Back by popular demand, this workshop will introduce attendees to the practice of context-based sustainability (CBS) – a cutting-edge approach to measurement, management and reporting that interprets performance relative to social and ecological thresholds. Speakers will examine the stakeholder-centric orientation of CBS, its focus on multiple capitals, its grounding in science- and norm-based standards, as well as its practical implications for materiality, goal setting, and reporting. Notable case studies in CBS and its growing influence in international standards (GRI, IIRC, GISR, etc.) will also be discussed.

1. Taking Sustainability Literally: Introduction to
Context-Based Sustainability
Mark McElroy, Center for Sustainable Organization @mwmce
Jeff Gowdy, J. Gowdy Consulting @JGowdyConsult

2. An Introduction to Context-Based Sustainability
& the MultiCapital Scorecard™
Mark W. McElroy, Ph.D.
Center for Sustainable Organizations
and Thomas & McElroy LLC
NM’14
September 24, 2014
Taking Sustainability Literally

3. • 1:30-2:30 – Introduction to Context-Based
Sustainability (CBS)
– Core Principles of CBS
• 2:30-3:00 – BREAK
• 3:00-3:40 – Introduction to CBS (cont.)
– The MultiCapital Scorecard™
• 3:40-4:30 – Pivot Goals Group Exercise
Our Agenda
1Copyright
©
2014
Mark
W.
McElroy,
Ph.D.

4. • A compelling new CSM doctrine that competes
with others, e.g.:
– Eco-efficiency
– CSR (social only)
– Shared Value (financial primacy)
– Citizenship (GE)
• CBS is an approach to CSM that takes social,
economic and ecological thresholds in the world
explicitly into account – a science-based approach
• Triple Bottom Line in scope
What is CBS?
2Copyright
©
2014
Mark
W.
McElroy,
Ph.D.

5. • Vital Capitals
– Thresholds
– Carrying Capacity
• Sustainability Standards of Performance
– Stakeholders
– Materiality
– Allocations
• Context-Based Metrics
Core Principles of CBS (Theory)
3Copyright
©
2014
Mark
W.
McElroy,
Ph.D.

6. Vital Capitals

7. • CBS is capital-based
– Sustainability performance is a function of what an
organization’s impacts on vital capitals are
– To be sustainable, an organization must not put
either vital capitals or the well-being of those who
depend on them at risk
• Arguably the dominant theory of sustainability
– In the literature
– And now in standards (IIRC, GISR, WWF/WRI GHG
Protocol, others)
Vital Capitals
5Copyright
©
2014
Mark
W.
McElroy,
Ph.D.

8. Vital Capitals and the Triple Bottom Line
6Copyright
©
2014
Mark
W.
McElroy,
Ph.D.

9. Capital Theory and Sustainability
7
Available flows of
valuable goods
and services
(carrying capacity)
Appropriations of
goods and services by
people who need them
Resulting levels
of human
well-being
Source: McElroy, 2008
Stocks of natural capital
Stocks of human capital
Stocks of social capital
Stocks of constructed capital
Copyright
©
2014
Mark
W.
McElroy,
Ph.D.
Stocks of economic capital

10. Vital Capitals
- Thresholds

11. The
world’s
first
Sustainability
Threshold
An
example
featuring
thresholds
in
natural
capital:
Ecological
Footprint
Source:
World
Wildlife
Fund,
2012
Number
of
Planet
Earths
Year
when
performance
first
became
unsustainable
Context-­‐
based
measure
Gaps
Copyright
©
2014
Mark
W.
McElroy,
Ph.D.
9

12. Source:
A
Safe
Operating
Space
for
Humanity,
Rocktröm
et
al,
Nature,
Vol.
46,
24
September,
2009
Copyright
©
2014
Mark
W.
McElroy,
Ph.D.
10

13. Source:
A
Safe
and
Just
Space
for
Humanity,
K.
Raworth,
Oxfam,
Feb.
2012
Copyright
©
2014
Mark
W.
McElroy,
Ph.D.
11

14. Vital Capitals
- Carrying Capacity

15. • Vital capitals are limited in supply
– Some are in fixed supply & non-renewable
– Some are naturally renewable or else are human-
made and must be continuously reproduced
• The volume of demand that a supply of capital
can support is call its carrying capacity
• To be sustainable, an organization must not put either
the carrying capacities of vital capitals or the well-
being of those who depend on them at risk
The Carrying Capacities of Capitals
13Copyright
©
2014
Mark
W.
McElroy,
Ph.D.

16. Related Article of Interest
14
http://www.greenbiz.com/blog/2013/06/18/carrying-­‐capacities-­‐capitals
Copyright
©
2014
Mark
W.
McElroy,
Ph.D.

17. Glossary of Key Terms in CBS
• Vital capitals are stocks of natural, human, social, constructed and
economic resources and their flows of goods and services that people rely
on for their well-being.
15Copyright
©
2014
Mark
W.
McElroy,
Ph.D.

18. Sustainability Standards of
Performance
- Stakeholders

19. • CBS (and sustainability) is fundamentally about
not putting vital capitals or stakeholder well-
being at risk
– CSM amounts to capital impact management!
• The identity of stakeholders and the
corresponding duties and obligations
organizations have to manage their impacts on
vital capitals are core to CBS
• So let’s first define what we mean by
stakeholders …
Stakeholder Well-Being
17Copyright
©
2014
Mark
W.
McElroy,
Ph.D.

20. Glossary of Key Terms in CBS
• Vital capitals are stocks of natural, human, social, constructed and
financial resources and their flows of goods and services that people rely
on for their well-being.
• A stakeholder is anyone to whom a duty or obligation is owed by an
organization to have, not have or manage its impacts on vital capitals in
ways that can affect their well-being.
18Copyright
©
2014
Mark
W.
McElroy,
Ph.D.

21. Sustainability Standards of
Performance
- Materiality

22. • Materiality is about what the scope of a CSM
program (and its reports) should be
• The CBS approach to materiality:
– Is capital- and stakeholder-based
– All impacts on vital capitals owed to “formal”
stakeholders are included (formal obligations)
– All impacts on vital capitals that affect the well-
being of “non-formal” stakeholders are also
included (natural duties)
– No other impacts are included!
Materiality in CBS
20Copyright
©
2014
Mark
W.
McElroy,
Ph.D.

23. Glossary of Key Terms in CBS
• Vital capitals are stocks of natural, human, social, constructed and
financial resources and their flows of goods and services that people rely
on for their well-being.
• A stakeholder is anyone to whom a duty or obligation is owed by an
organization to have, not have or manage its impacts on vital capitals in
ways that can affect their well-being.
• A duty is a behavioral norm owed by one person or group to another that
is independent of any contractual or voluntary commitment. Duties are
natural and non-discretionary in this regard.
21Copyright
©
2014
Mark
W.
McElroy,
Ph.D.

24. Glossary of Key Terms in CBS
• Vital capitals are stocks of natural, human, social, constructed and
financial resources and their flows of goods and services that people rely
on for their well-being.
• A stakeholder is anyone to whom a duty or obligation is owed by an
organization to have, not have or manage its impacts on vital capitals in
ways that can affect their well-being.
• A duty is a behavioral norm owed by one person or group to another that
is independent of any contractual or voluntary commitment. Duties are
natural and non-discretionary in this regard.
• An obligation is a behavioral norm owed by one person or group to
another that arises from a contractual or voluntary commitment.
Obligations are self-imposed and discretionary in this regard.
22Copyright
©
2014
Mark
W.
McElroy,
Ph.D.

25. Glossary of Key Terms in CBS
• Vital capitals are stocks of natural, human, social, constructed and
financial resources and their flows of goods and services that people rely
on for their well-being.
• A stakeholder is anyone to whom a duty or obligation is owed by an
organization to have, not have or manage its impacts on vital capitals in
ways that can affect their well-being.
• A duty is a behavioral norm owed by one person or group to another that
is independent of any contractual or voluntary commitment. Duties are
natural and non-discretionary in this regard.
• An obligation is a behavioral norm owed by one person or group to
another that arises from a contractual or voluntary commitment.
Obligations are self-imposed and discretionary in this regard.
• An organization’s actions (or inactions) are material if they can, do or
should have impacts on vital capitals in ways that can affect stakeholder
well-being.
23Copyright
©
2014
Mark
W.
McElroy,
Ph.D.

26. Materiality Template
24Copyright
©
2014
Mark
W.
McElroy,
Ph.D.

27. Sustainability Standards of
Performance
- Allocations
25

28. • Hallmark of CBS is its assignment of
organization-specific allocations of vital capitals
to either use or continuously produce and/or
maintain them
– Fair and proportionate
– Reflective of other parties, if any, who rely on the
same capitals for their well-being
– Reflective of other parties who may be co-
responsible for the same capitals
– Reflective of already existing standards of
performance, if any
The Allocation Issue in CBS
26Copyright
©
2014
Mark
W.
McElroy,
Ph.D.

29. The Elements of Susty Context
27Copyright
©
2014
Mark
W.
McElroy,
Ph.D.

30. • Are expressed in terms of fair and proportionate
organization-specific allocations of capital
resources or responsibilities to preserve, produce
and/or maintain them
• Determined by reference to sustainability context
(previous slide) and related capital thresholds
– Thresholds + Allocations = Stds of Performance
• Expressed in terms of individual and material
areas of impact (AOIs):
– e.g., water use, GHG emissions, product safety,
workplace safety, livable wages, etc.
In Sum: Standards of Performance
28Copyright
©
2014
Mark
W.
McElroy,
Ph.D.

31. Context-Based Metrics
29

32. • Different CSM doctrines come with different
approaches to measurement
– Eco-efficiency (Relative or Intensity Metrics)
– CSR and Shared Value (Absolute Metrics)
– CBS (Context-Based Metrics)
• Context-Based metrics are:
– Capital-Based (focus is on capital impacts)
– Thresholds-Based (carrying capacities)
– Normative (define sustainability standards of
performance, or allocations, for individual
organizations that must be fulfilled)
Context-Based Metrics
30Copyright
©
2014
Mark
W.
McElroy,
Ph.D.

33. Context-Based Metrics
31
A General Specification for Context-Based Metrics
S =
A
N
(Actual impacts on a vital capital)
(Normative impacts on a vital capital)
For impacts on natural capital, all scores of < 1.0 are sustainable; > 1.0 unsustainable
For impacts on other capitals, all scores of > 1.0 or sustainable; < 1.0 unsustainable
Copyright
©
2014
Mark
W.
McElroy,
Ph.D.

34. • Science-Based: Grounded in the sciences (any),
but with no organization-specific allocations
defined; or if so, they are Context-Based
• Ethics-Based: Grounded in principles of justice,
fairness, or equity, but with no organization-
specific allocations defined; or if so, they are
Context-Based
• Context-Based: Science- or Ethics-Based and
which also includes organization-specific alloca-
tions or standards of performance expressed in
terms of (or tied to) the carrying capacities of
vital capitals
A Typology of Goals and Metrics
32Copyright
©
2014
Mark
W.
McElroy,
Ph.D.

35. Quick Illustrations
33
CSO’s
Context-­‐Based
Carbon
Metric
World’s 1st
Context-Based
Carbon Metric!
Science-­‐Based
Targets
Copyright
©
2014
Mark
W.
McElroy,
Ph.D.

36. Quick Illustrations (cont.)
34Copyright
©
2014
Mark
W.
McElroy,
Ph.D.

37. The MultiCapital Scorecard™
35

38. • A new, structured and more fully elaborated
implementation of CBS developed by Thomas &
McElroy LLC over the past two and half years
– Goes beyond original focus of CBS (social and
environmental impacts) and addresses context-
based financial management as well
– World’s first context-based TBL method
• Codifies all aspects of practicing CBS
– Work steps and method
– Standardized reports
The MultiCapital Scorecard™
36Copyright
©
2014
Mark
W.
McElroy,
Ph.D.

39. The CSM Cycle
37
Source:
McElroy
and
Van
Engelen,
2012
Copyright
©
2014
Mark
W.
McElroy,
Ph.D.

40. Recall the Materiality Template
38Copyright
©
2014
Mark
W.
McElroy,
Ph.D.

41. Sample
Stakeholder
Identification
and
Areas
of
Impact
Report
Copyright
©
2014
Mark
W.
McElroy,
Ph.D.
39

42. Sample
Annual
MultiCapital
Scorecard™
Report
(Abridged)
Copyright
©
2014
Mark
W.
McElroy,
Ph.D.
40

43. 41
Sample
Multi-­‐Year,
Multi-­‐Bottom
Line
Performance
Report
Copyright
©
2014
Mark
W.
McElroy,
Ph.D.

44. • One reason only:
– You care about whether or not your organization is
sustainable and you want to measure and manage
performance in those terms
• No other way to assess the sustainability
performance of an organization
• Not just about non-financial performance, either
– Now possible to address financial performance in
these terms, too, in an integrated way
– MultiCapital Scorecard™
Final Thought: Why Embrace CBS?
42Copyright
©
2014
Mark
W.
McElroy,
Ph.D.

45. Thank you!
43
Mark W. McElroy, Ph.D.
mmcelroy@vermontel.net
www.sustainableorganizations.org
www.multicapitalscorecard.com
Copyright
©
2014
Mark
W.
McElroy,
Ph.D.

46. PivotGoals Data
The ESG and science-based targets of the world’s largest companies
Jeff Gowdy
Representing PivotGoals.com, a project of Winston Eco-Strategies

47. THE BIG PIVOT STRATEGIES
BUILD A RESILIENT COMPANY
VISION PIVOT
Fight short-termism
Set science-based goals
Pursue heretical innovation
VALUATION PIVOT
Change incentives & engage
Redefine ROI
Value natural capital
PARTNER PIVOT
nspire customers to use less
Collaborate radically
Become a lobbyist
Copyright ©, Andrew Winston, The Big Pivot, 2014

49. PwC Low Carbon Economy Index
How deep does the
change need to be?

50. Pivot Goals:
The Global Fortune 300’s Sustainability Goals
PivotGoals.com Search Criteria:
•Keyword search
• Company Name, Goals (e.g., search for “net zero” or “deforestation”)
•Database screen (checkbox)
• Focus Area: 29 that cover ESG, (e.g. “Climate”, “Water”, Human
rights”)
• Macro-Industry (“Commodities”)
• Micro-Industry (“Metals”)
• Value Chain (“End of Life”)
• Goal Type, (“Specific & Dated”)
• Absolute/Intensity
Results snapshot

51. Focus Areas Tracked
Biophysical
• Climate/GHG
• Energy
• Renewables
• Buildings
• Fuel
• Distribution
• Air
• Water
• Waste
Note: Calculations as of Sep.2014; results change as new data is loaded
Social
• Safety
• Employees
• Women
• Community
• Human Rights
• Health &
Wellness
• Philanthropy
Process
• Governance
• Compliance/Stan
dards
• Transparency
• Packaging
• Toxics
• Ocean
• Biodiversity
• Land Use
• Forest
• Food&Ag
• Mining

52. Overall results from PivotGoals.com*
• 150 of the Fortune 200 (75%) have sustainability goals
• About 2,000 goals (nearly 4,000 in full database)
• Goals tracked are specific and…
– Time-bound (dated): 79%
– Undated: 14%
– Achieved: 7%
• 84% are absolute vs. 16% relative/intensity goals
• Value chain focus is…
– Supply chain: 15% (54% of companies)
– Operations: 69% (98% of companies)
– Use phase: 15% (50% of companies)
– End-of-life: 3% (23% of companies)
• Companies set the most goals on…
– Climate/GHG: 75% of the 150 companies
– Energy: 64%
– Compliance/Standards: 59%
– Community (Catch-all): 54%
– Waste: 52%
Note: Calculations as of Sep.2014; results change as new data is loaded

53. We Like Round Numbers – When Goals
Are Due
Note: Calculations as of Sep.2014; results change as new data is loaded
Number
of
Goals

54. Portion of Companies Setting
Goals for…
(Biophysical)
9

55. Portion of Companies Setting Goals for…
(Social & Process)
10

56. Definitions
•Science-based - 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.
•Ethics-based - 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.
•Context-based - These are science-based or ethics-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.
•None – These are goals that do not satisfy any of the above definitions.
Note: Calculations as of Sep.2014; results change as new data is loaded

57. Science-equiv. and Ethics Goals results from
PivotGoals• 2 categories…
– Science-equivalent: what external thresholds would demand for some
large part of the business (not full value-chain)
• GHG, Energy, Renewables, Air, Water, Waste, Packaging, Toxics, Biodiversity, Land
Use, Forest, Food & Ag, Health & Wellness
– Ethics-equivalent: moral, ethical, or based on flourishing model, but not
technically ‘science-based’
• Governance, Safety, Employees, Human Rights
• Of 1,621 goals in eligible categories…
– 155 (10%) Science-equivalent (only a few explicitly science-based)
– 67 (4%) Ethics-equivalent
– 29 (2%) Aspirational (Meet criteria, but undated)
– 60 (4%) May qualify, but not enough data (e.g., no baseline)
• 105 of the 150 companies have at least 1 qualifying goal
– 20 goals Unilever
– 10 Nestle
– 9 Maersk, Panasonic
– 7 P&G, Woolworths
– 5 Intel, PTT, Walmart, Kroger, Tesco
– 4 Honda, Nissan, Ford, UT, Samsung, Carrefour
Note: Calculations as of Sep.2014; results change as new data is loaded

58. “Science-Based” Goals: GHG and Renewables
GHG: 3% absolute or 6% intensity improvement per year
• Science-equivalent (50 companies)
– Tesco: Become a zero carbon business by 2050
– Unilever: Halve the GHG impact of our products across the lifecycle by 2020
– Volkswagen: Reduce GHGs in the supply of energy to production facilities in
Germany by 40% by 2020 (vs. 2010)
– Microsoft: Become carbon neutral for data centers, software development labs,
office, and employee air travel (Achieved)
• Aspirational (5 companies)
– Honda: Bring well-to-wheel CO2 emissions down to zero
– Shell: End continuous flaring in Nigeria
Renewables: Similar pace of change or 100% goal
• Science-equivalent (6 companies)
– Deutsche Bahn: Achieve rail transport that is CO2-free and powered by
renewables by 2050
– P&G: Increase use of renewable energy in our plants to 30% by 2020
• Aspirational (8 companies)
– Walmart, Apple, Nestle, Unilever, BMW, P&G: 100% renewables
Note: Calculations as of Sep.2014; results change as new data is loaded

59. 205
0
Open204
0
2013
100% Renewables Goals, via…
2015 2020
U.S.

60. 205
0
Open204
0
30%
reduction in
energy
consumption
25% less
energy in
operations
(by 2018)
2013
Operational Energy Efficiency Goals
2015 2020
Improve
energy
intensity of
operations
by 50%
Reduce
electricity
consumption vs.
data/network
growth by 60%
(2014)
4x reduction
in energy
consumption
in offices
Reduce
energy
per unit
by 50%

61. 205
0
Open
Increase
energy
efficiency of
notebook
computers and
data center
products 25X
40%
reduction in
average
product
power
consumption
Reduce energy
intensity of
product portfolio
by 80%
Reduce annual
per-product energy
consumption
by 30%
2013
Product Energy Efficiency Goals
2015 2020
Reduce CO2
emissions for
the European
new car fleet
by 30%
Reduce "well-
to-wheel" CO2
emissions for
new vehicles
by 90%
NISSAN

62. “Ethics” Goals: Governance, Safety, Employees,
Human Rights
Governance (multiple areas like zero corruption, 100% transparency)
• (2 companies)
– Toyota: Zero regulatory violations for manufacturing and logistics sites
(ongoing)
Safety (zero injuries/fatalities, or certification for all facilities)
• (39 companies)
– Dow: No accidents and no injuries by 2015
Employees (100% living wage, health coverage, wellness, or other similar)
• (11 companies)
– Electricite de France: Ensure equal pay for female employees
Human Rights (Zero violations of some criteria)
• ( 2 companies)
– Microsoft: Support industry efforts to identify, reduce, and ultimately
eliminate conflict minerals from the technology supply
Note: Calculations as of Sep.2014; results change as new data is loaded

63. Context-based Goals, example
• Tesco: Become a zero carbon business by 2050
• Dow: No accidents and no injuries by 2015
• Note: PivotGoals analysis not available on Context-based
Note: Calculations as of Sep.2014; results change as new data is loaded

64. Group Exercise
Time: 20+ Minutes
Directions:
* Break into groups of 4-5
* You will receive a list of PivotGoals from the Fortune 500
* As a group, determine if the goal is…
a.) Context-based
b.) Science-based
c.) Ethics-based
d.) None of the above
* Then, if you finish early, review the “None” goals and discuss what you would
change to make it clearly Science, Ethics or Context-based
* We will then have groups present their findings to the audience
* Discussion

65. 16
Group Exercise
Company Goal
Apple Apple is committed to using conflict-free minerals
BP Invest $8 billion in alternative energies (From 2005)
Bridgestone Contribute to the globally-agreed target of reducing CO2 emission by at least 50%
Chevron Incorporate biodiversity considerations into the evaluations and decisions regarding our capital projects
Daimler Increase the share of women to 40% for CAReer hirings at the Daimler Group by 2015
Exxon Mobil Continue to further reduce freshwater use
Fiat (EXOR Group) Up to -20% vs 2009 in waste generated per unit value at Group plants worldwide by 2014
Ford Motor Serious injuries target is zero; overall goal is to attain industry competitive lost-time and DART levels
General Motors Double the number of U.S. highway models that can achieve an EPA-estimated 40 MPG highway or better.
Kroger Source 100% of top 20 wild-caught species from fisheries that are MSC certified or engaged in WWF fishery
improvement project by 2015
Lloyds Banking 30% reduction in energy consumption (excludes IT Data Centres and use of oil as a fuel) by 2020
Nestle 100% of children’s products (sales value) meeting the Nestle Nutritional Foundation sugars criterion by 2014
Royal Bank of Canada Commit $175,000 over two years to the Canadian Foundation for Economic Education (CFEE) workshops
Samsung Reduce GHG emissions intensity (metric tonnes CO2 per KRW 100 million) by 50% vs. 2008 by 2013
Samsung Reduce 3% of the water use per production unit (vs. 2011)
Sears Holdings Encourage vendors to reduce or eliminate their use of PVC in merchandise and packaging
Total Employ 18% women senior executives by 2015
Unilever Source tea in all Lipton tea bags from Rainforest Alliance Certified estates by 2015
Wal-Mart Stores Reduce packaging by 5% globally
Wesfarmers Recycle 30% by weight of television and computer equipment imported or manufactured in the previous year

66. Groupwork Results/ Our Interpretation
Company Goal Gowdy McElroy
Apple Apple is committed to using conflict-free minerals
Ethics Ethics
BP Invest $8 billion in alternative energies (From 2005)
None Science
Bridgestone Contribute to the globally-agreed target of reducing CO2 emission by at least 50%
Science Science
Chevron Incorporate biodiversity considerations into the evaluations and decisions regarding our capital
projects None Science
Daimler Increase the share of women to 40% for CAReer hirings at the Daimler Group by 2015
Ethics Ethics
Exxon Mobil Continue to further reduce freshwater use None None
Fiat (EXOR Group) Up to -20% vs 2009 in waste generated per unit value at Group plants worldwide by 2014
None Science
Ford Motor Serious injuries target is zero; overall goal is to attain industry competitive lost-time and DART
levels Context Context
General Motors Double the number of U.S. highway models that can achieve an EPA-estimated 40 MPG
highway or better. None Science
Kroger Source 100% of top 20 wild-caught species from fisheries that are MSC certified or engaged in
WWF fishery improvement project by 2015 Science Science
Lloyds Banking 30% reduction in energy consumption (excludes IT Data Centres and use of oil as a fuel) by 2020
Context Context
Nestle 100% of children’s products (sales value) meeting the Nestle Nutritional Foundation sugars
criterion by 2014 Science Context
Royal Bank of Canada Commit $175,000 over two years to the Canadian Foundation for Economic Education (CFEE)
workshops None None
Samsung Reduce GHG emissions intensity (metric tonnes CO2 per KRW 100 million) by 50% vs. 2008 by
2013 Context Context
Samsung Reduce 3% of the water use per production unit (vs. 2011) None None
Sears Holdings Encourage vendors to reduce or eliminate their use of PVC in merchandise and packaging None Ethics
Total Employ 18% women senior executives by 2015 Ethics Ethics
Unilever Source tea in all Lipton tea bags from Rainforest Alliance Certified estates by 2015
Science Science
Wal-Mart Stores Reduce packaging by 5% globally None Science
Wesfarmers Recycle 30% by weight of television and computer equipment imported or manufactured in the
previous year None Science

67. Additional: “Science-Based” Goals: Water
and Waste
Water: “Water-neutral”, “watershed”, “water stress”
•Science-equivalent (~1 company)
– Maersk: Zero oil spills overboard
– Coca-Cola, fyi (not in Fortune 200): Replenish 100% of water used
(water neutral)
•Future Fit (2 companies)
– Posco: Build zero discharge system by 2015
•Aspirational (2 companies)
– Saint-Gobain: Zero industrial liquid discharge
Waste: Zero target (up to 1% landfill/other)
•Science-equivalent (16 companies)
– Intel: Zero chemical waste to landfill by 2020
– Walmart: Eliminate landfill waste from US stores and Sam’s Club by
2025
•Aspirational (7 companies)
– PepsiCo: Eliminate solid waste to landfills from production facilities
– Maersk: Safely recycle all our ships at the end of their service life
Note: Calculations as of Sep.2014; results change as new data is loaded

68. Additional: “Science-Based” Goals:
Forests, Food, HealthForests (zero deforestation, large certified target)
•Science-equivalent (10 companies)
– Woolworths: Achieve zero net deforestation through consumer goods supply
chain…by 2020
– Bank of America: 100% of paper sourced from certified forests
•Aspirational (3 companies)
– Wesfarmers: Zero tolerance approach to illegal timber in supply chain.
Independent verification of legal origin for all products made completely from
tropical hardwoods
Food & Ag: All sustainability sourced (certified/3rd party where
possible)
•Science-equivalent (10 companies)
– Tesco: Use 100% certified sustainable palm oil in all UK-own brand products by
2015
•Aspirational (3 companies)
– Woolworths: All wild-caught seafood sourced from MSC standard fisheries
Health & Wellness (dietary standards for products, other wellness
goals)
•Science-equivalent (2 companies)
– Unilever: Reduce salt levels in products by a further 15-20% on average to meet
target of 5g of salt per day by 2020
•Future Fit (10 companies) Note: Calculations as of Sep.2014; results change as new data is loaded

69. Additional: “Science-Based” Goals
Big questions about screening for “science-based”
• Based on what? Whose thresholds are we
relying on?
• Is there “science” on social areas?
• Should it “count” if it’s just a “four walls” goal, or
does it need to be value chain?
• Today vs. ultimately?
• How big a part of the business should qualify?
• 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?
Note: Calculations as of Sep.2014; results change as new data is loaded

70. www.SustainableBrands.com