustainable Supply Chain Policy.

Metcash



Animal Welfare 100







Biodiversity 100


Environmental TopicsMetcash does not provide any quantiative information regarding its environmental quantiative data, nor does it thoroughly address any of the topics in this section of the PSI. It could improve its reporting and PSI score if it were to do so in the future. Perhaps the most notable asepct of its environmental reporting is that the company is part of the Carbon Disclosure Project, Dow Jones Sustainability Index, National Packaging Covenant/Australina Packaging Covenant, and National Greenouseand Energy Reporting.












100












Water used 14.29




Social and Human Rights TopicsSimlar to other companies, Metcash's performance was weak because little information was provided online about the companies social efforts and actions. Their score could also be improved by implementing a monitoring system for human rights policies.Topics Percent Coverage Customer wellness and nutrition 0.00


Bribery 14.29




14.29






















Metro AG is very thorough in its sustainability reporting, especially in comprehensively discussing most aspects of the PSI Index for Sustainability Management, providing considerable Environmental Quantitative information,A-

Environmental Grade: A-Social Grade: B+

Overall Grade: A-

0 2 5 50 75 10 0

E

ESAE

52%

S4 8 %


EI SI ER SR EP SP

Metro A G

977 7

52 48

821

Sustainability Management TopicsMetro AG scores very well on the PSI index for Sustainability Management. The main areas for improvement including reporting its workforce's ethnic/racial makeup, as well as providing more detailed accounting of environmental expenditures. Notably, Oekom Research, a leading rating agency in the field of sustainable investments, name the company a sustainably managed business and awared the company Prime Status.Also, the company established a group-wide purchasing policy for fish to protect global fish stocks, reflecting the company's commitment to biodiversity and ecosystems. Furthermore, in 2012, the company initiated its "Go Sustainable" program in 2012 to further support sustainability in its business

Metro AG






Biodiversity 100






Environmental TopicsMetro AG's reporting of its Environmental Quantiative Data is quite impressive. There is substantial quantitative data to backup claims made by Metro AG regarding its Environmental Qualitative commitment. The group's participation in the Global Carbon Disclosure Leadership Index is one way in which the company establishes its stance on Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The company's reporting of its parameters such as energy and waste are clear and concise, as well as specific in that there is a great deal of context given to better understand where the company stands in its efforts.








100











Animal Welfare 100





Water used 71.43



Social and Human Rights TopicsMetro AG has thorough reporting of its Social Qualitative and Social Quantitative data, as well as considerable quantitative data to support its claims in these areas. However, in comparison, its commitment to human rights could be more substantial. There is a lack of quantitative compliance indication in all areas, and very little monitoring. Some important aspects of human rights have not been included either, including sexual harassment, degrading treatment and punishment of employees, and bribery. Many of the policies are simply stated, but not supported by actions to reinforce the policies.Topics Percent Coverage Anti-corruption practices 64.29

Bribery 0.00




14.29





















Metro AG should focus its Sustainability Management reporting more heavily on not only reflection of a diverse workforce, but also an environmental management system or environmental accounting practices. The company still demonstrates a commitment to the environment in that it encourages consumers to stop using plastic bags. Nonetheless, the company must report more quantitative environmental data to improve its overall PSI score. The company does have a strong performance in the Social Qualitative area, however, there should be a stronger focus on its Social Quantitative data and Human Rights policies

B

Environmental Grade: B-Social Grade: B-

Overall Grade: B

0 2 5 50 75 10 0

E

ESAE

49%

S51%


EI SI ER SR EP SP

Metro Inc

7658

3 4 4 0

42 1

Sustainability Management TopicsMetro Inc. could easily improve its PSI score by focusing more heavily upon ensuring that it provides more information surrounding the diversity of its workforce, and initiatives/actions that it takes to promote this practice. Furthermore, if the company provided reporting on its environmental management system (ISO standards),as well as its environmental accounting practices, the company would increase its PSI score.

Metro Inc






Biodiversity 100






Environmental TopicsA notable, albeit un-reported parameter of the PSI Index, is the company's commitment to decrease plastic bag usage. This effort in turn reduces waste from the company's consumers. The company thus far has reduced plastic bag distribution by 75%, which it has achieved by adhering to the Voluntary Code of Best Practices for the Use of Shoping Bags. The company instead sells 12 million reusable bags made from 100% post-consumer recycled content. However, the company lacks any information on its environmental quantitative data. To improve its PSI socre, the company must provide quantiative information to substantiate its claims in this area.








100











Animal Welfare 50





Water used 0.00



Social and Human Rights TopicsMetro Inc's strong Social Qualitative performance was hampered by their weak Social Quantitative and Human Rights performance. Improvements in these two areas could greatlt imprve their overall score.Topics Percent Coverage Anti-corruption practices 14.29

Bribery 0.00




14.29
























Safeway demonstrates an obvious concern for the community, especially through its JumpStart and Healthy Measures initiatives. Furthermore, the company demonstrates an obvious commitment to sustainable sourcing, as seen through Green Peace's ranking of the company as #1 in Supermarket Seafood Sutainability. Unfortunately, despite the company's commitment to the environment and the community, there was little quantitative data to back up these claims. For this reason, the company's overall PSI suffered. In the future, Safeway should focus on including more quantitative data.

B+

Environmental Grade: BSocial Grade: A-

Overall Grade: B+

0 2 5 50 75 10 0

E

ESA E44%

S56 %


EI SI ER SR EP SP

Saf ew ay

766 2

33

65

1535

Sustainability Management TopicsThe main areas where Safeway could improve its Sustainability Management PSI score include environmental management, accounting, and third party validation. However, its commitment to sustainable sourcing and biodiversity is evident as the company is ranked #1 on Green Peacae's top grocer in Supermarket Seafood Sustainability.

Safeway






Biodiversity 100






Environmental TopicsSafeway provides considerable information supporting its Environmental Quantiative and Qualitative reporting. However, the company could greatly increase its PSI score if it provided quantiative data (current, previous) to substantiate its claims. Still, the company's zero waste goals and and 19 solar-powered stores is commendable.








100











Animal Welfare 100





Water used 28.57




Social and Human Rights TopicsSafeway should be applauded for its efforts to promote health and wellness, specifically their JumpStart and Healthy measures initiatives. Like most other retail food companies, they fell short at quantifying their social impacts and as a result had a weak score in the Social Quantitative section.Topics Percent Coverage Anti-corruption practices 50.00

Bribery 50.00




50.00























Seven and I Holdings provides a great deal of information in its sustainability reporitng initiatives. However, this information is somewhat disorganized, difficult to navigate, and not concise. Much of the quantitative information reported is provided for different groups or operations. This is beneficial to the PSI score in a contextual aspect, however, the company should focus on improving this aspect of its sustainability reporting by consolidating it into total amounts. Also, the PSI score could easily be improved by identifying individuals who hold positions in the company's environmental management structure.

A-

Environmental Grade: B-Social Grade: A+

Overall Grade: A-

0 2 5 50 75 10 0

E

ESA E35%S

6 5%


EI SI ER SR EP SP

Seven & IHoldings

6881

36

70

8

5 2

Sustainability Management TopicsIn addition to providing information on local/organic food, Seven and I Holdings could increase its PSI score by reporting information on animal welfare and sustainable seafood procurment. Furthermore, identifying the individuals whol hold positions in its environmental management structure or providing detailed information on its environmental accounting would also increase its PSI score. By launching the Tropical Forest Conservation Projec twith the International Tropical Timber Organization, the company clearly demonstrates its commitment to a low carbon society and biodiversity conservation, and toward developing environmentally friendly stores.

Seven & I Holdings

Topics Percent Coverage Environmental impediments and challenges 100




Biodiversity 100





Environmental TopicsSeven and I Holdings reports a great deal of segmented information for context on its Environmental Quantiative data. However, the company must consolidate this information into group-wide amounts in order to receive a higher score for its Environmental Qualitative reporting, making its reporting more transparent and easily understood. Notably, the company has installed 209 solar panels on stores and 3191 LED lights, as well as opened 64 eco-friendly, energy efficient stores.









100











Animal Welfare 0





Social and Human Rights TopicsSeven and I Holdings could improve their Human Rights score by monitoring the policies that it has in place.Topics Percent Coverage Anti-corruption practices 64.29

Bribery 14.29




50.00











Water used 57.14












Shoprite holdings has sparsely reports any Sustainability Management topics, fails to provide any Environmental Quantitative data, and by outlining policies for human rights more clearly in a code of conduct. Currently, Shoprite Holding's report is well-organized and clear, but lacks a great deal of information.C

Environmental Grade: D+Social Grade: C+

Overall Grade: C

0 2 5 50 75 10 0

E

ESAE

30%S

70 %


EI SI ER SR EP SP

ShopriteHoldings

3254

133 1

021

Sustainability Management TopicsShoprite Holdings could substantial improve its PSI score by improving its Sustainability Management reporting. An Environemtnal Visionary statement would be an easily added amendment to the report, as well as including information on the company's environmental management system, environmental accounting, and third party validation. Furthermore, the company should dedicate more attention to reporting its workforce diversity in the future.

Shoprite Holdings






Biodiversity 0

Green purchasing 0






Environmental TopicsShoprite Holdings does not provide any quantiative data to support its Environmental Quantitative reporting. To improve its PSI score, the company should report more information from this area. Overall, much of its environmental reporting is fairly vague and could be more specific in communicating the company's goals and objectives.







100











Animal Welfare 0





Water used 14.29





Social and Human Rights TopicsShoprite can improve its score in the human rights section by making sure that the policies that it likley does have in place are actually outlined in the code of conduct and ethics.Topics Percent Coverage Anti-corruption practices 14.29

Bribery 0.00




64.29
























Stater Bros. currently lacks any form of Sustainability Management, aside from a Social Visionary Statement. There is no Environmental Quantitative data reported. There is an apparent commitment to the community from Stater Bros. website; however, much is needed to improve the company's PSI score.D-

Environmental Grade: FSocial Grade: D-

Overall Grade: D-

0 2 5 50 75 10 0

E

ESAE

0%

S10 0 %


EI SI ER SR EP SP

Stater Bros .holdings

0

8

0

8

02

Sustainability Management TopicsStater Bros. only reports information on its Social Visionary Statement, and thus, needs to improve its Sustainability Management reporting to be much more thorough to improve its PSI score.




Animal Welfare 0







Biodiversity 0

Green purchasing 0




Environmental TopicsStater Bros. does not provide any environmental quantitative or qualitative information. Therefore, to increase its PSI score, it must do so in the future.









0












Water used 0.00









Social and Human Rights TopicsStater Bro's disappointing performance was mainly because it's online site is very poor compared to its competitors. With increased transparency Stater Bro's will see an improvement in its scores.Topics Percent Coverage Customer wellness and nutrition 0.00


Bribery 0.00




14.29






















Supervalu demonstrates an overall commitment to the environment and community. The company could definitely improve upon its sustainabilty management practices by focusing more on biodiversity and ecosystem conservation, in relation to its sustainable sourcing practices. As is with many companies in the sector, the company's score would also be improved if the company provided as detailed quantiative data reporting as it does for its waste, recycling, and Greenhouse Gas emissions.

B-

Environmental Grade: C+Social Grade: C+

Overall Grade: B-

0 2 5 50 75 10 0

E

ESAE

49%

S51%


EI SI ER SR EP SP

Supervalu

53 4630

38

1 5 1 9

Sustainability Management TopicsAlthough Supervalu has demonstrated a clear commitment to its Sustainability Management, much improvement could be made. The company could focus more heavily on biodiversity and ecosystem conservation, especially in relating to its animal welfare and sustainable seafood sourcing practices. Also, a more detailed workforce diversity profile in age, race, and gender would benefit the company's reporting.

Supervalu






Biodiversity 0

Green purchasing 0






Environmental TopicsSupervalu provides very thorough information in its waste and recycling , as well as Greenhouse Gas emissions. Environmental Quantiative Reporting. Furthermore, its goal of 90% waste recycling for 300 stores by March 2013 is highly comendable. Still, the company could greatly improve its PSI score if it were to provide more quantiative data for its other environmental reporting intitiatives. For its Greenhouse Gas emissions, the company's 2012 goal for reducing carbon emisisons from a 2007 baseline is notable.







100











Animal Welfare 100





Water used 0.00





Social and Human Rights TopicsSupervalu had very impressive and thorough human rights policies. Their definitions also are very good in that they ensure that the human rights issues are not ambiguous. But, they do need an explicit policy against child labor and for reasonable and fair working hours.Topics Percent Coverage Anti-corruption practices 14.29

Bribery 14.29




50.00























Sysco has a foundation for sustainability reporting that can be developed greatly. The company can expand upon its current Sustainability Management reporting by including more information on areeas such as environmental management systems, environmental accounting, and third party validation. For its Environmental Quantitative data, Sysco reports its energy usage very thoroughly. The company should consider doing so with the remainder of the topics in the Environmental Quantiative scoring section to improve the overall PSI score. Along the same lines, increasing Social Quantitative data reporting would be the best way to improve the company's PSI score from this area of reporting as well.

C+

Environmental Grade: C-Social Grade: B-

Overall Grade: C+

0 2 5 50 75 10 0

E

ESA E33%S

6 7%


EI SI ER SR EP SP

Sysco41

6 5

1637

42 1

Sustainability Management TopicsSysco could improve its PSI score by focusing on areas such as environmental management systems, environmental accounting, and third party validation. In addition, a greater emphasis on the company's commitment to biodiversity and ecosystem preservation would also improve the company's PSI score. Already, the company has expressed commitment to animal welfare efforts, and continues to move forward on sustainable seafood, alongside the Marine Stewardship Council's Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing.

Sysco






Biodiversity 0

Green purchasing 0



Environmental TopicsSysco thoroughly reports its energy use; however, the company does not continue this trend throughout the remainder of its Environmental Qualitative reporting. If the company does so, it would greatly improve the PSI score overall and for Environmental Quantitative data.










100











Animal Welfare 100





Water used 14.29



Social and Human Rights TopicsThe largest improvement that Sysco could make would be to quantify their social performance.Topics Percent Coverage Anti-corruption practices 0.00

Bribery 0.00




50.00
























Tesco provides a great deal of sustainability reporting iformation, especially in its Sustainability Management practices, with little room for improvement for this area. The company addresses many Environmental Quantitative topics, but fails to substantiate this information with any quantiative data. Tesco clearly elucidates its policies in its Human Rights reporting, and can improve further by quantifying its social initiatives.

A

Environmental Grade: B+Social Grade: A

Overall Grade: A

0 2 5 50 75 10 0

E

ESA E44%

S56 %


EI SI ER SR EP SP

Tesco Plc

91 92

3 2

6 5

23 31

Sustainability Management TopicsTescos' Sustainability Management reporting is extremely thorough. The only real area for improvement is through environmental accounting and stating explicit workforce profile distribution for ethnicities and races.

Tesco Plc





Biodiversity 100








Environmental TopicsTesco's report addresses many Environmental Quantitative topics. However, the company fails to provide any quantitative data too substantiate its information.






100











Animal Welfare 100






Water used 28.57







Social and Human Rights TopicsTesco performed very well in the human rights section because policies were very clear and conscise. The next improvement that Tesco could make would be to quantify their social actions.Topics Percent Coverage Anti-corruption practices 50.00

Bribery 50.00




50.00
























Wesfarmers provides substantial Sustainability Management reportng. It could still improve this aspect of its PSI score through reporting more habitat/ecosystem conservation information. Furthermore, the Environmental Quantitative reporting very thorough, especially as it is contextualized through different operations and groups. esfarmers does report its non-compliance/prosecutions, with the total number being zero, for eviolation of environmental regulations. Social Quantitative reporting could improve, however, the company scored highly on Social Qualitative information due to context provided for many points.

A

Environmental Grade: A-Social Grade: A

Overall Grade: A

0 2 5 50 75 10 0

E

ESA E44%

S56 %


EI SI ER SR EP SP

Wes f armers

74 8157 66

1942

Sustainability Management TopicsWesfarmers provides substantial Sustainability Management reporting. The most obviously acheivable areas for improvement include reporting on habitat/ecosystem conservation (in addition to already reported information on biodiversity, sustainable seafood, and animal welfare), as well as providing more thorough information regarding stakeholder engagement. The company provides detailed environmental expenditures per company within the group

Wesfarmers





Biodiversity 100







Environmental TopicsWesfarmers has extremely detailed Environmental Quantiative reporting. Not only is the information broken down by company's within the group providing context for most of its quantiative reporting, but also, the company focuses heavily upon provides context such as Scope 1,2, and 3 for its Greenhouse Gas emissions. Also notable, the company is part of the Carbon Disclosure Project, and projects to contribute $30million to the Coal 21 Fund that researches low emission coal technolgies. Although rare across the sector in general, Wesfarmers does report its non-compliance/prosecutions, with the total number being zero, for eviolation of environmental regulations.







100











Animal Welfare 100






Water used 71.43



Social and Human Rights TopicsWesfarmers scored well in the social qualitative section because they did a very good job providing context for everything. Their score could be improved through qauntification and by making sure that all of the human rights policies that are scored are listed in their code of conduct.Topics Percent Coverage Anti-corruption practices 50.00

Bribery 50.00




50.00























Whole Foods is obviously and clearly committed to sustainability. Its sustainability reporting initiatives reflect this, however, there are many small aditions that could be made to its sustainability reporting that would increase its PSI score, such as reporting the diversity of its workforce, or providing more information quantiative information on its substantial renewable energy initiatives in the future. Furthermore, the company's social reporting initiatives could be improved by addressing more topics in its Code of Conduct and quantifying its commitment to reducing injuries and accidents, as well as other data for the social aspect of its reporting.

B

Environmental Grade: B+Social Grade: C

Overall Grade: B

0 2 5 50 75 10 0

E

ESA

E62%

S3 8 %


EI SI ER SR EP SP

Whole FoodsMarket

8 8

4631 2 9 23 1 3

Sustainability Management TopicsWhole Foods market demonstrates a clear commitment to SustainabilityManagement topics. However, the company could easily improve its score by focusing more heavily upon its commitment to a diverse workforce composition, through promotion of hiring practices to decrease age, gender, race, and disability discrimination. Furthermore, it seems as though reporting on an environmental management system and third party validation of the sustainability report would be easily achievable targets for the company. The company is very concerned with sustainable procurement, such as the Marine Stewardship Council's certified sustainable seafood, and its 5-Step Animal Welfare Rating system as part of the Global Animal

Whole Foods Market






Biodiversity 100




Environmental TopicsWhold Foods fails to provide substantial quantiative data supporting its Environmental Quantitative data. However, to improve its PSI score, the company should consider doing so in the future. The company focuses heavily on its alternative/renewable energy commitment, with its investment in wind energy helping the company to avoid 551,000metric tons of carbon dioxide pollution. 100% of the electriciy used in stores has been offset by renewable energy credits since 2006.










100











Animal Welfare 100




Social and Human Rights TopicsWhole Foods has the potential to increase their social qualitative, social quantitative, and human rights score drastcially through increased reporting on the topics scored in these sections. While it is clear that Whole Foods likley has strong human rights policy, many points for this section were not granted due to the lack of an explicit adoption of human rights policies. It would be beneficial to add these to the Code of Business Conduct that already exists. Community investments, recordable accidents, and lost workdays also needs to be quantified for social quantitaive points to be granted.Topics Percent Coverage Anti-corruption practices 0.00

Bribery 50.00




0.00








Water used 28.57












The company has considerably sustainability reporting initiatives. Although there is environmental quantitative data avialable, there is room for improvement in providing more still. A comendable goal that the company discusses is to reduce oeprational carbon emissions by 30% by 2020 from a 2005 baseline and has implemented an "Energywise" campaign to reward energy saving stores in 2012. More Social Quantitative data could be included, especially in lost workday rates and social community investment, to increase the company's overall PSI score.

A-

Environmental Grade: B+Social Grade: A-

Overall Grade: A-

0 2 5 50 75 10 0

E

ESA E46%

S54 %


EI SI ER SR EP SP

Wm MorrisonSupermarkets

9 1

5 835

72

1 235

Sustainability Management TopicsWM Morrison already provides substantial information surrounding its Sustainability Management initiatives. However, the company could further improve its reporting by focusing on a few social aspects. These areas include an accessible Code of Conduct and a greater focus on workforce diversity initiatives (age and disability). The company clearly focuses on health and safety in the workplace, reporting a decreasing tred in accident rates since 1999, through initiatives such as the Management Board's Joiint Health and Safety Executive of Director's guidance 'Leading Health and Safety at Work" The company also implemented a BS OHSAS 18001: 2007 Occupational Health and Safety Management System. The company also demonstrates a sizeable commitment sustainable sourcing through FairTrade, palm oil sourcing through the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil, and timber purchasing through support of certification like the Forest Stewardship Council.







Biodiversity 100



Environmental TopicsWM Morrison has room for improvement in its PSI score on Environmental Quantitative Reporting. Although the company does provide quantiative data for a number of areas, its score could still greatly improve. The company has an ambitious target to reduce oeprational carbon emissions by 30% by 2020 from a 2005 baseline and has implemented an "Energywise" campaign to reward energy saving stores in 2012.











100











Animal Welfare 100




Social and Human Rights TopicsOverall, WM Morrison had very strong performance in these sections. Their iniatives and actions to promote the number of women in management positions and to reduce accidents is especially admirable. Some areas that WM Morrison could alter to improve their score in these sections is to include the lost workday case rate and quantify their overall social community invesements.Topics Percent Coverage Anti-corruption practices 50.00

Bribery 50.00




50.00









Water used 42.86












Woolsworths has an obvious commitment to environmental and social sustainability, as demonstrated by its extensive Sustainability Management information, Environmental Quantitative data, and social community investment. Especially in a difficult economic time, the company managed to increase its community giving by 71.60%. The company's obvious commitment has also been recognized by the Dow Jones Sustainabiliy Index for the World and Asia/Pacific, and by an A+ rating from the GRI Index as well.

A+

Environmental Grade: ASocial Grade: A+

Overall Grade: A+

0 2 5 50 75 10 0

E

ESA E44%

S56 %


EI SI ER SR EP SP

Woolw orths

88 92

537 7

274 8

Sustainability Management TopicsWoolsworths has substantial Sustainability Management reporting. It could further improve its PSI score, however, through focusing on improving reporting on its environmental management system. It has been recognized for its efforts by the Dow Jones Sustainability Index for the World and Asia/Pacific indexes. It also received an A+ rating from the Global Reporting Initiative for its sustainability reporting practices.

Woolworths





Biodiversity 100








Environmental TopicsThe company provides extensive Environmental Quantiative data. Especially, its $55.7 million in energy efficiency across the business is notable. Furthermore, through efforts suh as this investment, the company projects a 10.9% decrease in carbon emissions in 2011 with business as usual projections. The company managed to divert 213,105 tonnes from landfills as well.






100











Animal Welfare 100






Water used 85.71





Social and Human Rights TopicsWoolworths also had a very solid performance in the social qualitative and human rights topic areas. The one area that could use improvement is the Social Quantitative section, specifically the reporting of accident rates and the overall lost workday rate. These values need to be made more explicit and quantified, rather than just discussed. Woolworth's should be applauded though for it's 71.6% increase in local communities invesments escpecially during such a difficult economic time when most other companies have not had an improvement in this particular area.Topics Percent Coverage Anti-corruption practices 50.00

Bribery 50.00




64.29





















X5 Retail group currently has the foundations of sustainability reporting. The company addresses some fundamental areas in Sustainability Management, Environmental Quantitative Data, and Social Quantitative data. However, increasing the scope and thoroughness of the report as well as quantifying more information would improve the PSI score.D

Environmental Grade: D-Social Grade: D

Overall Grade: D

0 2 5 50 75 10 0

E

ESAE

27%S

73 %


EI SI ER SR EP SP

X5 Retail Group12

31

2 60 0

Sustainability Management TopicsX5 Retail Group has the basis for improved Sustainability Management reporting in the future. However, there is much for the company to still improve upon.

X5 Retail Group






Biodiversity 0

Green purchasing 0








Environmental TopicsX5 Retail group only mentions its energy usage, but fails to even discuss any other area related to Environmental Quantitative or Environmental Qualitative reporting in its report. Thus, more coverage of these areas and quantiative data would improve the company's PSI score.





0











Animal Welfare 0





Water used 0.00








Social and Human Rights TopicsTopics Percent Coverage Anti-corruption practices 0.00

Bribery 0.00




0.00

























EI4Report contact person

-Discussion: identifies the person specifically designated to answer questions about the report or sustainability issues. Investor relations or public relations contact representatives are not valid contacts for this question. -Initiatives/actions: to facilitate such contact, i.e. providing email address, phone number, or a link for feedback and questions.

Discussion

Initiatives/Actions

1

Links:

5Environmental visionary statement

-Discussion: includes a clear visionary statement expressing an organizational commitment to good environmental performance. -Initiatives/actions: include measures to fulfill that commitment.

Discussion

Initiatives/Actions

2

Links:

6Environmental impediments and challenges

-Discussion: of impediments and challenges faced by the organization in attempting to realize its environmental vision and commitments.-Initiatives/actions: include measures to overcome them.

Discussion

Initiatives/Actions

3

Links:

9Environmental policy statement

-Discussion: includes a formal statement of the organization's environmental policy or plan.-Initiatives/actions: include a description of how the policy is being implemented.

Discussion

Initiatives/Actions

4

Links:

10Climate change/global warming

-Discussion: of the organization's position on climate change and/or global warming.-Initiatives/actions: include measures taken by the organization to decrease its contribution to climate change.

Discussion

Initiatives/Actions

5

Links:

11Habitat/ecosystem conservation

-Discussion: of the organization's position on conserving natural ecosystems and habitat.-Initiatives/actions: taken to increase conservation of natural ecosystems either associated with or separate from the organization's business activities.

Discussion

Initiatives/Actions

6

Links:

Appendix 1: PSI Questionnaire, Page 1 of 17


12Biodiversity

-Discussion: of the organization's position on biodiversity.-Initiatives/actions: taken by to the organization to foster biodiversity.

Discussion

Initiatives/Actions

7

Links:

13Green purchasing

-Discussion: about preferential purchasing of eco-friendly (non-polluting, recycled, recyclable, etc.) products.-Initiatives/actions: taken to implement such purchasing.

Discussion

Initiatives/Actions

8

Links:

16Environmental education

-Discussion: of efforts to promote environmental education and awareness of employees, the general public, or children.-Initiatives/actions: taken to provide such education.

Discussion

Initiatives/Actions

9

Links:

19Environmental management structure

-Discussion: of the organization's environmental management structure or staffing.-Initiatives/actions: include identification of individuals currently holding the staff positions.

Discussion

Initiatives/Actions

10

Links:

20Environmental management system

-Discussion: includes a statement of adoption of ISO 14001 or other formal environmental management system. -Initiatives/actions: include information on the extent to which the system has been implemented.

Discussion

Initiatives/Actions

11

Links:

21Environmental accounting

-Discussion: of environmental expenditures.-Initiatives/actions: include detailed accounting of such expenditures.

Discussion

Initiatives/Actions

12

Links:

23Stakeholder consultation

-Discussion: of consultation and dialogue with stakeholders about the organization's environmental aspects or impacts.-Initiatives/actions: include identification of specific consultation activities.

Discussion

Initiatives/Actions

13

Links:

259Environmental labelling

Efforts to label products that are environmentally-friendly.

Discussion

Initiatives/Actions

14

Links:



316Locally grown organic food

-Discussion: the city has implemented a program to encourage the use of locally grown organic food in all city facilities including schools.-Initiatives/actions: the city has a numerical goal for the percentage of locally grown organic foods used and a stated time frame for achieving it.

Discussion

Initiatives/Actions

15

Links:

374Animal Welfare

-Discussion: Description of practices to ensure humane treatment of animals and to avoid any form of unnecessary torture.-Initiative: Action taken to ensure animal welfare.

Discussion

Initiatives/Actions

16

Links:

375Sustainable Seafood

-Discussion: Measures to ensure seafood is from sustainably managed seafood farms that do not disrupt biodiversity or exploit resources.-Initiative: Action taken to ensure sustainable seafood.

Discussion

Initiatives/Actions

17

Links:

SI17Workforce profile: ethnicities/race

-Discussion: of racial or ethnic distribution of workforce.-Initiatives/actions: taken to avoid racial or ethnic discrimination.

Discussion

Initiatives/Actions

1

Links:

18Workforce profile: gender

-Discussion: of gender distribution of workforce.-Initiatives/actions: taken to avoid gender discrimination and achieve appropriate balance

Discussion

Initiatives/Actions

2

Links:

42Social visionary statement

-Discussion: includes a clear visionary statement expressing an organizational commitment to good social performance.-Initiatives/actions: include measures taken to fulfill that commitment.

Discussion

Initiatives/Actions

3

Links:



43Social impediments and challenges

Discussion: of impediments and challenges faced by the organization in attempting to realize its social vision and commitments.Initiatives/actions: include measures taken to overcome them.

Discussion

Initiatives/Actions

4

Links:

45Social policy statement

-Discussion: includes a formal statement of the company's social policy or plan.-Initiatives/actions: include a description of how the policy is being implemented.

Discussion

Initiatives/Actions

5

Links:

47Code of conduct or business ethics

-Discussion: includes a formal organizational code of conduct or of ethical behavior.-Initiatives/actions: include measures to assure that the code of conduct is followed.

Discussion

Initiatives/Actions

6

Links:

49Supplier screening based on social or environmental performance/ supplier management

-Discussion: or description of procedures to evaluate and select suppliers on their ability to meet the requirements of the company's social or environmental policy and principles.-Initiatives/actions: include measures to implement or assure such screening or selection.

Discussion

Initiatives/Actions

7

Links:

51Health and safety, or social organizational structure

-Discussion: of organizational structure or staffing for ensuring health and safety or social responsibility.-Initiatives/actions: include identification of the individuals currently holding the staff positions.

Discussion

Initiatives/Actions

8

Links:

52Workforce profile: age

-Discussion: of age distribution of workforce.-Initiatives/actions: include measures taken to avoid age discrimination or to encourage a balanced age structure.

Discussion

Initiatives/Actions

9

Links:



53Emergency preparedness program

-Discussion: of emergency preparedness programs to prepare employees or the public to cope with potential emergencies at the organization's facilities.-Initiatives/actions: include measures taken to implement such programs.

Discussion

Initiatives/Actions

10

Links:

54Third-party validation

-Discussion: of the value (or lack thereof) of third-party auditing or validation. -Initiatives/actions: include formal auditing or validation by a qualified external third-party source.

Discussion

Initiatives/Actions

11

Links:

80Employment for individuals with disabilities

-Discussion: of appropriate actions to accommodate employees with disabilities.-Initiatives/actions: taken to implement such accommodations.

Discussion

Initiatives/Actions

12

Links:

82Employee training for career development

-Discussion: of training, skills and learning programs appropriate to support employees' upward mobility.-Initiatives/actions: taken to implement such training.

Discussion

Initiatives/Actions

13

Links:

ER

Amount of food purchases come from local or organic sources, sustainable farms, or sustainable fisheries.

Discussion

Initiatives/Actions

Context

Improvement Over Previous

166Green food purchasing1

Links:

ER



The sum of all greenhouse gases released, which could include CO2, CH4 (methane), N2O (nitrous oxide), SF6 (Sulphur hexafluoride), PFCs (Perfluorocarbons) and HFCs (hydrofluorocarbons).

Discussion

Context

Goal

Current Period Quantitative Data

Previous Quantitative Data


83Greenhouse gases (or CO2 equivalents), total1

Year Data Values Units

Links:

Government imposed fines for environmental infractions.

Discussion

Context

Goal




40Fines (environmental)2


Links:



An accounting of money spent or invested specifically to decrease environmental damage or to benefit the environment.

Discussion

Context

Goal




39Environmental expenses and investments3


Links:

Notices of violation (NOVs) for environmental infractions.

Discussion

Context

Goal




38Notices of violation (environmental)4


Links:



Amounts of hazardous materials released into the environment, total (TRI, PRTR, HAP (Hazardous Air Pollutants), and similar indices), may include mercury or lead. Depending on the nationality of the organization, this could be labeled "TRI" (Toxic Release Inventory), "substance releases," or something else.

Discussion

Context

Goal




37Waste (hazardous) released to the environment5


Links:

Sum of all hazardous materials remaining after production, irrespective of final disposition. Hazardous wastes include items identified as TRI, PRTR, HAP (Hazardous Air Pollutants), and similar indices, and may include mercury or lead. Depending on the nationality of the organization, this could be labeled "TRI" (Toxic Release Inventory,) "substance releases" , or something else.

Discussion

Context

Goal




35Waste (hazardous) produced6


Links:



Includes solid hazardous and non-hazardous waste landfilled, incinerated, or transferred.

Discussion

Context

Goal




34Waste (solid) disposed of7


Links:

Office recycling of paper, cardboard, metal, or plastic.

Discussion

Context

Goal




32Waste (office) recycled8


Links:



Sum of all solid waste recycled, including hazardous waste.

Discussion

Context

Goal




30Waste recycled: solid waste9


Links:

Sum of all water used during operations.

Discussion

Context

Goal




29Water used10


Links:



Energy used from renewable sources such as wind, solar, hydroelectric, or other renewable sources.

Discussion

Context

Goal




27Renewable energy used11


Links:

Sum of the energy used by the organization in all different forms, including electricity, fuel, natural gas and others.

Discussion

Context

Goal




26Energy used (total)12


Links:

SR

Efforts to help improve the user's wellness and nutrition, including food safety.

Discussion

Initiatives/Actions

Context


196Customer wellness and nutrition1

Links:



Relative numbers of women in management.

Discussion

Initiatives/Actions

Context


2Women in management2

Links:

Efforts to promote employee volunteerism in social or environmental projects.

Discussion

Initiatives/Actions

Context


72Employee volunteerism3

Links:

Efforts to provide a safe and healthy working environment at all sites.

Discussion

Initiatives/Actions

Context


70Occupational health and safety protection4

Links:

Efforts to support education in the communities where the company is located.

Discussion

Initiatives/Actions

Context


68Community education5

Links:

Surveys to monitor employee satisfaction.

Discussion

Initiatives/Actions

Context


67Employee satisfaction surveys6

Links:

Efforts to participate in social activities that improve the quality of life of communities including that of indigenous people, where the organization operates.

Discussion

Initiatives/Actions

Context


66Community development7

Links:

SR



Annual employee turnover rate.

Discussion

Context

Goal




3Employee turnover rate1


Links:

Amount of money spent on community outreach, including education grants, donations, and relief effort funds.

Discussion

Context

Goal




81Social community investment2


Links:



Fines levied against a company for health and safety violations.

Discussion

Context

Goal




77Health and safety fines3


Links:

Number of health and safety citations or notices of violation. If it is stated that there were none, check lines 1,2,3, 4, and 6.

Discussion

Context

Goal




76Health and safety citations4


Links:



Number of employee injuries or illnesses that resulted in one or more lost workdays.

Discussion

Context

Goal




75Lost workday case rate5


Links:

Number of employee incidents or accidents, such as: “total case incident rate,” “incident rate,” or "accident rate."

Discussion

Context

Goal




74Recordable incident/accident rate6


Links:

SR

Rejection of any form of sexual harassment.

Adoption of PolicyAction to Reinforce Policy

Monitoring

Quantiative Indication of Compliance

1Sexual harassment1

Links:



Rejection of illegal child labor by the company or its affiliates.


Monitoring


65Effective abolition of child labor2

Links:

Compliance with applicable laws and industry standards on working hours, including overtime.


Monitoring


64Reasonable working hours3

Links:

Assurance that all employees enter employment with the company of their own free will, not by compulsion.


Monitoring


63Elimination of all forms of forced and compulsory labor4

Links:

Assurance that wages paid meet or exceed legal or industry minimum standard.


Monitoring


62Fair compensation of employees5

Links:

Efforts to respect the right of employees to form and join trade unions of their choice and to bargain collectively.


Monitoring


61Free association and collective bargaining of employees6

Links:

Commitment not to engage in any kind of discrimination based on ethnicity, caste, religion, disability, sex, age, sexual orientation, union membership, or political affiliation in hiring practices or employee treatment.


Monitoring


60Elimination of discrimination in respect to employment and occupation

7

Links:



Commitment to oppose any corporal/hard labor punishment, mental/physical coercion, or verbal abuse.


Monitoring


59Degrading treatment or punishment of employees8

Links:

Policy about political contributions.


Monitoring


7Political contributions9

Links:

Rejection of bribery


Monitoring


8Bribery10

Links:

Efforts to uphold the highest standards of business ethics and integrity. May be found under a Code of Conduct.


Monitoring


58Anti-corruption practices11

Links:



Ahold, Carrefour, Cencosud, ChinaR e s o u r c e s E n t e r p r i s e , C o l r u y t ,Delhaize Group, Empire, George W e s t o n , G r u p o P ã o d e A ç ú c a r ,Herbalife, J Sainsbury, Jeronimo Martins, Kesko, Kroger, Lawson,Metcash , Metro AG, Metro Inc , Safeway, Seven & I Holdings, Shoprite Holdings, Stater's Bros Inc., Supervalu, Sysco, Tesco, Wesfarmers, Whole F o o d s M a r k e t , W m M o r r i s o n Supermarkets, Woolworths, and X5 R e t a i l G r o u p

Contact Information

Roberts Environmental Center

The Roberts Environmental Center is a research institute at Claremont McKenna College, endowed by George R.

including the material in this report, is done by students at the Claremont Colleges.

Dr. J. Emil Morhardt, Director, Phone: 909-621-8190, email: [email protected] Adidjaja, Research Fellow, Phone: 909-621-8698, email: [email protected] Environmental Center, Claremont McKenna College, 925 N. Mills Avenue, Claremont, CA 91711-5916, USA.

Claremont McKenna College, a member of the Claremont Colleges, is a highly selective, independent, coeducational, residential, undergraduate liberal arts college with a curricular emphasis on economics, government, and public

Claremont McKenna College

The Claremont Colleges

found only at much larger universities. The consortium members include Claremont McKenna College, Harvey Mudd College, Pitzer College, Pomona College, Scripps College, Keck Graduate Institute of Applied Life Sciences, and the Clremont Graduate University which—includes the Peter F. Drucker and Masatoshi Ito Graduate School of Management.

ahold, carrefour, cencosud, china resources enterprise, colruyt

Documents