[500DISTRO] The Scientific Method: How to Design & Track Viral Growth Experim...
Ähnlich wie Science-based Goal-setting as the Holy Grail of Managing Non-Financial Performance: The Future-Fit Business Benchmark and PivotGoals Jeff Gowdy
Goodyear's Guide To Lean Product Development - Dozuki Workshop SeriesDozuki Software
Ähnlich wie Science-based Goal-setting as the Holy Grail of Managing Non-Financial Performance: The Future-Fit Business Benchmark and PivotGoals Jeff Gowdy (20)
Call In girls Connaught Place (DELHI)⇛9711147426🔝Delhi NCR
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
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
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
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
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?
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
Hinweis der Redaktion
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