Mirror, mirror on the wall, who’s the greenest of them all? Perhaps we should ask Newsweek. Recently, Newsweek Magazine made a herculean effort to rank the 500 largest U.S. companies according to their eco-friendliness. The 500 companies, considered the largest based on revenue, market capitalization, and employee count, were ranked on environmental performance, polices, and reputation, and then given an overall score.
But the ranking left many wondering: Just how is it possible to compare such vastly different entities crossing a huge span of industrial strata? Isn’t it kind of like comparing apples and oranges? Couldn’t this type of ranking result in huge money-making corporations benefiting from a kind of corporate reputation whitewashing, while continuing to damage the environment in other ways?
A ranking system cannot uncover motives, either. It cannot differentiate between altruistic goals and selfish, savvy business sense. Or perhaps it can, to a small extent. To be straightforward, not having an appearance of concern for sustainability could potentially lower revenue and lead to a company’s demise in the present ‘green fervor’ of society. Corporations know this. This may account for large discrepancies between a business’s overall rating and their reputation rating. It seems obvious that some companies have been working overtime to create a ‘green glow’ around their name, a prime example being Wal-mart. It received an overall rank of No. 59. On the reputation scale, however, Wal-mart came in number one!
Perhaps other high-ranking companies have shown some selective far-sightedness, realizing that they may be regulated by government in the future to clean up their act anyway, and so have gotten a head start to avoid any downtime when having to comply with future legislation. Selective far-sightedness for sure. One doesn’t need to look too far into the future to see irreversible environmental damage, either. It could be that regulations loom larger and more menacing… to the bottom line.
Despite huge obstacles, Newsweek pushed ahead and designed a system for ranking that they believe evened the playing field for comparing inherently ‘dirty’ industries with those with a smaller environmental toll, such as financial services. To deal with the problem of corporate secrecy regarding important environmental data, or companies that have no tracking methods at all, they used figures from Trucost, a firm that specializes in estimating emissions of corporations. In the future, they hope to improve accuracy by getting more cooperation from companies regarding transparency and disclosure.
Within the top 100 level, technology-based and pharmaceutical companies did quite well. Perhaps these types of industry are accustomed to the changing demands of business and having to improve quickly to succeed.
Hewlett Packard was crowned first place winner, with “strong programs to reduce GHG emissions.” Dell followed, with Johnson & Johnson coming in third. And, as mentioned, Wal-mart made the top 100, apparently getting kudos for a sustainability index that lets customers know what products to buy if they want to ‘go green’. A rather controversial placement, some believe. Should such a mammoth retailer gain inclusion in the top 100 simply for informing consumers so they can make a choice, or should they only offer ‘green’ choices? Should companies who refuse to divulge emission data be included at all, or should they simply be blacklisted until they no longer have anything to hide?
Stirring up controversy and fostering discussion is apparently a welcomed result of the project. By recognizing eco-friendly efforts and engendering dialogue that arouses interest, Newsweek hopes to create awareness that may lead to more substantial green improvements in the world of big business.
