|
January 16, 2003
Corporate Responsibility Ratings and SRI Screens Sometimes Differ
by William Baue
A new report from Oekom Research criticizes IT network and component company performance based on
the companies' own disclosure, while the Calvert Group's screens assess companies' actual
practices.
SocialFunds.com --
In its latest corporate responsibility industry report, Munich-based Oekom Research assessed the social and environmental
performance of the networks and components segment of the information technologies (IT) industry.
The report examined 15 of the 19 largest companies in this worldwide industry, which concentrates
on the manufacture of memory chips, semiconductors, and mobile phones (four companies failed to
provide sufficient data to be rated.) Oekom's Corporate Responsibility Rating grades companies'
social and environmental performance from A+ (best practice) to D- (worst practice).
 "Overall, the average grade of C in the
Corporate Responsibility Rating indicates that there is a lot of room for improvement," wrote
Evelyn Bohle, the Oekom analyst who authored the report. "[O]nly a limited number of companies are
applying the principle of sustainability comprehensively. The majority exhibit a lack of
transparency both in social and environmental areas."
The German company Siemens (ticker:
SIEG) earned the top Corporate Responsibility Rating with a B, while the Swedish telephone
manufacturer Ericsson (ERIC) and the U.S.
computer components producer Intel (INTC) earned B- grades. The
U.S. companies Qualcomm (QCOM) and EMC Corporation (EMC)
turned in the worst performances with D grades, mostly due to their lack of transparency in their
environmental reporting.
"Qualcomm does not publish any environmental information at all,"
wrote Ms. Bohle in the report. "EMC and Qualcomm did not provide any information on environmental
requirements of their suppliers." The report revealed similar lapses in social practices and
policies. "The study revealed four companies (Alcatel, EMC, Texas Instruments and Qualcomm) that
did not explicitly refer to a specific policy to guarantee freedom of association, EMC even stated
that none of its employees is unionized."
Qualcomm did not respond to requests for their
commentary. However, EMC defended its social and environmental performance by invoking a
comparison.
"I was surprised to learn of our low overall rating considering the high
standards we have set as a company on both the social and environmental fronts," EMC Director of
Public Relations Michael Gallant told SocialFunds.com. "In fact, the Calvert Group named EMC to
the 2002 Calvert Social Index, which consists of companies that meet Calvert's 'strict social
responsibility criteria.'
"Apparently, Oekom rated us poorly in . . . areas where our
disclosure did not meet the survey requirements, thus significantly skewing our results to the
negative," continued Mr. Gallant. "It's disheartening that two reputable organizations can look to
measure the same attributes of a company and yet conclude with polar opposite findings."
Calvert Group Senior Analyst Nikki
Daruwala explained why EMC passed Calvert's screens.
"What Oekom has done is just look at
the policies. What Calvert does is look at policies, compliance, performance, and other indicators
as well," Ms. Daruwala told SocialFunds.com. "Our criteria do not eliminate a company just because
of a lack of complete transparency, or just because there is no unionization at the company."
"There has been no evidence with EMC, if you look at unfair labor practices data from the
National Labor Relations Board, which supports this argument regarding freedom of association," Ms.
Daruwala explained. "They may not have a policy for it, yet they don't have a problem."
The Oekom report stresses policies and transparency in its rating, but it is not blind to
practice. For example, the report criticizes the industry for its continued use of harmful
substances such as PVC, heavy metals, and halogenated substances.
"Apart from Qualcomm,
all companies state that they will reduce the use of these substances," states Ms. Bohle in the
report. "To achieve this, the majority of companies have introduced internal regulations to handle
and reduce harmful substances. However, comprehensive programs or deadlines and measures regarding
the full elimination of several substances (e.g. lead, chrome VI, mercury or cadmium) are generally
lacking."
Oekom's report underlines the fact that if companies do not disclose their
social and environmental policies and practices, there is a potential for those companies to be
viewed as poor performers. Calvert's screening process reveals that a lack of disclosure does not
necessarily mean a company is not performing well.
©
SRI World Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Top
| 
