Newsweek+Newsweek Green Score
2

Newsweek Green Score

Overall green score awarded by Newsweek

Company
Industry
Project
search
Year
Metric value
Filtered answers
1051 Known
+ 0 Unknown
= 1051 Total results
Companies Values
Biogen Idec
2015 = 89.2 /100
Wipro Limited
2012 = 85.4 /100
Shire
2015 = 85.1 /100
Allergan
2015 = 84.2 /100
Reckitt Benckiser Group plc
2015 = 84.1 /100
NTT DOCOMO
2014 = 83.1 /100
Adobe Systems
2015 = 82.6 /100
Unilever
2016 = 81.8 /100
Swisscom
2015 = 81.6 /100
Sigma-Aldrich Corporation
2015 = 81.3 /100
BT Group
2015 = 80.4 /100
Roche Holding
2015 = 80.4 /100
Generali Group
2012 = 80.1 /100
Bell Canada
2012 = 80 /100
NKSJ Holdings
2012 = 79 /100
Atlas Copco
2015 = 79 /100
Telefonica Brasil
2012 = 78.8 /100
NVIDIA
2016 = 78.8 /100
Hershey
2015 = 78.7 /100
Ecolab
2015 = 77.8 /100

Export: csv / json

Designed By
Topics
Metric Type
Researched
Research Policy
Designer Assessed
Report Type
Value Type
Number
Unit:
Range:
100

About

This score is produced by Newsweek as a weighted average of scores for their 8 Key performance Indicators (e.g. Energy Productivity Score, Reputation Score, Sustainability Pay Link, etc.). Yes/No metrics like Sustainability Pay Gap are given scores of 100/0%

Methodology

Companies are scored based on their performance on eight specific indicators. The indicators are described below. A more detailed description of the methodology can be found online here.

Indicator 1: Combined Energy Productivity

Weight: 15%
Methodology: 
In the first step, each company's Energy Productivity is calculated for 2013 (which is the most recently reported period), with Energy Productivity defined as Revenue ($US) / Total Energy Consumption (GJ). Each company’s Energy Productivity is then percent-ranked against that of all Industry Group peers in the CKC research universe and multiplied by 0.75. The Global Industry Classification Standard (GICS) definition of “Industry Group” will be used.

In the second step, the change in each company’s Energy Productivity from 2011-2013 is calculated and percent-ranked against that of all same-Industry Group peers within the CKC research universe. If the company’s percent-ranked 2013 Energy Productivity is top quartile, their percent-ranked change in Energy Productivity for 2011-2013 is multiplied by 1 and then by 0.25. If the company’s percent-ranked 2013 Energy Productivity is second quartile, their percent-ranked change in Energy Productivity for 2011-2013 is multiplied by 0.75 and then by 0.25. If the company’s percent-ranked 2013 Energy Productivity is third quartile, their percent-ranked change in Energy Productivity for 2011-2013 is multiplied by 0.5 and then by 0.25. If the company’s percent-ranked 2013 Energy Productivity is bottom quartile, their percent-ranked change in Energy Productivity for 2011-2013 is multiplied by 0.25 and then by 0.25.

In the third step, the values from the first and second steps are totaled.

Indicator 2: Combined Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Productivity
Weight: 15%
MethodologyIn the first step, each company's GHG Productivity is calculated for 2013, with GHG Productivity defined as Revenue ($US) / Total Greenhouse gas (GHG) Emissions (CO2e). Only Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions are included according to the GHG Protocol. Each company’s GHG Productivity is then percent-ranked against that of all Industry Group peers in the CKC research universe and multiplied by 0.75.

In the second step, the change in each company’s GHG Productivity from 2011-2013 is calculated and percent-ranked against that of all same-industry group peers within the CKC research universe. If the company’s percent-ranked 2013 GHG Productivity is top quartile, their percent-ranked change in GHG Productivity for 2011-2013 is multiplied by 1 and then by 0.25. If the company’s percent-ranked 2013 GHG Productivity is second quartile, their percent-ranked change in GHG Productivity for 2011-2013 is multiplied by 0.75 and then by 0.25. If the company’s percent-ranked 2013 GHG Productivity is third quartile, their percent-ranked change in GHG Productivity for 2011-2013 is multiplied by 0.5 and then by 0.25. If the company’s percent-ranked 2013 GHG Productivity is bottom quartile, their percent-ranked change in GHG Productivity for 2011-2013 is multiplied by 0.25 and then by 0.25.

In the third step, the values from the first and second steps are totaled and then multiplied by 0.9.

In the fourth step, if the company disclosed Scope 3 GHG emissions in 2013, a score of 100 percent is attributed and then multiplied by 0.1. Otherwise, a score of 0 percent is given.

In the final step, the scores from the third and fourth steps are added.

Indicator 3: Combined Water Productivity
Weight: 15%
Methodology: In the first step, each company's Water Productivity is calculated for 2013. Water Productivity is defined as Revenue ($US) / Total water use (m3). Each company’s Water Productivity is then percent-ranked against that of all Industry Group peers in the CKC research universe and multiplied by 0.75.

In the second step, the change in each company’s Water Productivity from 2011-2013 is calculated and percent-ranked against that of all same-industry group peers within the CKC research universe. If the company’s percent-ranked 2013 Water Productivity is top quartile, their percent-ranked change in Water Productivity for 2011-2013 is multiplied by 1 and then by 0.25. If the company’ percent-ranked 2013 Water Productivity is second quartile, their percent-ranked change in Water Productivity for 2011-2013 is multiplied by 0.75 and then by 0.25. If the company’s percent-ranked 2013 Water Productivity is third quartile, their percent-ranked change in Water Productivity for 2011-2013 is multiplied by 0.5 and then by 0.25. If the company’s percent-ranked 2013 Water Productivity is bottom quartile, their percent-ranked change in Water Productivity for 2011- 2013 is multiplied by 0.25 and then by 0.25.

the third step, the values from the first and second steps are totaled.

Indicator 4: Combined Waste Productivity
Weight: 15%
Methodology: In the first step, each company's Waste Productivity is calculated for 2013. Waste Productivity is defined as Revenue ($US) / [Total waste generated (metric tonnes) – waste recycled/reused (metric tonnes)]. Each company’s Waste Productivity is then percent-ranked against that of all Industry Group peers in the CKC research universe and multiplied by 0.75.

In the second step, the change in each company’s Waste Productivity from 2011-2013 is calculated and percent-ranked against that of all same-industry group peers within the CKC research universe. If the company’s percent-ranked 2013 Waste Productivity is top quartile, their percent-ranked change in Waste Productivity for 2011-2013 is multiplied by 1 and then by 0.25. If the company’s percent-ranked 2013 Waste Productivity is second quartile, their percent-ranked change in Waste Productivity for 2011-2013 is multiplied by 0.75 and then by 0.25. If the company’s percent-ranked 2013 Waste Productivity is third quartile, their percent-ranked change in Waste Productivity for 2011-2013 is multiplied by 0.5 and then by 0.25. If the company’s percent-ranked 2013 Waste Productivity is bottom quartile, their percent-ranked change in Waste Productivity for 2011- 2013 is multiplied by 0.25 and then by 0.25.

In the third step, the values from the first and second steps are totaled.

Indicator 5: Green Revenue Score
Weight: 20%
Methodology

The Green Revenue Score is calculated by HIP Investor.

The Green Revenue Score is obtained by breaking down a given company’s revenue into its various segments (according to its FTSE Industry Classification Benchmark, a widely used standard for listed companies) to determine the percentage of a company's revenue that is green — i.e., derived from products and services that contribute positively to environmental sustainability and societal health.

For example, if Company A’s revenue is broken down as Medical Equipment (60 percent) and Pharmaceuticals (40 percent) and the Segment Green Rating for Medical Equipment is 0.75 and Pharmaceuticals is 0.7, Company A’s Green Revenue Score is (60 percent x 0.75 + 40 percent x 0.7) = 73 percent.

Indicator 6: Green Pay Link
Weight:
10%
Methodology: Mechanisms that link senior executive pay to corporate environmental performance. Yes =10 percent. No = 0 percent.

Indicator 7: Sustainability Board Committee
Weight: 5%
Methodology: A committee at the Board of Directors level whose mandate is related to the sustainability of the company, including but not limited to environmental matters. Yes =10 percent. No = 0 percent.

Indicator 8: Audited Environmental Metrics
Weight: 5%
Methodology: Audit of 2013 environmental metrics by a third party. Yes =10 percent. No = 0 percent.

Bulk Import