The largest hotel companies have all launched sustainability or corporate responsibility programs. The programs feature significant similarities and differences. This post provides an overview of how the programs of the top firms compare.

The top five hotel companies (by number of hotel rooms) are Intercontinental Hotels Group, Marriott International, Wyndham Worldwide, Hilton Worldwide and Accor.  Combined these hotel groups represent over 23,000 hotels (about 3 million hotel rooms) worldwide—suggesting the large potential impact the global hospitality industry can make.  The table below summarizes how these hotel companies have structured their sustainability programs.

Hotel sustainability/responsibility programs have two principal pillars: social and environmental.

Social. Why should hotel companies care about developing social components to their sustainability strategies?  Hotels are social hubs that bring people to destinations.  This makes hotels responsible for the impact they have on surrounding communities. Hotel brands tend to place importance on supporting economies of developing countries within which their hotels are located.  All five companies have invested in education and training programs for their associates.  In addition, IHG and Wyndham both offer degree programs for hospitality management studies.  IHG, Hilton and Accor also emphasize the importance of ethics and preserving cultures through their philanthropic aid programs. Accor stands out from the group with the broadest social program, one that supports several human rights campaigns.  Hotel companies seem to take the ”social” aspect of the triple bottom line strategy quite seriously.  I was impressed to find that these hotel companies offer such robust support of social initiatives.

Environmental.  Environmental programs are at the forefront of hotel sustainability.  Aiming to reduce a hotel’s ecological footprint is at the heart of all environmental sustainability efforts for hotel companies. With the exception of Hilton, all of the other companies engage in sustainability reporting. Accor was the first in the group to issue a sustainability report, starting in 2006. Most hotel sustainability reports provide sustainability metrics that assess the environmental impact of the company’s hotels— by measuring energy, water and waste.  IHG, Wyndham and Hilton have developed proprietary systems that help measure and report environmental footprint data, but requires data input from individual hotels in order to be used as an effective sustainability measurement tool.

Sustainability and Franchising

Not all the properties under these brands actually participate in the brands’ sustainability programs.  Why not? The answer can be found in the operating structure of the hotel business.  Many hotels that bear the name of a brand are often franchised.  In the event a property is franchised but managed by the hotel brand then participation can be widespread.  However, when a property is solely franchised it gets increasingly more difficult to mandate participation in reporting programs.  Wyndham, for example, where 99.6% of the properties are franchised (based on 2010), is positioning their investments in the right direction by engaging stakeholders through establishing the Green Franchisee Advisory Board.  I strongly believe that as sustainability practices get more refined, the next frontier for hotel companies to tackle will be 100% participation from their franchised properties.

Jennifer Moon is currently pursuing a M.S. of Sustainability Management at Columbia University and holds a B.S. in Hotel Administration from Cornell University.  She works in hotel operations at The New York Palace hotel.

Highlights from 2011

So many supply chain sustainability initiatives and announcements occurred in 2011 that any summary is necessarily selective and subjective. But here are a few that I think are significant.

Greenhouse gas inventories of the supply chain

More companies are going to begin calculating greenhouse gas inventories for their supply chains and their products following the release in 2011 of two standards. In October the World Resources Institute introduced the new standards for value chain (scope 3) accounting and product life cycle accounting. Already, according to a new Green Research survey of sustainability executives, sixty percent of respondents say their company will calculate its scope 3 emissions in the coming year and over half intend to report the results publicly. These standards will help companies understand and begin to take responsibility for the carbon emissions of their supply chains.

Monitoring and reporting the use of conflict minerals

This year saw a lot of discussion and analysis of the implications of a new U.S. law that will shine a light on the supply chains of thousands of companies. The law in question is the Dodd-Frank law, whose conflict minerals provisions require U.S.-listed companies to conduct due diligence of their supply chains and report whether they are buyers of conflict minerals (minerals that may originate in the Eastern Congo and surrounding areas and whose trade may provide funding to armed groups in the region). In 2011, dozens of major companies including Apple, General Electric, Ford, Hewlett-Packard, Intel and Motorola worked to analyze their exposure and obligations under the law and began to put in place the due diligence processes required to ensure they are in compliance with eventual final rules. Given the global nature of supply chains, these regulations will have global impact and will accelerate the broader trend toward supply chain visibility and accountability. We maintain a site with news and information on the conflict minerals provisions of the Dodd-Frank law at section1502.com.

Sustainably sourced packaging

Green Research studies have found that companies in many industries entered 2011 with goals to reduce the volume of packaging they use. In 2011, we saw a number of commitments and initiatives to enhance the sustainability of packaging materials themselves. Toy makers Hasbro and Mattel announced commitments to shift to sustainably sourced packaging materials, for instance. Dell announced a new packaging material made of sustainably sourced mushrooms. PepsiCo announced a new plant-based bottle, and AT&T announced plans to begin using packaging that is partly plant based.

Commitment to sustainable palm oil

The Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil announced a surge in purchases of certified sustainable palm oil and many major companies, including Asda, Johnson & Johnson, Kellogg’s, McDonalds and SC Johnson announced commitments to shift their most or all of their purchases of palm oil to certified sustainable sources.

Forest products certification controversy

A conflict between competing North American forest products sustainability standards boiled over in 2011 as a number of major U.S. companies including Aetna, Allstate, AT&T, Comcast, Garnet Hill, Office Depot, Performance Bicycles, State Farm, Sprint, Symantec, United Stationers and U.S. Bank dropped the Sustainable Forestry Initiative in favor of Forest Stewardship Council. There are already too many “standards” in the sustainability field; some consolidation is welcome.

Business decisions about ecosystem services

The World Business Council for Sustainable Development introduced a new tool this year to help corporations put a monetary value on the ecosystem services they affect or depend on. The Corporate Ecosystem Valuation (CEV) tool is intended to help companies incorporate thinking about ecosystem services corporate in their strategic and financial planning. Shortly after the CEV tool was published sports-lifestyle apparel maker PUMA released a much-lauded “environmental profit and loss” statement that not only valued the company’s environmental impacts but also revealed that most of its impacts occur in its supply chain, something that is true for many companies.

Supply chain goals still in short supply

Despite the growing awareness that, for many companies, the supply chain is where many if not most of their environmental impacts occur, many companies have struggled to make firm commitments for improvement in this area. In a 2011 study of the global pharmaceutical industry, for instance, we found that ninety percent of the sustainability goals pharmaceutical manufacturers have announced deal with their internal operations; only a handful deal with the supply chain. Supply chain goals are scarce in the other industries we studied as well, including alcoholic beverages, food processing and telecommunications.

Outlook for 2012

All of this sets the stage for what promises to be redoubling of effort to improve the sustainability performance of company supply chains. According to the aforementioned survey of senior sustainability executives, improving supply chain sustainability is the number two sustainability initiative (behind employee engagement) of their companies for 2012. I expect to see companies aim for closer collaboration with suppliers, adopt more stringent scorecarding, put a greater focus on ecosystem services and biodiversity, and apply the new carbon accounting standards to their supply chains, among other initiatives.

[This post first appeared on the 2degrees Network.]

A handful of top sustainability executives believe they have total control of their companies’ sustainability strategies. Most share influence with others, but nonetheless feel they are in the strategic driver’s seat. Three quarters of them rate their influence over sustainability strategy at their company as four on a five-point scale. Perceived influence is somewhat correlated with proximity to the C.E.O. but other factors affect influence, such as the talents of the sustainability leader, the board’s commitment to sustainability and cultural factors that determine a company’s ability to adapt and to act on stated priorities.

Corporate sustainability starts with strategy and continues through tactics, policies and procedures. In the areas of communications and external affairs, sustainability executives generally perceive themselves to have substantial influence. This is partly due to where the sustainability function reports in corporations: an earlier Green Research study found that 30 percent of sustainability departments report into public affairs or marketing groups. But when it comes to other corporate functions such as procurement, supply chain or product marketing, they carry less sway. Over a quarter of respondents to our survey report having little or no influence over supply chain policies or procedures at their company and another half have moderate influence. Many companies are just beginning to contemplate how to obtain sustainability performance improvements from their suppliers.

It is rare that sustainability executive have much influence over the finance function at their companies. At some companies, finance has taken on the role of calculating and reporting sustainability metrics such as carbon emissions. With a reputation for sober and credible reporting, the finance department can raise the credibility of such reports. At a few companies we know, the head of sustainability has enlisted the finance department as an ally. One chief sustainability officer told us that his CFO has helped identify unspent funds and applied them to sustainability projects planned for the coming year, and has approved sustainability related projects with a lower rate of return than the usual investment hurdle.

How to Boost Influence

The most effective means of enhancing one’s influence over sustainability strategy and tactics at work is participating in face-to-face meetings with senior leadership. Eighty-three percent of respondents to our survey cited this as a key means of extending their influence, more than any other choice. Among top sustainability executives, the figure is 90 percent. Sustainability executives should push for face-to-face meetings, including dedicated time with the C.E.O. and at board meetings. Some companies, like Alliance Boots, the U.K. retailer, have board-level sustainability committees that meet regularly and are governed like any other topical committed such as audit or compensation.

The second-most effective approach for extending influence on sustainability inside a company, according to our respondents, is helping executives in other departments develop the business case for sustainability initiatives. Sustainability departments should compile case studies of successful sustainability initiatives at other companies, along with costs and benefits and financial models. Acting as an internal consultant and champion who can help obtain greater budget for other departmental leaders is a powerful way of boosting influence.

Another potent method for building influence inside an organization is through the use of third-party sustainability rankings. Sustainability executives cite those rankings and their companies’ standings in them to motivate employees and galvanize action. “We’ve used DJSI as a benchmark, and the questionnaire has helped drive certain reporting and analysis initiatives internally,” one chief sustainability executive told us. “I think the most immediate implication is a sense of pride that tightens bonds between employees and strengthens both their connection to their workplace and their resolve to continue to make progress.”

For more information on the Green Research Annual Sustainability Executive Survey research, click here.

[This post was originally published on sustainablebrands.com]

by Al Iannuzzi

CRC Press; November 8, 2011

Creating a sustainable society will depend in large part on reducing the environmental impacts of making, distributing and using products and of disposing of them at the end of their useful life.  Every product company that hopes to have a role in our future is going to have figure out how to do this. They now have an excellent guide in a new book called “Greener Products: The Making and Marketing of Sustainable Brands,” by Al Iannuzzi. Dr. Iannuzzi is Senior Director of Product Stewardship and Worldwide Environment, Health & Safety at Johnson & Johnson, a $60 billion healthcare products company. He has spent his entire career advancing the environmental performance of his company and its products while helping it achieve its business goals. He therefore is very well qualified to have written this book.

The book is distinguished by its comprehensive scope, which ranges from the drivers of green product development, to the methods for developing greener products, through advice for marketing those products effectively.  It is organized in three sections. The first section covers the market and regulatory drivers for green products. The second section looks at examples of greener products that have come to market. It also includes a chapter by James A. Fava, a founder of sustainability consulting firm Five Winds International. The chapter provides an overview of some of the many tools companies can use to analyze the environmental characteristics of products and processes and to develop more environmentally efficient designs. The third section looks at green marketing “because,” says Dr. Iannuzzi, “what good is a greener product if you can’t get the customer to buy it?” The marketing section includes a chapter by executives of the Shelton Group, an advertising agency focused on sustainability and energy efficiency and a leading provider of consumer insights related to green products. Though the consumer data discussed in the book is focused on U.S. consumers, the book takes a global perspective, citing product examples from North America, Europe and Asia and examples of regulations in effect on six continents.

The first section of the book sets the context for the development of greener products. It highlights many of the market factors that are creating demand for greener products including consumer demand, retailer mandates, socially responsible investment, product ratings systems and green public procurement. Among the regulatory factors the book discusses are regulations covering packaging; restrictions on the use of chemicals; and an increasingly important concept called “extended producer responsibility,” which requires that manufacturers take responsibility for their products at the end of their useful life.

Section II is packed with examples of companies and the greener products they have introduced across a range of industries from apparel to consumer electronics to household cleaning to industrial chemicals and health care. Concise case studies of companies including Timberland, SC Johnson, Clorox, Philips, Samsung Electronics, Apple, Seventh Generation, Proctor & Gamble, Unilever, DuPont, BASF and Johnson & Johnson, review what impelled them to invest in greener product development, what they did, how they did it and what the result was, providing a valuable overview of the experiences of companies that have taken a leadership position in the development and marketing of greener products.  A good example in this section is the Earthwards process developed at Johnson & Johnson. Earthwards enables “product development teams to evaluate a product throughout its life cycle and identify areas where it can be improved to lower its impact and increase social benefit.” The process uses a scorecard approach that was developed after looking at other companies for examples, interviewing people inside and outside the company and under the guidance of consultant Five Winds. The company also asked an environmental non-governmental organization to review the process and make recommendations, which were incorporated.  At J&J a product receives the Earthwards designation if achieves significant improvements in at least 3 of 7 dimensions (such as packaging, energy, waste, etc.) identified by the scorecard. By 2015 the company expects to have at least 60 products in its portfolio that have achieved the Earthwards designation.

The Chapter by Dr. Fava of Five Winds reviews many of the management systems (such as ISO 14000), programs (such as product stewardship and Design for Environment), tools (including life cycle assessment and environmental impact assessment) companies can use to build their own greener product future. I suspect most readers who are unfamiliar with this material will come away from this chapter somewhat overwhelmed by sheer volume of material packed into a small chapter. This is probably fine; it highlights the need to recruit some competent help when building a greener products process and culture.

The final section, on green marketing, presents an analysis of consumer survey data that segments consumers into four broad behavior and attitudinal groups, each of which has somewhat different motivations and find different messages appealing. The “Actives,” for instance, represent 22 percent of the U.S. adult population, are well educated, have above-average income, and participate in significantly more green activities such as recycling than average consumers.

A substantial amount of consumer research conducted over the years by many companies has failed to provide a silver bullet approach to marketing green products. Most research concludes that the majority of consumers is fundamentally more interested in meeting their own needs than the needs of the planet, and more consumers show interest in green products than are actually willing to buy them if those products fall short in meeting their price, performance or emotional needs.

It’s possible that over time some consumers will begin to consider “environmental performance” an important dimension of performance along with the others. And even today many consumers, including the “Actives” mentioned above, derive some emotional benefits from associating themselves with products that make credible green claims. But the fundamental approach to understanding customers and reaching them with marketing messages is no different for green products than for traditional products. “In short,” writes the Shelton Group,“the best advice for the successful marketing of green products is the same as it is for successfully marketing any other product: Know thy buyer!”

Section III also presents a set of examples of green marketing, describing positioning, packaging and messaging of products ranging from Clorox Green Works to Honest Tea to Neutrogena Naturals. It’s valuable to have all of these case examples in one place. But it’s speculative to consider them “best practices,” since most provide no information about the success of these products. The section also reviews and explains greenwashing, regulatory standards for green marketing, ecolabels and cause marketing.

For sustainability practitioners who have followed green marketing and green product development closely over the last few years much of the material in this book will be familiar. But for those new to this topic, or any marketer, product developer, consultant or product-company executive who wants an efficient way of getting a comprehensive overview of this field, which is becoming a pillar of successful business, this book is a valuable resource. (It’s available for sale now on Amazon.com and elsewhere.)

Philip Kotler, influential marketing guru, has published an article announcing that marketers must begin to account for environmental constraints in their marketing strategies. Kotler declares the new norm in the July 2011 issue of the Journal of Marketing in his article titled, “Reinventing Marketing to Manage the Environmental Imperative.”

To illustrate, he redefines the 4 Ps:

•  Product: Sourcing, carbon footprint minimization, and packaging issues are emphasized. Service-based companies are urged to include energy use, supplies, and contribution to green causes to demonstrate their commitment to sustainability.
• Price: Kotler reminds us that conscious customers are often willing to pay more for greener products. He highlights the growing role of regulation and its effect on pricing through anticipated greater responsibility for externality costs.
• Place: The focus is on local, decentralized production, online selling to reduce the carbon footprint of individual purchasers, and examination of the sustainable practices of supply chain partners.
• Promotion: Kotler’s ideas for environmentally responsible promotion include the standard print-to-online shift, making label changes to reflect ingredients more specifically, and general broadcasting of an increased “good citizen” status. Sustainable paths to growth are emphasized.

Kotler has personified traditional marketing, and now he’s getting on the sustainability bandwagon. This is another sign that sustainability is going mainstream. Good news for the planet, bad news for companies who have been relying on green branding as their chief marketing strategy.

It won’t be long before green marketing strategies fail to differentiate products at all—which may be a good thing.  In what ways do you think companies dedicated to sustainable values might pursue new avenues of differentiation?

Bonnie J. Wallace is a freelance writer living in Los Angeles, specializing in responsible business. She holds a Sustainable MBA from Bainbridge Graduate Institute as well as a strong belief in business as a tool for transformation. When she’s not writing, Bonnie enjoys exploring ways that art can create community, and performing her supporting role as a stage mom.

New York City (November 30, 2011) – Green Research, a New York-based corporate sustainability research and advisory firm, today released a new report based on its annual survey of sustainability executives. The report, a planning and benchmarking tool for sustainability executives, finds that companies will focus significant staff time and financial resources on two sustainability initiatives above all in the coming year: employee engagement and supplier sustainability performance. Believing engaged employees to be a key to high performance, 88 percent of companies will be investing significantly in employee engagement in 2012, while 73 percent will focus on improving the sustainability performance of their suppliers. “Companies have good reason to focus on employee engagement and supply chain,” said David Schatsky, author of the report. “Engaged employees make things happen. And the supply chain is where the bulk of the environmental impact is for many companies.”

The study analyzes the staffing and spending plans and high-priority initiatives of top sustainability executives at some of the world’s leading companies. It draws on an exclusive, in-depth survey of nearly 50 senior sustainability executives (three quarters of which are the senior-most sustainability executive/chief sustainability officer) at global companies. These are leading companies in a dozen industries across North America and Europe, 80 percent of which have revenues of $1B or more. “We think this is the highest-quality panel of respondents ever assembled for a survey focused on corporate sustainability tactics and strategies,” said Schatsky.

The report finds that sustainability spending will rise significantly in 2012. About a third of companies surveyed are adding staff to their sustainability departments in the coming year. And fifty percent of firms will increase spending on sustainability initiatives across their companies, compared to a quarter that will increase the budgets of their sustainability departments.  “Companies are funding various departments to support their sustainability initiatives, rather than centralizing those funds with sustainability teams,” said Schatsky. “The crucial role of sustainability teams, besides coordinating sustainability strategy, is to help other departments make the business case for those initiatives,” he added.

Other topics covered in the research include: carbon accounting, ecolabels, life cycle assessment, corporate reputation, sustainability reporting, environmental credits and offsets, and sustainability rankings. The report found that despite a proliferation of corporate sustainability rankings, only two rankings are relevant to a majority of companies: the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) and the Dow Jones Sustainability Indexes. Sixty-four percent of respondents consider CDP important to the company and its stakeholders; 53 percent say the same about the Dow Jones Sustainability Indexes. All other rankings are important to a small minority of companies and their stakeholders.

The study, “Annual Sustainability Executive Survey, 2012” is available online at greenresearch.com. To learn more about the research, please visit greenresearch.com or contact David Schatsky at 646-783-8337 or info@greenresearch.com.

“When it was all over, I felt exhausted, but also possessed of a strange need to scream, or laugh, or run all the way home, or pick up parked cars and flip them over.” — Peter Bradshaw, Guardian UK

“It’s about corporate manners—the protocols of hierarchy, the rituals of power, and, most of all, the difficulty of confronting flagrant habits of speculation with truth.” — David Denby, New Yorker

“Surely such an ordinary man could not have written these masterpieces.” — Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times

“…it shows a clear kinship with other eccentric, permanent works of the American imagination…” — A.O. Scott, New York Times

I admit that I’ve taken these quotes out of context, and that they have nothing to do with our survey. But my point is that executives actually like filling out our survey. Why? Because it is thought provoking. It asks smart questions. And it gives you a sense of what your peers are asking about. We also provide an executive summary of the survey highlights to participants who want it.

Your individual responses remain anonymous: we only report on the aggregated results.

So if you are a senior sustainability executive, are not already on our list (you know it if you are) and would like to receive our upcoming sustainability executive survey, please drop me a line from your work e-mail address today: dschatsky at greenresearch.com

They envision a word in which brands and retailers adopt a standardized, trusted system for rating the environmental impacts of consumer products. (They say that manufacturers representing some 30% of the world market for apparel and footwear are already members of the coalition, with another company joining every week.)

Broad-based adoption would raise consumer awareness of the system and begin to foster greater consumer demand for products with light environmental footprints. Greater consumer awareness would ultimately drive politicians to give greater heed to consumers’ desires for a sustainable economy. Politicians’ engagement would in turn lead to the creation of comprehensive regulations that would require improved environmental performance from companies and would require them to internalize environmental costs. Finally, this would again shape consumer preferences. And the cycle continues.

The diagram is how I visualize the strategy they describe. While it may play out differently than this nice circle suggests, the initiative is definitely pointing in the right direction.

What do you think?

The study, “Toward Engagement 2.0: Creating a More Sustainable Company Through Employee Engagement,” is a nice resource with useful case studies, some interesting data based on a survey of 1,183 GreenBiz readers. (The study rightly makes no claim that the survey sample is representative of businesses generally, but the data has some value nonetheless.) If you are interested in the topic of employee engagement, you should definitely check it out.

It’s Not the Little Things

Much of what is written about employee engagement and sustainability seems to suggest that a key to effective corporate sustainability programs is “engaging” employees. There is often an implication that encouraging small actions by individuals is somehow to key to achieving sustainability goals.

Indeed, Ellen Weinreb,  an executive recruiter with a specialty in sustainability, wrote today in her new GreenBiz column:

Too often I see employee engagement translated into “simple things you can do:” turning off the lights, double-sided printing, powering down your computer. While such things can engender significant savings when everyone takes part, it’s a far cry from culture shift.

I would argue that sustainability is no more about “simple things you can do” than any major objective is. My research with over one hundred companies who are known for their leadership in corporate sustainability shows that achieving sustainability goals is not that different from achieving any corporate goals. It requires having a clear strategy; setting specific goals and explaining how those goals support the strategy; and managing and measuring performance against those goals. It requires giving employees the right training, incentives and motivation.

Engagement is Key to Performance Generally

To the degree that employee engagement is key to sustainability success, it’s because employee engagement is critical to corporate performance generally. Indeed, as the NEEF study acknowledges, “There is a substantial body of knowledge demonstrating that engaged employees are a key contributor to a company’s success in any endeavor, so companies seek both to interest employees in sustainability and to provide them the information they need to take action.”

Sustainability Drives Engagement (and Vice Versa)

What’s new here is not the discovery of engagement as a mystical property that can drive corporate performance, or that sustainability programs uniquely rely on engaged employees. Rather, it’s the fact that environmental stewardship and sustainability are values that lots of people can relate to. Companies are finding that they can engage employees through the company’s commitment to sustainability, not just in their commitment to sustainability activities. Sustainability programs can help drive employee engagement, and not just the other way around.

I’ve spoken to corporate numerous sustainability executives who see establishing a clear corporate commitment to sustainability as a way of attracting, retaining and, yes, engaging empoyees in the corporation’s work. Sustainability has become a medium for these companies to talk about values and higher purpose with their employees. The benefit goes far beyond achieving sustainability goals. It includes making employees proud of being on the company team and inspiring greater motivation to help with its other goals as well.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with using a corporate commitment to sustainability this way, provided that a company’s commitments are sincere, its goals are clear and it measures and rewards performance. But let’s be clear what we are talking about when we talk about employee engagement.

What do you think?

The Dow Jones Sustainability Index is one of the best known sustainability rankings of public companies. Because it is intended to be used to drive investment decisions, it tends to get attention from corporate boards, CEOs and CFOs along with sustainability professionals and other stakeholders.

According to the announcement, 41 companies will be added to, and 23 firms will be deleted from the Dow Jones Sustainability World Index. Changes will be made to regional indices as well.

It is a coup to be included in these indexes, one that included companies tend to trumpet at every possibility. And it is a blow not to make the cut. (One exec I spoke with a while back said that he’d probably lose his job if his company’s standing on the DJSI or the Carbon Disclosure Project slipped.)

What is it like inside the companies that were assessed for the index? I swapped e-mails with sustainability executives at a few of them to find out.

One executive, whose company that was deleted from the DSJI North America, laments the fact that the granularity of the data required to qualify was greater than they could supply. He claims his company would have qualified for DJSI World if just their environmental performance had could have been considered alone. But alas, social and governance factors are also part of the ranking.

The execs at companies who were added or who achieved privileged recognition as “super sector leaders” professed delight and even surprise. “It was a happy surprise around here,” wrote one. “It was a great win for us,” wrote another.

At one industrial manufacturing company, “A message was sent to all employees by our CEO stressing that the DJSI is an honor and a great indicator of our success but it is only one way in which we are measured against our peers.”

The smartest take I heard was from one of the smartest execs I know in a sustainability role. She said they have used DJSI as a benchmark, and have used the DJSI questionnaire to help them drive some reporting and analysis initiatives internally. But they were pleased to get the external recognition of those efforts in the form of being added to the DJSI North America.

Outside ratings can help drive internal change. It’s wise to turn that to advantage where possible.

Do you work for company that made the cut–or didn’t? What’s been your experience?