The first index comparing the Top 10 pharmaceutical companies according to their social, environmental and financial performance is now live.
The overall impact score shows the performance of each company across all the indicators between 2011 and 2012 as a percentage (maximum 100%). For example, have they screened more suppliers for human rights adherence or have they reduced their carbon dioxide emissions. The Social Impact Score shows the organisation’s score according to social indicators only, and by clicking on the link you can view the ranking of the top 10 companies according to social impact. Likewise by clicking on the Environmental and Financial links you can view their respective rankings in detail. Specific company information can be derived by clicking on the name of the company of interest.
Each impact score for an indicator is comprised of three elements-
-the impact significance represented (e.g. customer satisfaction, human rights screening and changes in mortality rates)
-the reach (e.g. how many people, how much money or how many natural resources)
-the performance change year on year
The top companies have improved their impact by proactively contributing to communities and looking after their employees, structuring their finances with a long-term view of success and reducing negative environmental impacts,
The Disclosure Rating (from AAA, which means full disclosure, to D, which means no data is published), shows the transparency of reporting for each company. This tells us whether the companies are reporting on these indicators at all or not. We can see from the VV-Good Index that the pharmaceutical sector could disclose much more detail about its sustainability performance, especially with regards social impact.
Finally the company ranking column shows how they have fared against the other top 10 pharmaceutical companies. The arrow shows how their ranking has changed compared to their performance in the previous year (2009/2010).
Less than 10% – Performance is very weak across all areas compared to their peers, with very little information provided.
11-20% Companies here may be focused on one pillar (financial) more than the other two (social and environment) which is why they received a low performance score.
21-35% Companies are measuring some performance but not from an overall company perspective. They are likely to be doing moderately well amongst peers on two areas with one weaker side, normally social where they are focused on output activity e.g. donations and individual projects rather than impact of their activities.
36- 50% Companies performing well amongst peers in terms of making significant improvements year on year on the issues addressed by the indicators.
51- 65% Companies have invested in long term sustainability, making them much more efficient, with an all encompassing view being taken. These companies engage with internal and external stakeholders and have invested in ways to reduce their environmental footprint resources.
More than 65% Business operations are very agile and look to ensure minimal environmental damage, perhaps working in a localised way, with a focus on pro-actively bolstering the environment in which they operate. Internally the culture remains strong with a strong engagement with the external communities that supports the company to grow. Reaping rewards of embedding sustainability practices throughout supply chain, internally and having set themselves up to use cost effective, renewable energy.
To read more about the methodology please follow this link.