Calling out sustainability reports

For nerds like me, sustainability reports of companies are pretty exciting things these days. Firstly, they are visually amazing if a bit overdone (see Coca Cola's). Secondly, they're filled with genius representations of all sorts of social and environmental data (see IBM's). And thirdly, every once in a while you'll come across real substantive environmental commitments (see Timberland's).

But a closer look at some of these reports shows just why they make them so visually attractive: because they're full of empty commitments and misleading data. It is a shame. Companies that produce these pieces of art but miss the point are wasting both paper and time.

But it is also an opportunity for consumers to press for more substantive commitments and less green washing. We must begin to call companies out on the content of environmental reports and be vocal about what is and isn't corporate responsibility.

One place to start, I think, is to end the practice of using fractions to show reductions in waste, energy, water, carbon, etc under the name of environmental protection. If companies reduce waste/unit by 10 % but sell 25 % more units, the environment is not being protected, its only being less hurt. To help make this clear, companies should only use net figures, no fractions. They can still point out that the fraction is smaller but must ultimately measure and aim for net reductions.

Here are two fractions that I found with respect to carbon that are clearly misleading:

Baxter healthcare: Baxter has a goal to reduce energy use and associated greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 30 percent per unit of production value compared to 1996 levels.

IBM: Achieve average annual carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions reductions equivalent to four percent of the emissions associated with the company's worldwide annual electricity and fuel use over the six year period from 2000 through 2005.