regionals like Booths and Budgens, as well as the frozen food and discount retailers.
We looked for a number of basic indicators: a published report within the last two years; dated, quantified future targets; demonstrable understanding of major environmental impacts; meaningful carbon disclosure; and independent verification of the report. There was a clear divide in the sector. Only five of the 18 brands get our Best Rating for environmental reporting, while a further six earned Middle Rating, mainly because of lack of independent verification.
Best Reporters It’ll probably come as little surprise that the Co-operative Group and M&S, both well respected for their record of sustainability reporting, received the Best Rating.
M&S published its impressive Plan A commitments in January 2007. The result was a comprehensive five year plan covering 100 social, environmental and ethical issues. That kind of detailed, quantified commitment goes a long way to providing credibility. And according to a recent IPSOS Mori poll commisioned by the company, sustainability specialists do regard M&S as leaders in the field.
According to Rowland Hill, Sustainability Manager at M&S “Three years into the Plan, 62% of the commitments had been achieved and we were making good progress”. But Hill notes: “We’re very clear that the challenge we face in taking M&S from being ‘better’ to being truly sustainable is still a long and hard journey.”
More of a surprise for Best Rating was Irish-based Musgrave Group, owners of the Budgens and Londis brands. Musgrave’s commitments include a 5% annual reduction in oil, gas and electricity use over the period 2008-12. And the northwest’s sustainability champions Booths also came in the Best category with its 2010 report providing a comprehensive breakdown of the company’s carbon footprint, not just of its own operations but also looking at food supply chain impacts, such as meat and dairy and flown or hot housed vegetables.
Middle Rating Middle rating for environmental reporting went to ASDA and Netto (Wal-Mart), Morrisons, Sainsbury, Tesco, and Waitrose (John Lewis). The two criteria that cost Wal- Mart’s report a best rating were lack of independent verification and demonstrable understanding of impacts. While the report did contain information on Amazon deforestation relating to livestock, stocking local products, chemicals, product impacts, water, buildings impacts, in-store fridge impacts, transport and green house gases there were some notable silences on impacts relating to agriculture - including pesticides.
The latter four narrowly missed the best rating due to lack of independent verification of their reporting
ENVIRONMENT INDUSTRY MAGAZINE |33|
(although Tesco did have audited carbon footprinting). But there were some impressive targets. Wal-Mart aims to reduce GHGs at exisiting store and distribution centres based around the world by 20% by 2012 and eliminate 20 million metric tons of GHG from supply chains by end of 2015. Sainsbury’s has a CO² reduction target of 25% by 2012. John Lewis’s 2009 report committed it to improving the energy efficiency of shops and offices by 20% by the end of this year. Morrisons and Tesco’s longer term carbon commitments – for Morrisons, a 30% absolute reduction in CO² by 2020 and for Tesco ‘zero carbon’ (without the use of offsets) by 2050 – show ambition but are open to the usual criticism of distant targets. While both offered near-term targets for other impacts, with Tesco in Ireland aiming for 100% of waste diverted from landfill in 2011 and John Lewis commtiting to zero waste direct to landfill by 2013.
The Laggards There was a clear divide between these companies with clear and credible environmental commitments and the laggards who neither publish anything but the vaguest of green platitudes, nor were able to supply us with any internal policies or reports. So a resounding Worst Rating for Environmental Reporting for ALDI, Costcutter, Farmfoods, Iceland, LIDL, McColl and SPAR.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152