Apple Welcomes Lisa Jackson to Address Environmental Policy

In an ongoing effort to reduce the company’s environmental impact, Apple recently hired former Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Lisa Jackson as vice president of environmental initiatives. During her 25 years with the EPA, Jackson fought for more air quality regulations and campaigned for greater jurisdiction of the agency. Jackson’s expertise in the field will be welcome at Apple, which has been striving for more environmentally sustainable business practices under the leadership of Tim Cook.

In recent years, Apple has been criticized by several “green” advocacy groups for the company’s lack of supply chain transparency. Apple responded by publishing its incriminating Supplier Responsibility Progress Report for 2013. The release of the report earned Apple much acclaim for its transparency, but did raise many questions regarding the numerous violations. Over 100 of Apple’s 400 suppliers failed to recycle or properly dispose of potentially hazardous waste, and over 120 of the facilities failed to properly monitor air emissions. The list of environmental misconducts continues, and the report also acknowledges 11 factories employing 106 underage workers. Releasing the report was a step in the right direction for the company, but the violations still need to be addressed.

Apple CEO Tim Cook plans to confront the company’s environmental impacts. Since taking over for Steve Jobs in 2011, Cook has propelled Apple to address the company’s environmental effects. Environmental issues have received greater importance within the company in recent years, and Cook has made new commitments to work with suppliers to reduce their environmental impacts. Apple’s new supply chain transparency is only part of the commitment the company has made. Apple facilities, some of which were previously run on coal power, now run on about 75% renewable energy, and the company has set a goal of procuring 100% of its energy from clean energy sources.

Jackson’s experience combating dirty energy and toxic waste will add to the environmental movement happening at Apple. A chemical engineer by trade, she is well versed in these causes of global warming. But, her job description includes only environmental impacts, and includes nothing about the social impacts in the supply chain. The addition of Jackson should reduce Apple’s use of fossil fuels and hazardous chemicals, but it still remains unseen if (and how much) the former EPA Administrator will affect Apple’s social policy.

Do you think Apple made a good move in hiring Jackson? Do you think she will add value to the company’s holistic sustainability efforts, and not just the environmental impacts? Let us know!

–Patrick Dowling

Original news credited to Business Green and Triple Pundit

What is a Sustainability Report? What is a GRI Report? What is the Difference?

In a recent blog post, Dilemma of GRI Reporting Stats in the US – Needs Grain of Salt?, Prizma does a nice job articulating the uncertainty about what counts as an “official” GRI report and challenges the reader to categorize what they consider to be borderline cases (Apple, Cummins and Yum) as either “GRI-Referenced” or “a GRI Report”.  Prizma has raised a provocative question and I agree that some clarity is needed.  This is a concern about which I have given a great deal thought ever since BrownFlynn’s adjunct trainer Steve Voien raised it during one of our GRI-Certified training courses last year.

They key question is this: When does a sustainability report become a GRI report?

BrownFlynn’s answer: A sustainability report becomes a GRI report when an Application Level is declared.

In order to understand why we came to this, I need to point out some key components of the GRI Framework that are important to keep in mind when discussing this topic – the GRI Profile Disclosures, GRI Disclosure on Management Approach and the implicit quality controls that GRI has in place for those who declare an Application Level.

These important differences (discussed in our recent whitepaper GRI Application Levels: Why Strive for an A?) lead me to call all three of Prizma’s borderline cases (Apple, Cummins and Yum) “GRI Referenced”–i.e., not a GRI report.  Why?  Because none of these three reports disclose even the minimum stakeholder engagement and materiality analysis required to declare a GRI Application Level.

Never mind the number of indicators…the reason why GRI reporting is an “upgrade” from other CSR responsibility reporting is because of the internal discussions that are prompted during pursuit of a GRI Application Level (especially Level A or B).  We find that the pursuit of an Application Level prompts internal discussions that improve governance, attention to key impacts, sustainability policies, procedures, training strategy, goals, internal controls and ultimately sustainability performance.

Producing a “GRI Referenced” report is simply a matter of adding an index that cross references to any number and set of GRI metrics (and usually only to indicators).  But producing a report with an Application Level requires demonstration of sustainability management strategies, which seems to be exactly what we want in an “official” GRI report.

My advice: If you want to know whether a given report is an “official” GRI report, search for the term “Application Level” instead of “GRI”.  If you find that an Application Level is declared (A, B or C), then you can be certain that the company has committed to report or explain a certain standard set of disclosures.  Without an Application Level, you just don’t know what to expect, regardless of how many times the word “GRI” shows up in the report.

Apple Should Take a Bite at Sustainability Reporting.

Not long ago, Apple was on the front line of keeping up with their competitors at trying to be the greenest electronics company. When Apple became the first electronics company to eliminate PVC plastic and brominated flame retardants (BRF’s) the world noticed that they were taking steps to become among the most environmentally conscious in their industry. Apple’s recent activity, however, would suggest they are lagging behind their competitors in their commitment to sustainability. Apple is actively opposing two shareholder petitions to embrace sustainability reporting.

Sustainability reports are one of the most important ways businesses can transparently demonstrate their commitment to sustainability. Without them, key stakeholders, including shareholders, customers and suppliers, can’t be sure whether the company can support its sustainability claims.

Michael Muyot, President of CRD Analytics, recently analyzed and compared environmental, social, governance and financial metrics contained in sustainability reports of the leading electronics companies. According to Muyot, IBM is considered a “champion” in environmental and governance because of their unfailing transparency, while HP scored highest in social performance. According to Muyot, “HP boasted a strong social performance score due to robust social policies and above industry average performance on workplace safety and employment creation metrics.” Apple ranked below Dell in all categories.

While Apple has strong financial performance, shareholders and other interested stakeholders, it has a great opportunity to reignite its early commitment to sustainability and at the same time elevate its sustainability performance.

– Ellen Stock.