CLAREMONT MCKENNA COLLEGE ROBERTS ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER

2003 FORTUNE GLOBAL 500 AND FORTUNE 1000 PHARMACEUTICALS Corporate Environmental and Sustainability Reporting PACIFIC SUSTAINABILITY INDEX: SCORES

J. Emil Morhardt Andrea R. Bravo Mary Beth Houlihan Sara Leverette Benjamin A. Schachter Marta E. Young

Morhardt, J. E., A. R. Bravo, M. B. Houlihan, S. Leverette, B. A. Schachter, and M. E. Young (2004) Pharmaceuticals—Corporate Emnvironmental and Sustainability Reporting: Pacific Sustainability Index Scores. Claremont, CA., Roberts Environmental Center, Claremont McKenna College Price: $20.00 www.roberts.mckenna.edu 2003 Pharmaceutical Industry Report 1 CLAREMONT MCKENNA COLLEGE ROBERTS ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER

Contents

Corporate Environmental and Sustainability Reporting ...... 3 Pharmaceutical Company Rankings ...... 3 The Pacific Sustainability Index (PSI) ...... 4 The PSI Scoring System ...... 4 Environmental vs. Social Scores ...... 4 Intent, Reporting, and Performance...... 4 More Environmental than Social Reporting ...... 4

Distribution of Possible PSI Scores ...... 5 Overall PSI Scores ...... 5 Environmental Intent Scores ...... 6 Environmental Reporting Scores ...... 6 Environmental Performance Scores ...... 7 Combined Environmental Scores ...... 7 Social Intent Scores ...... 8 Publications from Roberts Environmental Center Social Reporting Scores ...... 8 Social Performance Scores ...... 9 Combined Social Scores ...... 10 The Roberts Environmental Center publishes analyses of corporate environmental and social reports—together called Analysts’ Comments ...... 10 sustainability reports—to the web and in special reports. Abbott Laboratories ...... 10 Allergan ...... 10 We also write books about environmental and sustainability Amgen ...... 10 reporting, the first of which is Clean, Green, and Read All AstraZeneca ...... 10 Over: Ten Rules for Corporate Environmental and Aventis ...... 10 Sustainability Reporting, available from ASQ Press, and Barr Laboratories ...... 10 publish articles in academic technical journals. Biogen Pharmaceuticals ...... 10 Bristol-Myers Squibb ...... 10 For more information please visit our web site at: Chiron Pharmaceuticals ...... 10 www.roberts.mckenna.edu. Eli Lilly and Company ...... 10 Forest Laboratories ...... 10 To order additional copies of this reportreport, or to obtain Genzyme Pharmaceuticals ...... 10 multiple-copy discount rates, please write, email, or call: GlaxoSmithKline ...... 10 IVAX...... 11 Dr. J. Emil Morhardt, Director Johnson & Johnson ...... 11 Roberts Environmental Center King Pharmaceuticals ...... 11 Claremont McKenna College Merck & Co., Inc...... 11 925 N. Mills Avenue Novartis ...... 11 Claremont, CA 91711-5916 Pfizer ...... 11 USA Pharmacia Corporation ...... 11 Roche ...... 11 909-621-8190 Schering-Plough Corporation ...... 11 [email protected] Watson Pharmaceuticals ...... 11 Wyeth ...... 11 The goal of corporate report analysis conducted by the Roberts Environ- mental Center is to acquaint students with environmental and social issues The Roberts Environmental Center ...... 12 facing the world’s industries, and the ways in which industry approaches and resolves these issues. This report is a work product of the Fall 2003 Claremont McKenna College ...... 12 Environment, Economics and Politics Clinic. Copyright 2004 © by J. Emil The Claremont Colleges ...... 12 Morhardt. All rights reserved.

2 2003 Pharmaceutical Industry Report www.roberts.mckenna.edu CLAREMONT MCKENNA COLLEGE ROBERTS ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER

2003 FORTUNE GLOBAL 500 AND FORTUNE 1000 PHARMACEUTICALS

Corporate Environmental and Sustainability Reporting During the past decade, large manufacturing corpora- This report covers all of the companies in the phar- tions have begun to report voluntarily on the environ- maceutical sector of the 2003 Fortune Global 500 mental issues affecting their companies and on how and Fortune 1000 lists, whether or not they produced they deal with them. The addition of social issues to formal environmental or sustainability reports. It is these reports has resulted in some firms designating based on environmental and social information them “sustainability reports”. Some firms produce available on their web sites in October 2003. The these reports yearly, others only occasionally, and quality of their environmental and social reporting some not at all. We obtain these reports and any was characterized by students in the Claremont additional information exclusively from corporate Colleges using the Roberts Environmental Center’s web sites. Pacific Sustainability Index (PSI). The overall company PSI scores rank as follows: Pharmaceutical Company PSI Rankings

1 Aventis 1 Bristol-Myers Squibb Company 1 GlaxoSmithKline 4 Novartis 5 Johnson & Johnson 6 Abbott Laboratories 7 AstraZeneca 8 Merck & Co., Inc. 9 Pharmacia Corporation 9 Wyeth 11 Allergan 12 Pfizer Inc. 12 Roche Group 14 Eli Lilly and Company 15 Chiron 15 King Pharmaceuticals 17 Amgen 17 IVAX 19 Biogen 19 Forest Laboratories 19 Schering-Plough Corporation 22 Barr Laboratories, Inc. 22 Genzyme 22 Watson Pharmaceuticals

www.roberts.mckenna.edu 2003 Pharmaceutical Industry Report 3 CLAREMONT MCKENNA COLLEGE ROBERTS ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER

The Pacific Sustainability Index (PSI)1

THE PSI SCORING SYSTEM OVERALL SCORE The Pacific Sustainability Index (PSI) comprises a list of The PSI has a total of 140 topics, 80 of them on 140 topics that should be addressed in corporate environ- environmental issues and 60 on social issues. The mental and sustainability reports. The topics were derived overall score is the percentage of the maximum from the ISO 14000 family of international environmental possible score on all 140 topics. standards, from reporting guidelines, including those of the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), and from a variety ENVIRONMENTAL INTENT SCORE of other sources. The philosophy of the PSI is described in detail in our book, Clean, Green, and Read All Over, Scores from PSI topics 1-27, 54, and 55. These published by and available from the American Society for topics reflect a firm’s comittment to environmental Quality Press2. Each of the topics has a maximum score of reporting. either two or three points. The overall scores are pre- sented in the graph on page five, and are used to create the ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTING SCORE ranking on page three. The overall score is calculated as a Scores from PSI topics 28-53. These topics reflect percentage of the maximum possible score. reporting of environmental performance without ENVIRONMENTAL VS. SOCIAL SCORES reflecting the quality of that performance. In addition to the overall score, we have subsetted the PSI into its environmental and social components and ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE SCORE reported each of these independently in graphs on pages Scores from PSI topics 56-80. These scores reflect six through nine. The subsetted scores are also calculated improved environmental performance, or perfor- as percent of maximum possible score for each subset, mance better than the average of a firm’s peers, or and have been arranged in the same rank order as the both. overall scores on page five.

COMBINED ENVIRONMENTAL SCORE INTENT, REPORTING, AND PERFORMANCE Scores for all 80 environmental topics in the three Both environmental and social subsets of scores reflect intent, reporting, and performance. Intent scores are categories above. derived from topics in the PSI that reflect a stated willing- ness to perform well, to monitor that performance, and to SOCIAL INTENT SCORE report it. Reporting scores reflect presentation in the Scores from PSI questions 81-108, 124, and 125. report of data on specific environmental and social topics, They reflect a firm’s committment to social report- but not on how good that performance was—they indicate ing. transparency in reporting independent of success in making improvements. Performance scores reflect better SOCIAL REPORTING SCORE performance on specific environmental and social topics since the previous reporting period, better performance Scores from PSI questions 109-123, reflecting than peer companies, or both. amount of reporting of social performance without reflecting the quality of that performance. MORE ENVIRONMENTAL THAN SOCIAL REPORTING Inspection of the subsets shows that more companies SOCIAL PERFORMANCE SCORE report environmental information than report social Scores from PSI topics 126-140. These scores reflect information—that is, more are producing purely environ- improved social performance, or performance better mental reports than are producing sustainability reports— than the average of a firm’s peers, or both. and that the scores for environmental and social perfor- mance are far lower than those for either intent or report- COMBINED SOCIAL SCORE ing. Scores for all 60 social topics in the three categories 1PSI scoring sheets are available on our web site above. 2http://www.qualitypress.asq.org/perl/catalog.cgi?item=H1145

4 2003 Pharmaceutical Industry Report www.roberts.mckenna.edu CLAREMONT MCKENNA COLLEGE ROBERTS ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER

Distribution of Possible PSI Scores

The pie diagram to the right shows the quantitative ENTA distribution of possible points for the 140 topics in ONM L T IR O V PI the PSI scoring system. Environmental topics make N Environmental C E S up a little more than half of the total and social Reporting topics the remainder. Environmental and social intent topics make up 41 percent, reporting topics make up 24 percent, and performance topics make up 35 Environmental Environmental Intent Performance percent of the total possible score. Two thirds of the possible performance score requires that firms Social compare their performance to that of their peers and Social Performance do better than peer average. Because few companies Intent compare themselves to their peers, the performance Social scores tend to be low, and drive down the overall Reporting scores. The distribution of points among intent, S O C S reporting, and performance on the next few pages are C I A L T O P I helpful in understanding where improvement is possible.

Overall PSI Scores

The PSI overall score includes all 140 environmental As can be seen from the figure below, however, there and social topics. Because both environmental and is still a very large range of scores among pharma- social performance scores, which make up 35 percent ceutical companies on the Fortune lists. of the total possible score, tend to be low, the overall scores are seldom above 50 percent for any company.

Aventis 2002 Bristol-Myers Squibb Company 2003 GlaxoSmithKline 2002 Novartis 2001 Johnson & Johnson 2002 Abbott Laboratories 2002 AstraZeneca 2002 Merck & Co., Inc. 2003 Wyeth 2002 Pharmacia Corporation 2001 Allergan 2002 Pfizer Inc. 2001 Roche Group 2002 Eli Lilly and Company 2001 Chiron 2003 King Pharmaceuticals 2003 Amgen 2002 IVAX 2002 Biogen 2003 Forest Laboratories 2003 Schering-Plough Corporation 2003 Barr Laboratories, Inc. 2003 Genzyme 2003 Watson Pharmaceuticals 2003

0 20406080

Percent of maximum possible score

www.roberts.mckenna.edu 2003 Pharmaceutical Industry Report 5 CLAREMONT MCKENNA COLLEGE ROBERTS ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER

ENVIRONMENTAL INTENT SCORES

Aventis 2002 Bristol-Myers Squibb Company 2003 GlaxoSmithKline 2002 Novartis 2001 Johnson & Johnson 2002 Abbott Laboratories 2002 AstraZeneca 2002 Merck & Co., Inc. 2003 Wyeth 2002 Pharmacia Corporation 2001 Allergan 2002 Pfizer Inc. 2001 Roche Group 2002 Eli Lilly and Company 2001 Chiron 2003 King Pharmaceuticals 2003 Amgen 2002 IVAX 2002 Biogen 2003 Forest Laboratories 2003 Schering-Plough Corporation 2003 Barr Laboratories, Inc. 2003 Genzyme 2003 Watson Pharmaceuticals 2003

0 20406080 Percent of maximum possible score

Environmental intent scores include topics about the choice of environmental performance indicators firm’s products, environmental organization, vision and those used by the industry, environmental and committment, stakeholders, environmental policy initiatives and mitigations, and environmental and certifications, environmental aspects and impacts, goals and targets.

ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTING SCORES

Aventis 2002 Bristol-Myers Squibb Company 2003 GlaxoSmithKline 2002 Novartis 2001 Johnson & Johnson 2002 Abbott Laboratories 2002 AstraZeneca 2002 Merck & Co., Inc. 2003 Wyeth 2002 Pharmacia Corporation 2001 Allergan 2002 Pfizer Inc. 2001 Roche Group 2002 Eli Lilly and Company 2001 Chiron 2003 King Pharmaceuticals 2003 Amgen 2002 IVAX 2002 Biogen 2003 Forest Laboratories 2003 Schering-Plough Corporation 2003 Barr Laboratories, Inc. 2003 Genzyme 2003 Watson Pharmaceuticals 2003

0 20406080 Percent of maximum possible score

Environmental reporting scores are based on the used. It also includes use of life cycle analysis, degree to which the company discusses its emis- environmental performance and stewardship of sions, energy sources and consumption, environmen- products, and environmental performance of suppli- tal incidents and violations, materials use, mitiga- ers and contractors. tions and remediation, waste produced, and water

6 2003 Pharmaceutical Industry Report www.roberts.mckenna.edu CLAREMONT MCKENNA COLLEGE ROBERTS ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER

ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE SCORES

Aventis 2002 Bristol-Myers Squibb Company 2003 GlaxoSmithKline 2002 Novartis 2001 Johnson & Johnson 2002 Abbott Laboratories 2002 AstraZeneca 2002 Merck & Co., Inc. 2003 Wyeth 2002 Pharmacia Corporation 2001 Allergan 2002 Pfizer Inc. 2001 Roche Group 2002 Eli Lilly and Company 2001 Chiron 2003 King Pharmaceuticals 2003 Amgen 2002 IVAX 2002 Biogen 2003 Forest Laboratories 2003 Schering-Plough Corporation 2003 Barr Laboratories, Inc. 2003 Genzyme 2003 Watson Pharmaceuticals 2003

0 20406080 Percent of maximum possible score

Environmental performance scores are based on of the performance is better than that of the firm’s whether or not the firm has improved its performance peers. Scoring for each topic is one point if perfor- on each of the topics discussed under the heading of mance is better than in previous reports, two points if environmental reporting, and on whether the quality better than industry peers, three points if both.

COMBINED ENVIRONMENTAL SCORES

Aventis 2002 Bristol-Myers Squibb Company 2003 GlaxoSmithKline 2002 Novartis 2001 Johnson & Johnson 2002 Abbott Laboratories 2002 AstraZeneca 2002 Merck & Co., Inc. 2003 Wyeth 2002 Pharmacia Corporation 2001 Allergan 2002 Pfizer Inc. 2001 Roche Group 2002 Eli Lilly and Company 2001 Chiron 2003 King Pharmaceuticals 2003 Amgen 2002 IVAX 2002 Biogen 2003 Forest Laboratories 2003 Schering-Plough Corporation 2003 Barr Laboratories, Inc. 2003 Genzyme 2003 Watson Pharmaceuticals 2003

0 20406080 Percent of maximum possible score

Combined environmental scores are a combination of the three subsets of environmental scores: Environmen- tal Intent, Environmental Reporting, and Environmental Performance.

www.roberts.mckenna.edu 2003 Pharmaceutical Industry Report 7 CLAREMONT MCKENNA COLLEGE ROBERTS ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER

SOCIAL INTENT SCORES

Aventis 2002 Bristol-Myers Squibb Company 2003 GlaxoSmithKline 2002 Novartis 2001 Johnson & Johnson 2002 Abbott Laboratories 2002 AstraZeneca 2002 Merck & Co., Inc. 2003 Wyeth 2002 Pharmacia Corporation 2001 Allergan 2002 Pfizer Inc. 2001 Roche Group 2002 Eli Lilly and Company 2001 Chiron 2003 King Pharmaceuticals 2003 Amgen 2002 IVAX 2002 Biogen 2003 Forest Laboratories 2003 Schering-Plough Corporation 2003 Barr Laboratories, Inc. 2003 Genzyme 2003 Watson Pharmaceuticals 2003

0 20406080 Percent of maximum possible score Social intent scores include topics about the firm’s cations, social aspects and impacts, choice of social financials, employees, health and safety reporting, peformance indicators and those used by the indus- social management organization, social vision and try, social initiatives and mitigations, and social committment, stakeholders, social policy and certifi- goals and targets.

SOCIAL REPORTING SCORES

Aventis 2002 Bristol-Myers Squibb Company 2003 GlaxoSmithKline 2002 Novartis 2001 Johnson & Johnson 2002 Abbott Laboratories 2002 AstraZeneca 2002 Merck & Co., Inc. 2003 Wyeth 2002 Pharmacia Corporation 2001 Allergan 2002 Pfizer Inc. 2001 Roche Group 2002 Eli Lilly and Company 2001 Chiron 2003 King Pharmaceuticals 2003 Amgen 2002 IVAX 2002 Biogen 2003 Forest Laboratories 2003 Schering-Plough Corporation 2003 Barr Laboratories, Inc. 2003 Genzyme 2003 Watson Pharmaceuticals 2003

0 20406080 Percent of maximum possible score

Social reporting scores are based on the degree to dealings with its employees and contractors. They which the company discusses various aspects of its also include social costs and investments.

8 2003 Pharmaceutical Industry Report www.roberts.mckenna.edu CLAREMONT MCKENNA COLLEGE ROBERTS ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER

SOCIAL PERFORMANCE SCORES

Aventis 2002 Bristol-Myers Squibb Company 2003 GlaxoSmithKline 2002 Novartis 2001 Johnson & Johnson 2002 Abbott Laboratories 2002 AstraZeneca 2002 Merck & Co., Inc. 2003 Wyeth 2002 Pharmacia Corporation 2001 Allergan 2002 Pfizer Inc. 2001 Roche Group 2002 Eli Lilly and Company 2001 Chiron 2003 King Pharmaceuticals 2003 Amgen 2002 IVAX 2002 Biogen 2003 Forest Laboratories 2003 Schering-Plough Corporation 2003 Barr Laboratories, Inc. 2003 Genzyme 2003 Watson Pharmaceuticals 2003

0 20406080 Percent maximum possible score Social Performance scores are based on whether or mance is better than that of the firm’s peers. Scoring not the firm has improved its performance on each of for each topic is one point if performance is better the topics discussed under the heading of social than in previous reports, two points if better than reporting, and on whether the quality of the perfor- industry peers, three points if both.

COMBINED SOCIAL SCORES

Aventis 2002 Bristol-Myers Squibb Company 2003 GlaxoSmithKline 2002 Novartis 2001 Johnson & Johnson 2002 Abbott Laboratories 2002 AstraZeneca 2002 Merck & Co., Inc. 2003 Wyeth 2002 Pharmacia Corporation 2001 Allergan 2002 Pfizer Inc. 2001 Roche Group 2002 Eli Lilly and Company 2001 Chiron 2003 King Pharmaceuticals 2003 Amgen 2002 IVAX 2002 Biogen 2003 Forest Laboratories 2003 Schering-Plough Corporation 2003 Barr Laboratories, Inc. 2003 Genzyme 2003 Watson Pharmaceuticals 2003

0 20406080 Percent of maximum possible score

Combined social scores are a combination of the three subsets of social scores: Social Intent, Social Report- ing, and Social Performance.

www.roberts.mckenna.edu 2003 Pharmaceutical Industry Report 9 CLAREMONT MCKENNA COLLEGE ROBERTS ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER

ANALYSTS’ COMMENTS BIOGEN PHARMACEUTICALS: 2003 ENVIRONMENTAL WEB PAGES ABBOTT LABORATORIES: 2002 GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP Biogen Pharmaceuticals has neither an environmental nor a REPORT AND 2003 WEB PAGES sustainability report published on their web site. They have a clear This report presents a good, general overview of Abbott visionary and values statement but it mostly addresses scientific Laboratories’ environmental and socio-economic impacts. The report research and marketing of products. There is no mention of needs improvement in its presentation of environmental stakeholder environmental sustainability factors, and little documentation of the information, quantitative data, environmental and social goals and social aspects of the company.—Young standards, and industry comparisons. The absence of several environmental aspects included in Abbott Laboratories’ 2000/2001 BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: 2003 SUSTAINIBILITY report in its 2002 report further detracted from its score.—Houlihan REPORT Bristol-Myers Squibb has a comprehensive sustainability report that ALLERGAN: 2002 ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH, & SAFETY covers most of its environmental and social aspects. However, it fails REPORT AND 2003 WEB PAGES to provide quantitative data on social performance and to compare its This report begins with a list of Allergan’s environmental goals and performance to other companies in the pharmaceutical sector. priorities and a long list of its achievement awards. However, it Although Bristol-Myers Squibb provides a great deal of quantitative provides very little information about Allergan’s stakeholders, environmental data, the data has shown little improvement over the emissions to land, water and air, and the social aspects of the years, thus, its environmental performance PSI score is low.—Young company, nor does it name a contact person.—Bravo CHIRON PHARMACEUTICALS: 2003 ENVIRONMENTAL WEB PAGES AMGEN: 2002 ANNUAL REPORT AND 2003 WEB Chiron Pharmaceuticals does not have a web-based environmental or PAGES sustainability report and presents almost no information about these Amgen does not have an environmental or sustainability report. The topics on its web site.—Young data we scored comes from its 2002 annual report and focuses on products, and past and future economic performance. The Amgen ELI LILLY AND COMPANY: 2001 HEALTH, SAFETY, web site and Annual Report both contain statements of aspirations, AND ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT AND 2003 WEB PAGES and of values and goals, however these statements are vague and Eli Lilly and Company’s 2001 Health, Safety, and Environmental nondescript. Amgen’s corporate philanthropy consists of donations to Report is dated, short, and fails to address many important the Amgen Foundation and this report does not describe Amgen’s environmental and social aspects and impacts. Although the company environmental or socioeconomic aspects or impacts at all.—Schachter claims to compare its environmental standards with other companies in the pharmaceutical industry, it fails to quantitatively document this ASTRAZENECA: 2002 CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY comparison in the report.—Young SUMMARY REPORT AND 2003 WEB PAGES AstraZeneca addresses its corporate responsibility in some detail in FOREST LABORATORIES: 2003 WEB PAGES this report. It discusses social topics including diversity in the Forest Laboratories does not issue a sustainability report and it workforce, socioeconomic impacts, animal welfare (animal testing), provides no environmental data on its website. Forest Laboratories’ and its socioeconomic initiatives. This report should include only socioeconomic information comes from its career opportunity additional information on environmental performance and department’s vague and unsupported description of a positive management, standard social criteria (e.g. employee wages, hours, working environment.—Houlihan non-discrimination, child labor, etc.), and the company’s relations with stakeholders.—Schachter GENZYME PHARMACEUTICALS: 2003 ENVIRONMENTAL WEB PAGES AVENTIS: 2002 SUSTAINABILITY REPORT AND 2003 WEB PAGES Genzyme Pharmaceuticals does not have an environmental or WEB PAGES sustainability report and was scored based on the limited information This is a very strong, well-written and detailed report. Additional available on its web site. The site does not proclaim any topics we would like to see addressed are environmental and social environmental or socioeconomic vision and commitment or provide comparisons to industry peers, materials management (recycling, any analysis of the company’s socioeconomic and environmental packaging, etc.), and comparisons of performance across different aspects and impacts. geographical locations.—Houlihan —Young

BARR LABORATORIES, INC.: 2003 ANNUAL REPORT GLAXOSMITHKLINE: 2001 EHS REPORT, 2002 AND WEB PAGES CORPORATE AND SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY REPORT Barr Laboratories states no environmental or socioeconomic policy in AND 2003 WEB PAGES these documents, nor does it discuss emissions, hazardous waste, The GlaxoSmithKline 2001 and 2002 reports thoughtfully consider a energy and water consumption, or any other environmental or broad range of environmental and socioeconomic issues facing the socioeconomic aspects of its activities.—Schachter pharmaceutical industry. These reports show exceptional attention to product life-cycle analysis and planning but could be improved by including additional socioeconomic information, industry-wide

10 2003 Pharmaceutical Industry Report www.roberts.mckenna.edu CLAREMONT MCKENNA COLLEGE ROBERTS ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER

comparisons of environmental performance, environmental effect PFIZER: 2001 ENVIRONMENTAL, HEALTH AND matrices, and procedural information.—Houlihan SAFETY REPORT AND 2003 WEB PAGES In this report Pfizer effectively conveys a deep concern for the IVAX 2002 ANNUAL REPORT AND 2003 WEB PAGES environment. The report contains substantial detail regarding IVAX does not issue an annual environmental or sustainability report. environmental matters, particularly concerning the different Its annual report and web pages contain very little information about hazardous and non-hazardous wastes it produces. However, Pfizer salient socioeconomic and environmental problems and the company describes very few of its social aspects.—Bravo does not have any clearly stated commitment to improvement in these areas.—Schachter PHARMACIA CORPORATION: 2001ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY, AND HEALTH REPORT AND 2003 WEB JOHNSON & JOHNSON: 2002 ENVIRONMENTAL, PAGES HEALTH AND SAFETY SUSTAINABILITY REPORT AND Pharmacia’s report pays particular attention to environmental 2003 WEB PAGES stewardship and the company’s environmental difficulties and The Johnson & Johnson report provides a great deal of useful successes. Pharmacia provides a detailed description of chemical- information, including a clear list of goals, comprehensive specific site releases and transfers but lacks adequate information information regarding greenhouse gas emissions, and a description of regarding its socioeconomic policies and practices and its several valuable employee services. It also includes important social performance in comparison to other companies in the pharmaceutical performance indicators such as workplace diversity, sexual industry. Industry-wide comparison data would greatly improve harassment, and child labor policies for the first time. This Pharmacia’s PSI score. Additionally, Pharmacia’s presentation of information resulted in an overall improvement of Johnson data on energy consumption, emissions, water consumption, PCBs, &Johnson’s PSI score. Johnson & Johnson should strive to build and unintended releases would benefit from the use of graphs and upon this improvement by including additional information regarding tables.—Bravo obstacles in its struggle to achieve sustainability, performance indicators in relation to other pharmaceutical companies, emissions to ROCHE GROUP: 2002 SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL land and water, stakeholder information, and employee wages and working hours in future reports.—Bravo PROTECTION AT ROCHE AND 2003 WEB PAGES The Roche Group report primarily focuses on the company’s KING PHARMACEUTICALS: 2003 WEB PAGES environmental aspects. It is well organized, provides an extremely useful chart in the beginning (key S&E indicators), and also provides King Pharmaceuticals has no sustainability report, nor does it a helpful annex at the end. Also, there is an extensive safety report, quantify its environmental and socioeconomic performance in any and the Roche opinion section is interesting and educational. Roche other way on its web site.—Houlihan does not provide sufficient information regarding its stakeholders, industry-wide performance indicators, sustainability goals and MERCK & CO., INC.: 2003 ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH socioeconomic aspects and impacts, but the information that is AND SAFETY PROGRESS REPORT AND WEB PAGES provided is useful and informative.—Bravo Merck, as depicted in this report, is an extremely conscientious company. Its report is detailed, informative, and comprehensive. The SCHERING-PLOUGH CORPORATION: 2003 ENVIRON- report’s strengths include sections on waste management, MENTAL WEB PAGES environmental initiatives, stakeholders, strategies and goals. The Schering-Plough briefly describes its environmental profile, report’s section on ethics is particularly well written and expresses socioeconomic profile and vision on its web site, but does not have a Merck’s emphasis on ethical management. However, the report lacks web-based environmental or sustainability report. The limited sufficient information on social aspects and on emissions to land, air, information provided on Schering-Plough’s web site should be expanded and water.—Bravo and published in a publicly available corporate sustainability report that includes an environmental and social vision, sustainability goals, and NOVARTIS: 2001HEALTH, SAFETY, AND quantitative data regarding industry performance indicators.—Young ENVRIONMENT CORPORATE CITIZENSHIP REPORT AND WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: 2003 WEB PAGES 2003 WEB PAGES The Novartis HSE Report offers an extremely open presentation of Watson Pharmaceuticals does not have any type of environmental or both Novartis’s successes and difficulties. Novartis is one of the few socioeconomic report, nor does it present this information in any other pharmaceutical companies to publish data comparing its own form on its website.—Houlihan performance to that of other companies in the industry and to discuss life cycle planning. Nevertheless, Novartis needs to elaborate on the WYETH: 2002 ENVIRONMENTAL AND SAFETY REPORT effects the company has on the natural environment and expand on AND 2003 WEB PAGES the industry performance metrics in its report. The Novartis HSE The Wyeth report contains a clear vision and policy statement, a Report also fails to facilitate stakeholder dialogue by identifying summary of key indicators, and some information regarding environmental and social contact persons.—Leverette environmental initiatives. Additional information detailing the socioeconomic aspects of the company, a clear list of company goals, and the company’s performance in regards to industry-wide environmental performance indicators would greatly improve this report. —Bravo

www.roberts.mckenna.edu 2003 Pharmaceutical Industry Report 11 CLAREMONT MCKENNA COLLEGE ROBERTS ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER

THE ROBERTS ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER CLAREMONT MCKENNA COLLEGE THE CLAREMONT COLLEGES

THE ROBERTS ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER CLAREMONT MCKENNA COLLEGE

The Roberts Environmental Center, an environmental Claremont McKenna College, a member of the research institute at Claremont McKenna College, is Claremont Colleges, is a highly selective, indepen- housed in the W. M. Keck Science Center in the heart dent, coeducational, residential, undergraduate liberal of the Claremont Colleges campus. Its mission is to arts college with a curricular emphasis on economics, provide students with a comprehensive and realistic government, and public affairs. understanding of today’s environmental issues, and the ways in which they are being and can be resolved, THE CLAREMONT COLLEGES and to identify, publicize, and encourage policies and practices that achieve economic and social goals in The Claremont Colleges form a consortium of five the most environmentally benign and protective undergraduate liberal arts colleges and two graduate manner. institutions based on the Oxford/Cambridge model. The consortium offers students diverse opportunities The Center is funded by endowments, grants, and and resources typically found only at much larger gifts, and is staffed by faculty and students from the universities. The consortium members include Claremont Colleges. Center staff are happy to consult Claremont McKenna College, Harvey Mudd College, with companies wishing to improve the quality of Pitzer College, Pomona College, Scripps College, their environmental and sustainability reporting. Keck Graduate Institute of Applied Life Sciences, Center students are often looking for corporate and the Claremont Graduate University—which summer internships and the center director can aid includes the Peter F. Drucker Graduate School of firms in finding the right intern. Management.

12 2003 Pharmaceutical Industry Report www.roberts.mckenna.edu LET ME KNOW IF YOU THINK THIS PROJECT IS WORTHWHILE. Please take a minute to answer these questions and fax this page back to me.

TO: J. Emil Morhardt Title______FAX: (909) 607-1185 Division______Phone: (909) 621-8190 [email protected] Address ______City, Postal Code______FROM*: ______Country______E-mail address______Phone______*If we mailed this form to you at the correct address, no need to give us any more than your name and email address.

Please circle your answers and fax this sheet back to me. I would welcome any discussion by phone or email either in addition to or in place of this questionnaire.

1. Scoring corporate environmental and sustainability reports is a useful, if partial, approach to evaluating corporate transparency and performance. Agree strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree strongly

2. Sector-level reports such as the one accompanying this fax form should include, as this one does, companies not formally producing an environmental or sustainability report. Agree strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree strongly

3. Recognition of good reporting by this mechanism supports a continuation of good reporting. Agree strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree strongly

4. Ranking of reporting is likely to encourage companies with lower scores to do better. Agree strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree strongly

5. Ranking of reporting is a legitimate means of influencing public perception of firms. Agree strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree strongly

6. This type of ranking is of value to you in your professional activities. Agree strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree strongly

7. Doing this type of ranking is a useful teaching tool for college students, informing them of the environmental and social issues of industry, and how industry is responding. Agree strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree strongly

8. The Roberts Environmental Center should continue to score environmental and sustainability reports and post the results to its website. Agree strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree strongly

9. The Roberts Environmental Center should continue to score environmental and sustainability reports and publish sector reports. Agree strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree strongly

We recognize that the Pacific Sustainability Index is inevitably a work in progress. We would greatly appreciate any suggestions for its scheduled revision in the fall of 2004.