Science-based Goal-setting as the Holy Grail of Managing Non-Financial Performance: The Future-Fit Business Benchmark and PivotGoals Jeff Gowdy
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
0 likes•469 views
Science-based Goal-setting as the Holy Grail of Managing Non-Financial Performance: The Future-Fit Business Benchmark and PivotGoals
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (9)
Similar to Science-based Goal-setting as the Holy Grail of Managing Non-Financial Performance: The Future-Fit Business Benchmark and PivotGoals Jeff Gowdy
Similar to Science-based Goal-setting as the Holy Grail of Managing Non-Financial Performance: The Future-Fit Business Benchmark and PivotGoals Jeff Gowdy (20)
More from Sustainable Brands
More from Sustainable Brands (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Science-based Goal-setting as the Holy Grail of Managing Non-Financial Performance: The Future-Fit Business Benchmark and PivotGoals Jeff Gowdy
- 1. Science-based Goal-setting as the Holy Grail of Managing Non-Financial Performance: The Future- Fit Business Benchmark and PivotGoals Bob Willard, The Sustainability Advantage: Seven Business Case Benefits of a Triple Bottom Line @bob_willard Jeff Gowdy, Vanderbilt University
- 2. PivotGoals.com The ESG, science-based, and visionary targets of the largest companies Jeff Gowdy Sustainable Brands New Metrics Workshop // Boston @MIT// October 6 , 2015
- 3. Session Outline • PartI: PivotGoals Overview andIntroduction • PartII: ResultsfromtheGF200 • PartIII: SpecificAnalysesusing Pivot Goalsdata • Analysis#1:ThreeLevels ofWaste Goal Setting • Analysis#2:ThreeLevels ofReportType • Analysis#3:ScienceandEthics-basedReporting • PartIV: GroupExercise
- 4. Part I: Pivot Goals Overview The Global Fortune 500’s SustainabilityGoals PivotGoals.comSearchCriteria: •Keywordsearch • CompanyName,Goals(e.g., searchfor“netzero”or“deforestation”) •Checkboxsearch/narrowingto… • 29focusAreas (Climate, Water,Humanrights, etc.) • ByIndustriesandsectors • ValueChainarea(fromsupplychaintoend oflife) • Absolute/Intensity • Goal type(specific & dated;undated;intentional) * Note:the full Fortune200’sgoalsare loaded;someof companies201-500areloaded
- 5. Part I: Pivot Goals Introduction • 168 of the Fortune 200 (84%) have sustainability goals • F200 set 2,167 goals (3,700+ in full database) • Goals are… • Specific and mostly time-bound (69%) • Mostly absolute (85%) vs. relative/intensity (15%) • Predominantly about operations, although cover value chain: • Supply chain: 13% • Operations: 69% • Use phase: 12% • End-of-life: 3% Note:Calculationsas ofSep2015; resultschangeas newdata isloaded
- 6. Part II:Results from the GF200 • Goals forEnvironmentalFocus Areas • Goals forSocial andGovernanceFocus Areas • Goals bywhentheyaredue
- 7. Portion of Companies Setting Goals for… (Environmental) 7 Note:Calculationsas ofSep2015; resultschangeas newdata isloaded 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
- 8. Portion of Companies Setting Goals for… (Social& Governance) 8 Note:Calculationsas ofSep2015; resultschangeas newdata isloaded 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
- 9. We Like Round Numbers –When Goals Are Due Note:Calculationsas ofSep2015; resultschangeas newdata isloaded 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 #OfGoals Year
- 10. Top10 –Companies with Most Goals Note:Calculationsas ofSep2015; resultschangeas newdata isloaded 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Nestle Unilever Novartis Rosneft Oil Panasonic General Electric Honda Motor E.ON Wal-Mart Stores Renault #ofGoals Company Name
- 11. Top 10 –Companies with Most Coverage of ESG Focus Areas Note:Calculationsas ofSep2015; resultschangeas newdata isloaded 0 5 10 15 20 25 Nestle Unilever Wal-Mart Stores Ford Motor J&J Total BMW Peugeot Bayer E.ON NumberofGoals Company Name
- 12. Analysis #1: Three levels of waste goal setting
- 13. How many of the Fortune 500 have a Waste goal(s)? Note:Calculationsas ofJun2015; resultschangeas newdata isloaded How many of the Global Fortune 500 have a waste goal?
- 14. Answer: just over half (52%) How many of the Global Fortune 500 have a waste goal?
- 15. How many of the Fortune 500 have Zero Waste to Landfill goals?How many of the Global Fortune 500 have a Zero Waste to Landfill goal?
- 16. How many of the Global Fortune 500 have a Zero Waste to Landfill goal?
- 17. Company Goal Year Wal-Mart Eliminate landfill waste from U.S. stores and Sam’s Club locations 2025 Bridgestone A waste-free tire industry Open Toyota N. AM) Achieve zero waste to landfill at manufacturing plants 2013 Samsung Establish resource recycling system and become a company with “zero emission of waste” Open Daimler Eliminate landfill waste (US plants) Ongoing Honda Completely close the loop for all resources and bring product life-cycle waste down to zero Open Honda Maintain zero landfill waste performance (Japan and Europe) 2014 Rosneft Oil 0 mln tonnes of legacy drilling waste, at the end of the period 2018 Rosneft Oil 0 mln tonnes of legacy oil sludge waste, at the end of the period 2018 N.T.T Continue to achieve zero emissions (waste) for all decommissioned telecommunications equipment Ongoing Bank of America Dispose 100% of e-waste using certified responsible vendors 2015 Nestle All Nestle UK Factories to achieve zero waste Ongoing Nestle 10% of Nestle factories to reach zero waste 2015 Kroger Transition all Kroger manufacturing plants to 'zero waste' facilities 2014 HSBC Holdings Recycle 100% of HSBC’s office and electronic waste Open PTT Achieve zero hazardous waste to landfill 2020 Panasonic EU: Achieve 99% waste recycling rate at EU manufacturing sites 2013 Companies with Zero Waste to Landfill goals
- 18. Panasonic Taiwan: Increase waste recycling rate to 99.3% or more 2016 Panasonic Achieve “zero waste emission” from production activities by achieveing factory waste recycling rate of 99.5% 2018 Unilever Achieve zero non-hazardous waste to landfill at all manufacturing sites 2015 Unilever 100% of our US manufacturing sites achieve zero non-hazardous waste to landfill status 2013 Unilever Send zero non-hazardous waste-to-landfill in our Englewood Cliffs, NJ headquarters and our Trumbull, CT Research and Development center 2013 Unilever top 21 countries of operation 2017 Aviva Zero waste to landfill in the UK 2015 Aviva Zero waste to landfill worldwide 2020 Woolworths Zero food waste to landfill (where facilities available) 2015 Intel Zero chemical waste to landfill 2020 Fujitsu Maintain zero waste emissions at factories in Japan 2015 Idemitsu Kosan Maintain final disposal (landfill) volume of industrial waste at all refineries & petrochemical plants at 0.5% or lower Ongoing Walt Disney Send zero waste to landfills Ongoing ABB Reach our long-term (2020) target of zero waste 2020 GlaxoSmithKline Achieve zero waste to landfill 2020 Denso Reduce waste: Overseas: Promote waste zero emissions 2016 Denso Seek to realize zero waste to landfill Open Companies with Zero Waste to Landfill goals
- 19. Mitsubishi Electric Strive for zero waste output from manufacturing processes 2021 J. Sainsbury Through our Zero Waste to Landfill target we aim to actively put all operational waste to positive use 2020 Royal Bank of Canada Formalize policy to ensure zero electronic waste is sent to landfills 2013 DirecTV Reduce landfill waste from our operations and facilities to almost zero Ongoing Suzuki Motor Maintain non-consolidated group landfill waste under 1%. 2015 WM. Morrison Supermarkets Zero waste direct to landfill from stores 2013 Mazda Motor Reduce direct landfill waste to zero across the entire Mazda Group in Japan 2020 Staples Achieve zero waste in our operations and help our customers to minimize their operational waste. Ongoing Sumitomo Chemical Achieve zero waste emissions at all our manufacturing facilities in Japan 2015 Kobe Steel Achieve zero landfill waste in the long term Ongoing Sprint Nextel Send all of headquarter's operational waste to recycling, composting or use in alt source of fuel Ongoing Abbott Laboratories Achieve 12 zero-waste-to-landfill manufacturing facilities 2015 News Corp. Achieve zero waste to landfill at studio lot. 2016 Companies with Zero Waste to Landfill goals
- 20. • Establish resource recycling system and become a company with “zero emission of waste” • Zero Waste to Landfill • Maintain zero landfill waste performance • Zero Waste to Landfill • Eliminate landfill waste • Zero Waste to Landfill • Zero waste direct to landfill from stores • Zero Waste to Landfill • Transition all manufacturing plants to 'zero waste' facilities…Actually it is not “zero waste” but • Zero waste to Landfill Various ways of saying ZWL…
- 21. How many of the Fortune 500 have a Zero Waste goal or vision?How many of the Global Fortune 500 have a Zero Waste goal?
- 22. How many of the Fortune 500 have a Zero Waste goal or vision?How many of the Global Fortune 500 have a Zero Waste goal?
- 23. Honda • Completely close the loop for all resources and bring product life-cycle waste down to zero • Timeframe: open How many of the Fortune 500 have a Zero Waste goal or vision?How many of the Global Fortune 500 have a Zero Waste goal?
- 24. Bridgestone America’s Tires4ward Program • Achieving a waste-free tire industry • Timeframe: open How many of the Fortune 500 have a Zero Waste goal or vision?How many of the Global Fortune 500 have a Zero Waste goal?
- 25. Analysis #2: Three levels of Report Type Scoring System based on Breadth/Coverage, Centrality, and Certification Note:Calculationsas ofJun2015; resultschangeas newdatais loaded
- 26. Analysis #2: Three levels of Report Type Results for GF500 v. DJSI Sector Winners (2014) Note:Calculationsas ofJun2015; resultschangeas newdatais loaded
- 27. Analysis #3: Science and Ethics- based Goals
- 28. Definitions •Science-based – Based on scientific knowledge or inherent logic of thresholds in vital capitals in the natural world – Goals that are in line with these externally-based thresholds can be considered science-equivalent, even if not explicitly stated as based on science – E.g., for carbon: 6%+ reduction in carbon intensity per year, or 3% per year in absolute emissions •Future Fit or Ethics-based – Express aspirations or performance in terms of fairness, justice, or equity – the conditions we need to build human capital and create a thriving, prosperous world – In terms that don’t have science-based thresholds •None – Goals that do not satisfy any of the above definitions.
- 29. 29 Area Criteria Science/DataBased GHG/Climate 3% absolute or 6%intensity reductionper year Energy 3% absolute or 6%intensity reduction per year Renewables Similar pace of change as above or 100%goal Air Zerotargetor Context/Science-basedindication Water "Water-neutral","watershed","waterstress" Waste/Pollution Zerotarget(<1% landfill or incineration) Haz Waste Zerotarget Packaging 100%certifiedtargetor zerodeforestation Toxics Zerotargetor indication of greenchemistryguidelines Biodiversity/LandUse Zeronet impactor context/sciencemention Forest Largecertifiedtargetor zerodeforestation Food &Ag (Sourcing) Allsustainability sourced Health &Wellness(Nutrition) Reduction based ondietary standards Future-Fit Governance Zeroincidents of corruption, unethical practice,100%transparency Safety Eitherzeroinjuries/fatalities or certificationfor all facilities Employees 100%employeesgetting living wageand others Human Rights Zeroviolations PivotGoals Criteria for Science and Ethics based
- 30. Science-equivalent/Ethics Goals • 2 categories… – Science-equivalent (for a large part of business, not full value-chain) – Ethics-equivalent: moral, ethical, or based on flourishing model • Of 1709 goals in eligible categories, 18%are in the ballpark… – 210 (12%) Science-equivalent (only a few explicitly science-based) – 88 (4%) F2 & Ethics-equivalent – 12 (1%)Aspirational (Meet criteria, but undated) – 44 (2%)May qualify, but not enough data (e.g., no baseline) • 111of the 168companies have at least 1 qualifying goal… – Leader: Unilever (33 qualifying goals) Note: Calculations as of Sep .2015; results change as new data is loaded
- 31. Top 10 – Companies with Most Science/Ethics-based Goals Note: Calculations as of Sep .2015; results change as new data is loaded 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Unilever Nestle Nissan Motor Honda Motor Intel Siemens Kroger Sony J&J PepsiCo #of Company Name
- 32. “Science-Based” Goals: GHG and Renewables GHG:3%absoluteor6%intensityimprovementperyear • Science-equivalent (49 companies) – Tesco: Become a zero carbon business – Volkswagen: Reduce GHGs in the supply ofenergy toproduction facilities in Germany by 40% by 2020 (vs. 2010) – Microsoft: Become carbon neutral for data centers, software development labs, office, andemployee airtravel (Achieved) • Aspirational(2 companies) – Noble: Implement an emission reduction and offsetting programme, the CarbonNeutral Project – Shell: End continuous flaring in Nigeria Renewables:Similarpaceofchangeor100%goal • Science-equivalent (10 companies) – Unilever: Use 100% renewable energy – Microsoft: Meet 100% renewable energy commitment by matching the total amount ofkwh consumed with the volume ofrenewable energy purchased • Aspirational(4 companies) – Walmart, BMW, P&G, Noble: 100% renewables Note:Calculationsas ofFeb2015; resultschangeas newdata isloaded
- 33. “Ethics” Goals: Governance,Safety, Employees, Human Rights Governance(multipleareaslikezerocorruption,100%transparency) • (1 companies) – UPS: Train100%of full-timemanagers and specialists on ethics and compliance every 2years Safety(zeroinjuries/fatalities, orcertificationforallfacilities) • (34 companies) – Dow: Vision of no accidents and no injuries Employees(100%livingwage, healthcoverage, wellness, orothersimilar) • (18companies) – Electricite deFrance:Ensure equal pay for female employees HumanRights(Zeroviolations ofsomecriteria) • ( 11 companies) – Microsoft: Support industryefforts to identify, reduce, and ultimatelyeliminate conflict minerals from the technologysupply Note:Calculationsas ofFeb.2015;resultschangeas newdata isloaded
- 34. Additional:“Science-Based”Goals: Water and Waste Water:“Water-neutral”, “watershed”, “water stress” •Science-equivalent (5 companies) – Unilever:Halve the water associated with theconsumeruse of our products on a per consumerusebasis – Toyota N. America: (N. Am)Reduce water withdrawal 6%per vehicle produced, from a baseline of FY2010 •May Qualify (5 companies) – BMW: Reduce water, energy, waste, solvents per vehicle by45% •Aspirational (3 companies) – Saint-Gobain: Zero industrial liquid discharge Waste:Zerotarget(upto1%landfill/other) •Science-equivalent (19 companies) – Intel:Zero chemicalwaste to landfill by2020 – Walmart: Eliminate landfill waste from USstores and Sam’s Club by2025 Note:Calculationsas ofFeb.2015;resultschangeas newdata isloaded
- 35. Additional: “Science-Based”Goals: Forests, Food, Health Forests(zerodeforestation,largecertifiedtarget) •Science-equivalent (10 companies) – Woolworths: Achieve zero net deforestation through consumer goodssupply chain…by 2020 – Bank ofAmerica: 100% ofpaper sourced from certified forests •Aspirational(1 companies) – Lowe’s: Certification toSustainable Forest Management (SFM) standard forall products sold in ourstores Food&Ag:Allsustainabilitysourced(certified/3rd partywherepossible) •Science-equivalent (11 companies) – Tesco: Use 100% certified sustainable palm oil in all UK-own brandproducts by 2015 •Aspirational(1 company) – Woolworths: All wild-caught seafood sourced from MSCstandard fisheries Health&Wellness(dietarystandardsforproducts,otherwellnessgoals) •Science-equivalent (5 companies) – Unilever: Reduce salt levels in products bya further 15-20% on average tomeet target of 5g of salt per day by 2020 Note:Calculationsas ofFeb.2015;resultschangeas newdata isloaded
- 36. Big questions on “Science-Based”Goals • Should it “count” if it’s just a “four walls”goal, or does it need to be value chain? • Todayvs.ultimately? • How big a partofthe businessshouldqualify? • What if the goal doesn’t have a date attached (not time-bound)? • When is “all”or “zero” the only acceptable goal vs. some or progress? • Are science and ethics-based enough?
- 37. Context-based Goals include Allocations
- 38. Part IV: Group Exercise Instructions: • Break into groups of 4-5 • You’ll need at least one laptop and internet access • Using what you learned today (e.g. what constitutes a science or ethics based goal), find what you consider the best goal in the PivotGoals database • Include why you selected this goal (e.g. consider value chain, timeframe, science/ethics based and other variables) • Present back to the audience and discuss
Editor's Notes
- Science-Based Goals and Metrics -- These are science-based in the sense that they are based on scientific knowledge of how human impacts on vital capitals in the world can affect the status of such resources. In the case of impacts on natural capitals, in particular, they also reflect an understanding of the fact that such capitals are limited and in many cases under threat. What science-based goals and metrics do not do, however, is translate all of that into organization-specific thresholds or allocations against which their actual impacts can be compared. To do that, they would have to be expressive of the carrying capacitites of vital capitals, with related assignments being made to individual organizations. Most science-based goals and metrics, by contrast, are merely incremental or directional -- more of this or less of that, but not necessarily more or less enough to be sustainable. They don't go that far. Note here, as well, that by science we mean to include all of the sciences, not just the biophysical ones. Ethics-Based Goals and Metrics -- These are ethics-based in the sense that they express aspirations or performance in terms of fairness, justice and equity but not in science-based terms. Instead they might be more arbitrary or purely political. If they do express things in terms of science-based thresholds or at least seem to be based on them, then they are not ethics-based at all and should be classified as science-based. Again, science includes the social or soft sciences, not just the biophysical or hard ones. Context-Based Goals and Metrics -- These are science-based goals and metrics that have taken the extra step of determining what an organization's fair and proportionate share of the entitlement or responsibility is for using, preserving, producing and/or maintaining vital capitals in the world. In other words, they express organization-specific allocations of the responsibility to maintain vital capitals at specific, sustainable and sufficient levels. Note that by taking such a step, context-based metrics are also normative. In other words, they express a position on what an organization's performance OUGHT to be in terms of protecting the viability of vital capitals. In the case of context-based metrics, ACTUAL impacts on vital capitals are also expressed, with the actual being compared to the normative in order to reach meaningful performance conclusions. Only context-based metrics do this.
- Science-Based Goals and Metrics -- These are science-based in the sense that they are based on scientific knowledge of how human impacts on vital capitals in the world can affect the status of such resources. In the case of impacts on natural capitals, in particular, they also reflect an understanding of the fact that such capitals are limited and in many cases under threat. What science-based goals and metrics do not do, however, is translate all of that into organization-specific thresholds or allocations against which their actual impacts can be compared. To do that, they would have to be expressive of the carrying capacitites of vital capitals, with related assignments being made to individual organizations. Most science-based goals and metrics, by contrast, are merely incremental or directional -- more of this or less of that, but not necessarily more or less enough to be sustainable. They don't go that far. Note here, as well, that by science we mean to include all of the sciences, not just the biophysical ones. Ethics-Based Goals and Metrics -- These are ethics-based in the sense that they express aspirations or performance in terms of fairness, justice and equity but not in science-based terms. Instead they might be more arbitrary or purely political. If they do express things in terms of science-based thresholds or at least seem to be based on them, then they are not ethics-based at all and should be classified as science-based. Again, science includes the social or soft sciences, not just the biophysical or hard ones. Context-Based Goals and Metrics -- These are science-based goals and metrics that have taken the extra step of determining what an organization's fair and proportionate share of the entitlement or responsibility is for using, preserving, producing and/or maintaining vital capitals in the world. In other words, they express organization-specific allocations of the responsibility to maintain vital capitals at specific, sustainable and sufficient levels. Note that by taking such a step, context-based metrics are also normative. In other words, they express a position on what an organization's performance OUGHT to be in terms of protecting the viability of vital capitals. In the case of context-based metrics, ACTUAL impacts on vital capitals are also expressed, with the actual being compared to the normative in order to reach meaningful performance conclusions. Only context-based metrics do this.
- Science-Based Goals and Metrics -- These are science-based in the sense that they are based on scientific knowledge of how human impacts on vital capitals in the world can affect the status of such resources. In the case of impacts on natural capitals, in particular, they also reflect an understanding of the fact that such capitals are limited and in many cases under threat. What science-based goals and metrics do not do, however, is translate all of that into organization-specific thresholds or allocations against which their actual impacts can be compared. To do that, they would have to be expressive of the carrying capacitites of vital capitals, with related assignments being made to individual organizations. Most science-based goals and metrics, by contrast, are merely incremental or directional -- more of this or less of that, but not necessarily more or less enough to be sustainable. They don't go that far. Note here, as well, that by science we mean to include all of the sciences, not just the biophysical ones. Ethics-Based Goals and Metrics -- These are ethics-based in the sense that they express aspirations or performance in terms of fairness, justice and equity but not in science-based terms. Instead they might be more arbitrary or purely political. If they do express things in terms of science-based thresholds or at least seem to be based on them, then they are not ethics-based at all and should be classified as science-based. Again, science includes the social or soft sciences, not just the biophysical or hard ones. Context-Based Goals and Metrics -- These are science-based goals and metrics that have taken the extra step of determining what an organization's fair and proportionate share of the entitlement or responsibility is for using, preserving, producing and/or maintaining vital capitals in the world. In other words, they express organization-specific allocations of the responsibility to maintain vital capitals at specific, sustainable and sufficient levels. Note that by taking such a step, context-based metrics are also normative. In other words, they express a position on what an organization's performance OUGHT to be in terms of protecting the viability of vital capitals. In the case of context-based metrics, ACTUAL impacts on vital capitals are also expressed, with the actual being compared to the normative in order to reach meaningful performance conclusions. Only context-based metrics do this.
- Science-Based Goals and Metrics -- These are science-based in the sense that they are based on scientific knowledge of how human impacts on vital capitals in the world can affect the status of such resources. In the case of impacts on natural capitals, in particular, they also reflect an understanding of the fact that such capitals are limited and in many cases under threat. What science-based goals and metrics do not do, however, is translate all of that into organization-specific thresholds or allocations against which their actual impacts can be compared. To do that, they would have to be expressive of the carrying capacitites of vital capitals, with related assignments being made to individual organizations. Most science-based goals and metrics, by contrast, are merely incremental or directional -- more of this or less of that, but not necessarily more or less enough to be sustainable. They don't go that far. Note here, as well, that by science we mean to include all of the sciences, not just the biophysical ones. Ethics-Based Goals and Metrics -- These are ethics-based in the sense that they express aspirations or performance in terms of fairness, justice and equity but not in science-based terms. Instead they might be more arbitrary or purely political. If they do express things in terms of science-based thresholds or at least seem to be based on them, then they are not ethics-based at all and should be classified as science-based. Again, science includes the social or soft sciences, not just the biophysical or hard ones. Context-Based Goals and Metrics -- These are science-based goals and metrics that have taken the extra step of determining what an organization's fair and proportionate share of the entitlement or responsibility is for using, preserving, producing and/or maintaining vital capitals in the world. In other words, they express organization-specific allocations of the responsibility to maintain vital capitals at specific, sustainable and sufficient levels. Note that by taking such a step, context-based metrics are also normative. In other words, they express a position on what an organization's performance OUGHT to be in terms of protecting the viability of vital capitals. In the case of context-based metrics, ACTUAL impacts on vital capitals are also expressed, with the actual being compared to the normative in order to reach meaningful performance conclusions. Only context-based metrics do this.
- Science-Based Goals and Metrics -- These are science-based in the sense that they are based on scientific knowledge of how human impacts on vital capitals in the world can affect the status of such resources. In the case of impacts on natural capitals, in particular, they also reflect an understanding of the fact that such capitals are limited and in many cases under threat. What science-based goals and metrics do not do, however, is translate all of that into organization-specific thresholds or allocations against which their actual impacts can be compared. To do that, they would have to be expressive of the carrying capacitites of vital capitals, with related assignments being made to individual organizations. Most science-based goals and metrics, by contrast, are merely incremental or directional -- more of this or less of that, but not necessarily more or less enough to be sustainable. They don't go that far. Note here, as well, that by science we mean to include all of the sciences, not just the biophysical ones. Ethics-Based Goals and Metrics -- These are ethics-based in the sense that they express aspirations or performance in terms of fairness, justice and equity but not in science-based terms. Instead they might be more arbitrary or purely political. If they do express things in terms of science-based thresholds or at least seem to be based on them, then they are not ethics-based at all and should be classified as science-based. Again, science includes the social or soft sciences, not just the biophysical or hard ones. Context-Based Goals and Metrics -- These are science-based goals and metrics that have taken the extra step of determining what an organization's fair and proportionate share of the entitlement or responsibility is for using, preserving, producing and/or maintaining vital capitals in the world. In other words, they express organization-specific allocations of the responsibility to maintain vital capitals at specific, sustainable and sufficient levels. Note that by taking such a step, context-based metrics are also normative. In other words, they express a position on what an organization's performance OUGHT to be in terms of protecting the viability of vital capitals. In the case of context-based metrics, ACTUAL impacts on vital capitals are also expressed, with the actual being compared to the normative in order to reach meaningful performance conclusions. Only context-based metrics do this.
- What makes an “eligible category?” I just took the total number of goals and used that…
- What makes an “eligible category?” I just took the total number of goals and used that…
- NOTE: The Aspirational companies have changed…Noble Group has entered with the pasted goal, and Shell is the same I believe the examples for Science Equivalent are still ok Under Science Equivalent, both were no longer relevant so I changed them
- UPS is now the only company satisfying governance requirement
- Changed “Future qualify” to “May Qualify” as there’s no info on “future qualify” There are now NO companies that have aspirational waste targets so I deleted the whole thing