B-SAT - SSC


	Basic Sustainability Assessment Tool
	This tool enables an organization to assess its progress toward causing no harm to people and the environment, as well as its positive impacts on people and the environment.

	Intended Users
	This is a comprehensive, generic tool. It can be used by any-size organization, in any sector, in any country. It may be especially helpful for small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), and large organizations with minimal / no sustainability staff. Note: The "Advanced Sustainability Assessment Tool" is an optional assessment tool for large, multi-location, multi-national corporations with sustainability professionals on staff. A comparison of the two tools is available at this link:
	Comparison of Basic vs Advanced Sustainability Assessment Tools

	Why Do An Assessment?
	The results of a comprehensive sustainability assessment can be used to serve the information needs of diverse stakeholders. • Senior management: By integrating sustainability / ESG performance data into internal management information systems and governance practices, executives and boards can ensure that they are capturing opportunities and avoiding risks on priority sustainability-related issues. As a minimum, they can fulfill their duty of care and ensure the organization obtains full eco-efficiency savings and reputational value from its sustainability efforts. • Employees: Employees are more loyal, engaged and productive when their organization is a force for good on issues that they care about. • Customers / buyers: Consumers and businesses increasingly want to purchase the most sustainable goods and services from the most sustainable suppliers – those doing the least harm and the most good. • Investors / bankers / lenders / insurers: An organization's disclosure of its social and environmental performance, and its preparedness for social and environmental crises like pandemics and climate change, help providers of capital assess the organization's eligibility for preferential treatment as a low-risk investment or • Foundations: Foundations support organizations that are being proactive on environmental and societal issues that they care about. • Raters and rankers: Increasingly, an organization's sustainability performance is taken into account when ranking organizations is all sectors. Having a comprehensive assessment helps avoid survey fatigue.



	Balanced and Comprehensive Assessment
	The tool uses two types of questions to assess areas of interest to the above stakeholders. 1) Performance questions These questions assess an organization's approach to, and progress on, reducing / eliminating its harmful impacts on the environment, its employees, and society. 2) Progress Enabler questions These questions assess if / how the organization is being regenerative on an issue, directly or indirectly through its products, services and/or donations that amplify others’ positive impacts or help others cause less harm. Only a few of the suggested possible Progress Enablers will apply to any particular company. The questions are based on questions used in B Lab’s SDG Action Manager and in the Future-Fit Foundation’s science-based Future-Fit Business Benchmark.
	SDG Action Manager
	Future-Fit Business Benchmark

	Meaning of % Progress Scores
	"Progress Enabler" percentages are bonus percentages, so some scores on an issue may be greater than 100%. * <100%: How far the organization is on its journey toward not causing any harm on that issue. * 100%: The organization is not causing any harm / breaking even on that issue. * >100%: The organization is being restorative / regenerative, directly or indirectly, on that issue. Compare with scores in previous reporting periods to track organization progress.

	Accommodates Multiple Frameworks
	This tool expresses an organization's sustainability performance in three ways: 1. As scores on progress toward science-based goals for 18 core sustainability / ESG issues that arise at the organization's impact points, as shown in the figure below. Note: ESG (Environmental, Social and Governance) is used as a shorthand synonym for "sustainability." 2. As scores on contributions to the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). ESG scores are used as proxies for scores on their aligned, primary SDGs, as shown in the figure below. . 3. As scores on impacts on the 3 non-financial capitals (natural, human, and social). ESG scores are used as proxies for scores on their aligned non-financial capitals, as shown in the figure below. Organizations can express their sustainability scores in whichever framework's terminology (ESG, SDG, or non-financial capitals) is most appropriate for their purposes and for the interested stakeholders (see above).






	The core issues are common to popular sustainability frameworks. More background on the identification and comparison of sustainability frameworks is available in these resources:
	Comparison of Sustainability Frameworks
	Sustainability Frameworks deck in the Master Slide Decks

	Terms of Use This tool was developed by Bob Willard / Sustainability Advantage. It is based on B Lab's SDG Action Manager and the Future-Fit Business Benchmark. The tool is published under a Creative Commons-Attribution ShareAlike 4.0 International license. Users are free to Share (copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format) and Adapt (remix, transform, and build upon) the material for any purpose, even commercially. Use of the tool is at the user's own risk. Sustainability Advantage shall accept no liability in respect of any business, lending, or investment decisions which users choose to base in whole or in part on the use of this tool or its outputs. The tool is freely available from the Sustainability Advantage website:
	Assessment Tools page on the Sustainability Advantage website


Instructions

Table of Contents
• Overview & Instructions • Organization Profile • Governance • Environment: Energy, Water, Procurement, GHGs, Non-GHGs, Waste, Encroachment, Progress Enablers • Employees: Wages, Health, Terms, Concerns, Discrimination • Society: Community Impacts, Taxes, Ethics, Lobbying, Investments, Progress Enablers • ESG Scores: Summary of assessed scores on the core ESG issues • SDG Scores: ESG scores are mapped to their associated, primary SDGs • Capitals Scores: ESG scores are mapped to associated natural, human and social capitals


Legend
Yellow fields are for user input. Starting examples illustrate how the calculation formulas work. Overwrite them.
Light purple fields are auto-calculated based on the content of yellow fields.
White fields are used for instructions, explanations, or labels for adjacent fields
Light-blue fields with a "?" have explanations for adjacent fields. Mouse-over the "?" to reveal the guidance.

Overall Guidance
• Answer the questions in any sequence: Use the Next and Previous buttons in the tool bars to navigate through the questions, replacing the sample answers in the yellow cells with your choices and data. The small progress bar in the left-hand corner of the bottom tool bar shows where you are in the question set. • Estimates: If you are not sure of the answer, estimates are okay. Just be sure to document your estimation methodology, data sources, and assumptions so that they can be improved later and could be assured by a third party. • Weighting: Users can weight the assessed scores, on the ESG Scores and SDG Scores pages. • Tailoring the tool: Users should use the Excel version of this tool if they need to modify / tailor it to suit their purposes. • Saving and sharing results: Users can send a copy of the completed assessment to themselves or to someone else. Enter the recipient's email address in the box below and click the "Submit" button. We recommend that users send it to themselves first, so that they can review and edit it as they would any .pdf document, and then decide how much they want to forward to others and in what format.

	(Recipient's email address)	Submit

Collaboration / Sharing
This online version was created using SpreadsheetConverter (SSC). Its master copy is hosted in the SSC cloud. When users access it and use it, they actually work with a copy of it in their browser, not with the master copy in the SSC cloud. All user input and changes are stored in the user's browser. All this magically happens, automatically. For users to collaborate with colleagues, they need to create their unique version of the tool in the SSC cloud. Then, they and their colleagues can access it and their combined changes are automatically stored in their shared unique version. Think of it as an SSC version of Google Sheets. Instructions on how to create and share a unique copy of this online tool are available at the SSC link, below. The referenced "Real-time Sync" has already been activated, as indicated by the Real-time Sync button in the right-hand corner of the toolbar, at the bottom of all screens.
SSC guidance on how to set up a unique, shared copy of the tool

Feedback
This tool is subject to ongoing development. Feedback and suggestions for improvement are welcome.
Please send feedback to [email protected].


Organization Profile
This is basic information about the organization. Some values are used in later calculations. (Replace all sample data with real organization data)
Name	SDG Products Ltd
Date founded	1998
Address	234 Park Avenue, Somewheresville, Ont. L0L 2B2
Phone number	705-333-4444
Website	http://www.sdgproducts.org
Sector	Manufacturing
Brief description	We provide sustainable appliances, equipment and services that enable our customers to thrive responsibly.
Total revenue / income in reporting year
Net income / profit \| % profit in reporting year
Total number of full-time employees		Employees on organization payroll
Part-time employees \| % of workforce
% of owners who are women		Self-identified
% of owners who are indigenous people		Self-identified
% of owners who are other minorities		Self-identified
Organization officer / director who vouches for the integrity of the completed assessment	(Name, Title, Contact information)


Energy		Overall score	See the Introduction section for how to interpret the percent scores that below or above 100%. ?
Sustainable organizations use only renewable energy.			To address climate change, we must transition to a low-carbon economy powered by renewable energy. Energy includes both electricity and fuels consumed by: 1) buildings and equipment at all locations, whether owned or leased (e.g. lighting, heating and computers) 2) transport vehicles that the company owns or leases 3) any other energy that the company consumes to conduct its business. ?

Performance on overall energy usage Does your organization do any of the following to manage its energy usage? (Check all that apply; replace sample data with real organization data)			This question will give some credit to the company for managing the issue, even if the resulting score is low. ?
	We do not currently monitor and record energy usage. (If selected, skip to the next question)		If this choice is checked, the score will be zero, even if other choices are checked. If this is selected, ignore the rest of the choices in the list and move on to the next question. ?
	We monitor and record our energy usage, including renewable energy usage.		Estimate the percentage on this scale, rounding up: 0%, 10%, 20% … 80%, 90%, 100%. Document data sources, estimation methodology and assumptions in the Notes area. ?
	Approximate percentage of total energy used that comes from renewable sources
	(Notes)
	We have set targets for energy efficiency and/or renewable energy usage.		The targets may be relative to a baseline year of the company's choosing. ?
	We met targets for energy efficiency and/or renewable energy usage, for the reporting period.		These results can be compared with scores in previous reporting periods, to show a trend line. ?
	We have a science-based goal of using 100% low-impact renewable energy, regardless of organization growth.		If the science-based goal is associated with a date, it is more credible and forceful. ?
	Score


Non-GHG Emissions		Overall score	See the Introduction section for how to interpret the percent scores that below or above 100%. ?
Sustainable organizations eliminate all harmful solid, liquid and gaseous emissions.			A sustainable company eliminates harmful substances intentionally or accidentally discharged directly to the environment. Harmful emissions include: * Harmful solid emissions (e.g. scarce metals, excess hazardous pesticides, particulate matter) * Harmful liquid emissions (e.g. spills, liquid toxic waste, chemical fluids). * Harmful gaseous emissions (e.g. VOCs, SOx, NOx, other air pollutants, toxic fumes) (Note: These do not include liquid, gaseous, or solid wastes which are contained by the company and sent to a third-party for treatment or disposal. They are included in Waste.) ?

Performance on non-GHG emissions Does your organization do any of the following to manage its non-GHG solid, liquid and gaseous emissions? (Check all that apply; replace sample data with real organization data)			This question will give some credit to the company for managing the issue, even if the resulting score is low. ?
	We do not currently monitor and record our non-GHG emissions. (If selected, skip to the next question)		If this choice is checked, the score will be zero, even if other choices are checked. If this is selected, ignore the rest of the choices in the list and move on to the next question. ?
	We monitor and record our non-GHG solid, liquid and gaseous emissions.		Estimate the percentage on this scale, rounding up: 0%, 10%, 20% … 80%, 90%, 100%. Document data sources, estimation methodology and assumptions in the Notes area. ?
	Approximate percentage of non-GHG solid emissions that do not cause harm
	Approximate percentage of non-GHG liquid emissions that do not cause harm
	Approximate percentage of non-GHG gaseous emissions that do not cause harm
	(Notes)		Document data sources, estimation methodology and assumptions. ?
	We have set targets for our non-GHG solid, liquid and gaseous emissions.		The targets may be relative to a baseline year of the company's choosing. ?
	We met targets for our non-GHG solid, liquid and gaseous emissions, for the reporting period.		These results can be compared with scores in previous reporting periods, to show a trend line. ?
	We have a science-based goal of zero harmful non-GHG emissions, regardless of organization growth.		If the science-based goal is associated with a date, it is more credible and forceful. ?
	Score


Encroachment		Overall score	See the Introduction section for how to interpret the percent scores that below or above 100%. ?
Facilities and fixed assets that are owned or controlled by sustainable organizations do not encroach on marine or terrestrial ecosystems, or on culturally sensitive areas.			A sustainable company protects natural ecosystems and communities where it is already present, and takes steps to avoid or mitigate negative outcomes when moving into new areas. Companies work in collaboration with local communities adjacent to pristine ecosystems in order to foster their protection and, if necessary, their restoration. ?

Performance on encroachment Does your organization do any of the following to avoid marine or terrestrial encroachment, or encroachment on culturally sensitive areas? (Check all that apply; replace sample data with real organization data)			This question will give some credit to the company for managing the issue, even if the resulting score is low. ?
	None of our facilities are in areas where encroachment is an issue. (If selected, you score 100%. Skip to the next question)		If this choice is checked, the score will be 100%, since the company is doing no harm in this issue. ?
	Some of our facilities are in potential encroachment areas, but we do not currently monitor and record encroachment. (If selected, you score 0%. Skip to the next question)		If this choice is checked, the score will be zero, even if other choices are checked. If this is selected, ignore the rest of the choices in the list and move on to the next question. ?
	We monitor and record our encroachment		Estimate the percentage on this scale, rounding up: 0%, 10%, 20% … 80%, 90%, 100%. Document data sources, estimation methodology and assumptions in the Notes area. ?
	Approximate percentage of facility sites that are in potential encroachment areas, but do not encroach on ecosystems or communities
	(Notes)
	We have set encroachment reduction targets, relative to a chosen reference/baseline year.		The targets may be relative to a baseline year of the company's choosing. ?
	We met encroachment reduction targets, for the reporting period.		These results can be compared with scores in previous reporting periods, to show a trend line. ?
	We have a science-based goal of zero encroachment, regardless of organization growth.		If the science-based goal is associated with a date, it is more credible and forceful. ?
	Score


Progress Enablers - on Environmental Issues			Overall score	This total is just for information purposes. The scores on each issue. below, are added to the Management scores in the ESG Summary page to give an overall score on each issue. ?
These are bonus scores to give credit to organizations that are being regenerative / restorative on environmental issues. Organizations do this in three ways: • directly, through, the organization's own regenerative / restorative impacts • indirectly, through its products, services and/or donations that amplify others’ regenerative impacts • indirectly, through its products, services and/or donations that help others cause less harm to the environment Although there are prompts about many Progress Enablers, only a few will apply to any specific organization.				Note that these are bonus / optional positive impacts by the organization on core environmental issues. Any organization will probably have just a few of these, if any. ?

Energy Progress Enablers Do your products, services and/or donations improve access to energy for others, or reduce others' energy needs, in any of the following ways? ("x" all that apply, replacing the sample illustrative choices)				This question gives credit to the company for enabling progress on stakeholders' wellbeing through their own products and services' positive impacts and by helping others cause less harm, as well as by helping / amplifying others’ positive impacts through monetary or in-kind donations. ?
	Help others use energy significantly more efficiently than market alternatives.			E.g., energy-efficient appliances, solar powered lanterns. ?
	Provide, or contribute to the provision of, low-impact renewable energy for others.			E.g., solar panel installation, wind turbine manufacturing, microgrid systems, energy storage systems, next generation biofuels. ?
	Provide energy conservation systems for others.			E.g., energy metering and audit software and services; IT enabled energy management. ?
	Support the provision of affordable energy to the underserved who were without prior access.			E.g., technical and physical energy infrastructure in rural or underserved communities. ?
	Other	(Name of another progress enabler on energy by the organization)		Another progress enabler for this issue, beyond those listed above. ?
(Description of any Progress Enabler(s) checked, following the outline suggested in the comment box)				Dimensions of the Progress Enabler to consider in the description: * What it is * Who receives the benefit * Scale of impact / # of people touched * Depth / degree of benefit * Duration / how long the benefit lasts * Significance / importance to the recipients * Contribution / importance of company's help * Risk: what could go wrong and how it is mitigated See impactmanagementproject.com for more information about these dimensions of an impactful initiative. ?
	Approximate percentage of revenue derived from the products and/or services checked above			Be careful not to double-count revenue from products / services, or the value of monetary and in-kind donations. If they enable progress on more than one sustainability-related issue, allocate an appropriate share in the progress-enabler section of each issue. ?
	Approximate percentage of revenue represented by the monetized value of associated donations
	Equivalent percentage of revenue associated with these positive contributions			This is a proxy for how integral these positive contributions are to the company's business model. It is a bonus percentage and can lead to the score on this issue being >100%. ?

Water Progress Enablers Do your products, services and/or donations improve access to water for others, or reduce water needs, in any of the following ways? ("x" all that apply, replacing the sample illustrative choices)				This question gives credit to the company for enabling progress on stakeholders' wellbeing through their own products and services' positive impacts and by helping others cause less harm, as well as by helping / amplifying others’ positive impacts through monetary or in-kind donations. ?
	Help others use water significantly more efficiently than market alternatives.			E.g., water efficient textile dyeing machinery, drip irrigation systems, low-water hygiene and sanitation products. ?
	Provide, or contribute to the provision of, clean water for others.			E.g., community-, family- or individual-level water purification systems. ?
	Provide water conservation systems for others, to mitigate water stress.			E.g., water metering and leak detecting software, rainwater collection and storage systems; IT enabled water management. ?
	Support the provision of affordable clean water and sanitation to the underserved who were without prior access.			E.g., physical water and sewage treatment infrastructure in rural or underserved communities; IoT enabled maintenance of public toilets. ?
	Other	(Name of another progress enabler by the organization for this issue)		Another progress enabler for this issue, beyond those listed above. ?
(Description of any Progress Enabler checked, following the outline suggested in the comment box)				Dimensions of the Progress Enabler to consider in the description: * What it is * Who receives the benefit * Scale of impact / # of people touched * Depth / degree of benefit * Duration / how long the benefit lasts * Significance / importance to the recipients * Contribution / importance of company's help * Risk: what could go wrong and how it is mitigated See impactmanagementproject.com for more information about these dimensions of an impactful initiative. ?
	Approximate percentage of revenue derived from the products and/or services checked above
	Approximate percentage of revenue represented by the monetized value of associated donations
	Equivalent percentage of revenue associated with these positive contributions			This is a proxy for how integral these positive contributions are to the company's business model. It is a bonus percentage and can lead to the score on this issue being >100%. ?

GHG emissions Progress Enablers Do your products, services and donations help generate fewer GHGs or remove GHGs from the atmosphere, in any of the following ways? ("x" all that apply, replacing the sample illustrative choices)				This question gives credit to the company for enabling progress on stakeholders' wellbeing through their own products and services' positive impacts and by helping others cause less harm, as well as by helping / amplifying others’ positive impacts through monetary or in-kind donations. ?
	Help others emit significantly fewer GHGs than market alternatives.			E.g., hybrid vehicles; electric vehicles ?
	Help others remove GHGs from the atmosphere by technological means.			E.g., carbon removal and sequestration technologies. ?
	Help others remove GHGs from the atmosphere by natural means.			E.g., enable propagation, protection or rehabilitation of forests, mangroves and other natural carbon sinks. ?
	Other	(Name of another progress enabler by the organization for this issue)		Another progress enabler for this issue, beyond those listed above. ?
(Description of any Progress Enabler checked, following the outline suggested in the comment box)				Dimensions of the Progress Enabler to consider in the description: * What it is * Who receives the benefit * Scale of impact / # of people touched * Depth / degree of benefit * Duration / how long the benefit lasts * Significance / importance to the recipients * Contribution / importance of company's help * Risk: what could go wrong and how it is mitigated See impactmanagementproject.com for more information about these dimensions of an impactful initiative. ?
	Approximate percentage of revenue derived from the products and/or services checked above			Be careful not to double-count revenue from products / services, or the value of monetary and in-kind donations. If they enable progress on more than one sustainability-related issue, allocate an appropriate share in the progress-enabler section of each issue. ?
	Approximate percentage of revenue represented by the monetized value of associated donations
	Equivalent percentage of revenue associated with these positive contributions			This is a proxy for how integral these positive contributions are to the company's business model. It is a bonus percentage and can lead to the score on this issue being >100%. ?

Non-GHG harmful emissions Progress Enablers Do your products, services and/or donations help others generate fewer, or remove, non-GHG harmful emissions, in any of the following ways? ("x" all that apply, replacing the sample illustrative choices)				This question gives credit to the company for enabling progress on stakeholders' wellbeing through their own products and services' positive impacts and by helping others cause less harm, as well as by helping / amplifying others’ positive impacts through monetary or in-kind donations. ?
	Help others generate significantly fewer harmful emissions.			E.g., provide innovative manufacturing or agriculture processes that generate fewer harmful emissions; provide filters and interceptors for harmful emissions, with responsible disposition. ?
	We remove or neutralize significant amounts of harmful emissions.			E.g., brownfield recovery, decontamination and restoration technologies; innovative waste water treatment systems. ?
	Other	(Name of another progress enabler by the organization for this issue)		Another progress enabler for this issue, beyond those listed above. ?
(Description of any Progress Enabler checked, following the outline suggested in the comment box)				Dimensions of the Progress Enabler to consider in the description: * What it is * Who receives the benefit * Scale of impact / # of people touched * Depth / degree of benefit * Duration / how long the benefit lasts * Significance / importance to the recipients * Contribution / importance of company's help * Risk: what could go wrong and how it is mitigated See impactmanagementproject.com for more information about these dimensions of an impactful initiative. ?
	Approximate percentage of revenue derived from the products and/or services checked above			Be careful not to double-count revenue from products / services, or the value of monetary and in-kind donations. If they enable progress on more than one sustainability-related issue, allocate an appropriate share in the progress-enabler section of each issue. ?
	Approximate percentage of revenue represented by the monetized value of associated donations
	Equivalent percentage of revenue associated with these positive contributions			This is a proxy for how integral these positive contributions are to the company's business model. It is a bonus percentage and can lead to the score on this issue being >100%. ?

Waste Progress Enablers Do your products, services and/or donations help others generate less, or repurpose, waste, in any of the following ways? ("x" all that apply, replacing the sample illustrative choices)				This question gives credit to the company for enabling progress on stakeholders' wellbeing through their own products and services' positive impacts and by helping others cause less harm, as well as by helping / amplifying others’ positive impacts through monetary or in-kind donations. ?
	Help others generate significantly less waste.			E.g., zero waste systems; reusable non-plastic packaging; multi-use products instead of single-use plastic products. ?
	Help others repurpose significant quantities of waste.			E.g., recycling systems; systems to remove and repurpose plastics from oceans and landfills; safe energy-from-waste systems; composting systems; waste collection systems. ?
	Other	(Name of another progress enabler by the organization for this issue)		Another progress enabler for this issue, beyond those listed above. ?
(Description of any Progress Enabler checked, following the outline suggested in the comment box)				Dimensions of the Progress Enabler to consider in the description: * What it is * Who receives the benefit * Scale of impact / # of people touched * Depth / degree of benefit * Duration / how long the benefit lasts * Significance / importance to the recipients * Contribution / importance of company's help * Risk: what could go wrong and how it is mitigated See impactmanagementproject.com for more information about these dimensions of an impactful initiative. ?
	Approximate percentage of revenue derived from the products and/or services checked above			Be careful not to double-count revenue from products / services, or the value of monetary and in-kind donations. If they enable progress on more than one sustainability-related issue, allocate an appropriate share in the progress-enabler section of each issue. ?
	Approximate percentage of revenue represented by the monetized value of associated donations
	Equivalent percentage of revenue associated with these positive contributions			This is a proxy for how integral these positive contributions are to the company's business model. It is a bonus percentage and can lead to the score on this issue being >100%. ?

Encroachment on ecosystems Progress Enablers Do your products, services and/or donations help others cause less marine or terrestrial ecosystem degradation, or restore marine or terrestrial ecosystems, in any of the following ways? ("x" all that apply, replacing the sample illustrative choices)				This question gives credit to the company for enabling progress on stakeholders' wellbeing through their own products and services' positive impacts and by helping others cause less harm, as well as by helping / amplifying others’ positive impacts through monetary or in-kind donations. ?
	Provide alternatives to natural resources whose harvesting may jeopardize ecosystems.			E.g., compound to replace palm oil; cultivated plant alternatives for ingredients sourced from wild. ?
	Ensure the sustainable harvesting of ecosystem resources.			E.g., seafood certified by Marine Stewardship Council / Aquaculture Stewardship Council, FSC certified paper; Rainforest Alliance certified coffee, RSPO certified palm oil. ?
	Use or promote sustainable and/or regenerative farming practices.			E.g., high-yield seed varieties; crop rotation programs for maintaining fertility of soil. ?
	Help others protect and conserve ecosystems.			E.g., sustainable tourism in marine and terrestrial habitats; protecting degraded areas so they can regenerate naturally; technology that filters microplastic from waste water. ?
	Restore or remediate ecosystems.			E.g., replanting native shoreline trees and wetlands; repairing natural flood defenses; oil spill cleanup technologies; reforestation using native species. ?
	Other	(Name of another progress enabler by the organization for this issue)		Another progress enabler for this issue, beyond those listed above. ?
(Description of any Progress Enabler checked, following the outline suggested in the comment box)				Dimensions of the Progress Enabler to consider in the description: * What it is * Who receives the benefit * Scale of impact / # of people touched * Depth / degree of benefit * Duration / how long the benefit lasts * Significance / importance to the recipients * Contribution / importance of company's help * Risk: what could go wrong and how it is mitigated See impactmanagementproject.com for more information about these dimensions of an impactful initiative. ?
	Approximate percentage of revenue derived from the products and/or services checked above			Be careful not to double-count revenue from products / services, or the value of monetary and in-kind donations. If they enable progress on more than one sustainability-related issue, allocate an appropriate share in the progress-enabler section of each issue. ?
	Approximate percentage of revenue represented by the monetized value of associated donations
	Equivalent percentage of revenue associated with these positive contributions			This is a proxy for how integral these positive contributions are to the company's business model. It is a bonus percentage and can lead to the score on this issue being >100%. ?

Encroachment on areas of high cultural value Progress Enablers Do your products, services and/or donations help others cause less damage to, or restore, areas of high social or cultural value, in any of the following ways? ("x" all that apply, replacing the sample illustrative choices)				This question gives credit to the company for enabling progress on stakeholders' wellbeing through their own products and services' positive impacts and by helping others cause less harm, as well as by helping / amplifying others’ positive impacts through monetary or in-kind donations. ?
	Support or preserve culture and original art.			E.g., creation of artisanal handicrafts, supporting cultural events, preserving historic production methods; protection of prehistoric art sites. ?
	Help others avoid land-grabbing practices.			E.g., granting indigenous people’s traditional or customary rights to use, manage and control land, fisheries and forests on their land; honor treaties. ?
	Reconstruct or rebuild areas of high cultural or social value.			E.g., reconstruction of cultural heritage sites in conflict zones. ?
	Other	(Name of another progress enabler by the organization for this issue)		Another progress enabler for this issue, beyond those listed above. ?
(Description of any Progress Enabler checked, following the outline suggested in the comment box)				Dimensions of the Progress Enabler to consider in the description: * What it is * Who receives the benefit * Scale of impact / # of people touched * Depth / degree of benefit * Duration / how long the benefit lasts * Significance / importance to the recipients * Contribution / importance of company's help * Risk: what could go wrong and how it is mitigated See impactmanagementproject.com for more information about these dimensions of an impactful initiative. ?
	Approximate percentage of revenue derived from the products and/or services checked above			Be careful not to double-count revenue from products / services, or the value of monetary and in-kind donations. If they enable progress on more than one sustainability-related issue, allocate an appropriate share in the progress-enabler section of each issue. ?
	Approximate percentage of revenue represented by the monetized value of associated donations
	Equivalent percentage of revenue associated with these positive contributions			This is a proxy for how integral these positive contributions are to the company's business model. It is a bonus percentage and can lead to the score on this issue being >100%. ?


Employee Wages		Overall score	See the Introduction section for how to interpret the percent scores that below or above 100%. ?
Sustainable organizations pay their employees at least a living wage, so that they can afford a decent standard of living for their families.			A sustainable company ensures that all its employees and their families have the means to afford access to health care, a nutritious diet and to be free of concerns about meeting basic needs. That is, that they earn at least a living wage that affords a decent standard of living for workers and their families. Living wage estimates vary by region and guidance is offered by government agencies, academics and/or NGOs. ?

Performance on employee wages Does your organization do any of the following to manage employee wages? (Check all that apply; replace sample data with real organization data)			This question will give some credit to the company for managing the issue, even if the resulting score is low. ?
	The organization is a sole proprietorship with no employees. (If selected, you score 100%. Skip to the next question)		If this choice is checked, the score will be 100%, since the company is doing no harm in this issue. ?
	We do not currently monitor and record whether we pay our employees at least a living wage. (If selected, you score 0%. Skip to the next question)		If this choice is checked, the score will be zero, even if other choices are checked. If this is selected, ignore the rest of the choices in the list and move on to the next question. ?
	We monitor and record whether we pay our employees at least a living wage.		Estimate the percentage on this scale, rounding up: 0%, 10%, 20% … 80%, 90%, 100%. Document data sources, estimation methodology and assumptions in the Notes area. ?
	Approximate percentage of employees who are paid at least a living wage
	(Notes)
	We have set living wage targets.		The targets may be relative to a baseline year of the company's choosing. ?
	We met living wage targets, for the reporting period.		These results can be compared with scores in previous reporting periods, to show a trend line. ?
	We have a science-based goal of paying 100% of employees at least a living wage, regardless of organization growth.		If the science-based goal is associated with a date, it is more credible and forceful. ?
	Score


Employee Concerns Process		Overall score	See the Introduction section for how to interpret the percent scores that below or above 100%. ?
Sustainable organizations minimize employee concerns and deal fairly with any concerns that arise.			Companies depend on the commitment and motivation of their employees, so it is good business sense to engage them as much as possible. No company can be completely free of employee concerns, but it should take all steps possible to minimize concerns, and to deal effectively and appropriately with any concerns that arise. ?

Performance on employee concerns process Does your process for handling employee concerns include these elements? (Check all that apply)			This question will give some credit to the company for managing the issue, even if the resulting score is low. ?
	The organization is a sole proprietorship with no employees. (If selected, you score 100%. Skip to the next question)		If this choice is checked, the score will be 100%, since the company is doing no harm in this issue. ?
	We do not currently have a formal employee concerns channel in place. (If selected, you score 0%. Skip to the next question)		If this choice is checked, the score will be zero, even if other choices are checked. If this is selected, ignore the rest of the choices in the list and move on to the next question. ?
	We have a formal employee concerns channel in place, that is available and actively communicated to all employees.		Information on the existence and use of the concerns mechanism is actively communicated to employees, and it is designed for employee confidentiality and to protect employees from reprisals. ?
	We have a formal process in place to address employee concerns, once they have been raised.		People who use the concerns mechanism are fully informed throughout the process and concerns are resolved in a timely manner. All concerns are resolved in a timely manner, without negatively impacting the workplace wellbeing. Employees are consulted on issues of potential concern ahead of activity that could impact their wellbeing. Where necessary, employees are provided with access to neutral / independent advice and expertise. ?
	We regularly assess the effectiveness of the concerns channel, actively soliciting feedback from employees who have used it and making updates when necessary.		We solicit feedback from employees and regularly assess the effectiveness of the concerns process. When needed, steps are taken to improve its effectiveness. Employees or their representatives were involved in the design of concerns mechanism, and the concerns mechanism accommodates the reporting of all conceivable issues. ?
	Score


Ethics		Overall score	See the Introduction section for how to interpret the percent scores that below or above 100%. ?
Sustainable organizations behave ethically.			Ethical behavior is critical to a company's goodwill and reputation. Companies should proactively identify and pre-emptively prevent, specific issues which could lead to ethical breaches such as: anti-competitive practices (e.g. unfair supplier treatment, price fixing); dis-information (e.g. misrepresenting or failing to disclose information which could influence stakeholder decisions or wellbeing); abuse of trust (e.g. inappropriate use of personal data); and willful ignorance (e.g. neglecting to investigate supply chains in which human rights abuses are suspected). ?

Performance on ethics Does your organization do any of the following to manage its ethical practices? (Check all that apply)			This question will give some credit to the company for managing the issue, even if the resulting score is low. ?
	The organization does not have an ethics policy. (If selected, you score 0%. Skip to the next question)		If this choice is checked, the score will be zero, even if other choices are checked. If this is selected, ignore the rest of the choices in the list and move on to the next question. ?
	We have a policy in place stating our commitment to ensure our employees act in an ethical manner.		We have a published ethics policy explicitly stating the company's commitment to ensure that its employees and other representatives act in an ethical manner. ?
	We provide training to employees about ethical conduct at work.		Employs are annually required to sign a pledge that will behave as stated in the policy and receive refreshers on how to behave in sensitive situations. ?
	We have identified ethical hot spot departments and roles.		We have done a hotspot assessment to identify which departments, employee roles and locations are most at risk of ethical breaches, including those with quota-based compensation structures. ?
	We have a goal of zero ethical breaches, regardless of organization growth.		If the goal is associated with a date, it is more credible and forceful. ?
	Score


Lobbying		Overall score	See the Introduction section for how to interpret the percent scores that below or above 100%. ?
Sustainable organizations do not lobby or advocate for, directly or indirectly, for conditions that hinder / undermine progress toward environmental and social sustainability.			Companies often seek to influence the markets within which they operate, by lobbying those with the power to change them. Note that the company need not proactively lobby or campaign in favor of action on sustainability issues, but rather ensure that none of its lobbying activities undermine progress. This extends to any individual or organization that lobbies on behalf of its supporters, and which the company pays to support (e.g. through membership fees or donations), including but not limited to trade associations and lobbying firms, as well as political candidates, parties, committees and campaigns. ?

Performance on lobbying Does your organization do any of the following to manage its lobbying? (Check all that apply; replace sample data with real organization data)			This question will give some credit to the company for managing the issue, even if the resulting score is low. ?
	The organization does not lobby, directly or indirectly. (If selected, you score 100%. Skip to the next question)		If this choice is checked, the score will be 100%, since the company is doing no harm in this issue. ?
	The organization lobbies, but does not have a lobbying policy. (If selected, you score 0%. Skip to the next question)		If this choice is checked, the score will be zero, even if other choices are checked. If this is selected, ignore the rest of the choices in the list and move on to the next question. ?
	We have a published lobbying policy.		Our lobbying policy states that we will not seek to influence public policy in ways that could undermine progress toward a socially just, economically inclusive and environmentally restorative society. ?
	We monitor and track our lobbying.		Our lobbying policy states that we will not campaign for – or support those who campaign for – policies that establish or preserve conditions that lead to outcomes that undermine society’s progress toward a just, economically inclusive and environmentally restorative society. Estimate the percentage on this scale, rounding up: 0%, 10%, 20% … 80%, 90%, 100%. Document data sources, estimation methodology and assumptions in the Notes area. ?
	Approximate percentage of lobbying spend that does not undermine progress toward sustainability goals
	(Notes)
	We disclose recipients of our direct or indirect lobbying.		We disclose recipient names, amounts of contributions, date of the contributions and the purpose of the contributions. ?
	We have a goal of 100% no-harm lobbying, regardless of organization growth.		If the goal is associated with a date, it is more credible and forceful. ?
	Score


Investments		Overall score	See the Introduction section for how to interpret the percent scores that below or above 100%. ?
Sustainable organizations practice impact / sustainable investing.			Impacting investing aims to generate specific beneficial social or environmental effects in addition to financial gains. Impact investments may take the form of numerous asset classes and may result in many specific outcomes. The point of impact investing is to use money and investment capital for positive social results. The company avoids investments (stocks, bonds and other investment instruments) issued by organizations whose business models have a high likelihood of impeding progress toward a just, economically inclusive and environmentally restorative society. ?

Performance on investments Does your organization do any of the following to manage its significant investments? (Check all that apply; replace sample data with real organization data)			This question will give some credit to the company for managing the issue, even if the resulting score is low. ?
	The organization does not have any significant investments. (If selected, you score 100%. Skip to the next question)		If this choice is checked, the score will be 100%, since the company is doing no harm in this issue. ?
	We have significant investments, but do not have an impact / sustainable investment policy. (If selected, you score 0%. Skip to the next question)		If this choice is checked, the score will be zero, even if other choices are checked. If this is selected, ignore the rest of the choices in the list and move on to the next question. ?
	We have significant investments, and we have a published impact / sustainable investment policy.		Our policy states that we check whether companies in which we invest are appropriately addressing potential social and environmental hotspots in their operations, such as: energy, water, materials, GHG emissions, other harmful emissions, waste, physical presence, employee treatment and ethics. Also, we have negative screens against investing in organizations or projects that could undermine progress toward a just, economically inclusive and environmentally restorative society, such as fossil fuel producers, weapons producers, and tobacco companies. ?
	We monitor our significant investments.		Estimate the percentage on this scale, rounding up: 0%, 10%, 20% … 80%, 90%, 100%. Document data sources, estimation methodology and assumptions in the Notes area. ?
	Approximate percentage of investments, by value, that were screened for sustainability-related issues / hot spots
	(Notes)
	We disclose our significant investments.		We disclose names of organizations or projects in which we have invested, amounts invested, dates of the investments and the purpose of the recipient organization or project. ?
	We have a goal of 100% impact / sustainable investments for our significant investments, regardless of organization growth.		If the goal is associated with a date, it is more credible and forceful. ?
	Score


Progress Enablers - on Societal Issues			Overall score	This total is just for information purposes. The scores on each issue. below, are added to the Management scores in the ESG Summary page to give an overall score on each issue. ?
These are bonus scores to give credit to organizations that are having positive impacts on societal and social justice issues. Organizations do this in three ways: • directly, through, the organization's own positive impacts • indirectly, through its products, services and/or donations that amplify others’ positive impacts • indirectly, through its products, services and/or donations that help others cause less harm to society Although there are prompts about many Progress Enablers only a few will potentially apply to any specific organization.				Note that these are bonus / optional positive impacts by the organization on core environmental issues. Any organization will probably have just a few of these, if any. ?

Health and safety Progress Enablers Do your products, services and/or donations help more people be healthy and safe from harm, in any of the following ways? ("x" all that apply, replacing the sample illustrative choices)				This question gives credit to the company for enabling progress on stakeholders' wellbeing through their own products and services' positive impacts and by helping others cause less harm, as well as by helping / amplifying others’ positive impacts through monetary or in-kind donations. ?
	Help prevent exploitation and abuse and/or premature deaths and illnesses.			E.g., treatment and care of migrant workers; worksite health and safety diagnostic aids. ?
	Help reduce violence or promote cross-cultural understanding and/or conflict resolution.			E.g., mediation facilitation. ?
	Support community health by improving others' access to healthcare.			E.g., health insurance, drug tracking, hospital equipment, reproductive healthcare services for women and girls. ?
	Provide healthcare that cures or prevents others illness / disability.			E.g., inoculations and vaccines, food supplements to reduce vitamin & mineral deficiencies, medicines. ?
	Provide information to customers that enables them to make good choices about their healthcare.			E.g., application to track menstrual health. ?
	Provide healthy alternatives to products that are traditionally unhealthy or toxic to consumers.			E.g., healthy food alternatives that meet rigorous government standards, BPA free. ?
	Use less toxic/hazardous chemicals or materials than market alternatives.			E.g., non-toxic cleaners, organic food, integrated pest management for agriculture. ?
	Provide access to nutritious food, clean water, sanitation and/or adequate housing.			E.g., support for food banks; support for homeless; shelters for disadvantaged. ?
	Provide affordable essential goods and services for the disadvantaged and underserved.			E.g., free drugs for developing countries; low-priced generic medicines for underserved, energy and water for off-grid households, low-income housing for disaster-hit areas. ?
	Other	(Name of another progress enabler by the organization for this issue)		Another progress enabler for this issue, beyond those listed above. ?
(Description of any Progress Enabler checked, following the outline suggested in the comment box)				Dimensions of the Progress Enabler to consider in the description: * What it is * Who receives the benefit * Scale of impact / # of people touched * Depth / degree of benefit * Duration / how long the benefit lasts * Significance / importance to the recipients * Contribution / importance of company's help * Risk: what could go wrong and how it is mitigated See impactmanagementproject.com for more information about these dimensions of an impactful initiative. ?
	Approximate percentage of revenue derived from the products and/or services checked above			Be careful not to double-count revenue from products / services, or the value of monetary and in-kind donations. If they enable progress on more than one sustainability-related issue, allocate an appropriate share in the progress-enabler section of each issue. ?
	Approximate percentage of revenue represented by the monetized value of associated donations
	Equivalent percentage of revenue associated with these positive contributions			This is a proxy for how integral these positive contributions are to the company's business model. It is a bonus percentage and can lead to the score on this issue being >100%. ?

Capacity building Progress Enablers Do your products, services and/or donations help strengthen people’s (including employees') capabilities, in any of the following ways? ("x" all that apply, replacing the sample illustrative choices)				This question gives credit to the company for enabling progress on stakeholders' wellbeing through their own products and services' positive impacts and by helping others cause less harm, as well as by helping / amplifying others’ positive impacts through monetary or in-kind donations. ?
	Provide workforce development programs.			E.g., we hire and train workers from chronically underemployed social groups; provide affordable quality daycare for workers; tuition refund program. ?
	Provide others with access to knowledge and information needed to make more informed decisions.			E.g., books for libraries, access to smart phones and computers with Internet connectivity; educational toys and games, grading software ?
	Support others' work training and hiring programs for chronically underemployed social groups.			E.g., job placement services ?
	Provide others with ongoing professional development and advancement of knowledge.			E.g., training programs for professionals, textbooks and guidebooks, specialized research or scientific journals. ?
	Provide essential educational credentials and academic development..			E.g., primary or secondary schools, accredited trade schools, literacy training for immigrants. ?
	Help women and girls have access to education and vocational training.			E.g., business skill workshops, career placement services designed for women, women's leadership networks. ?
	Help others' access to social security, insurance and finance.			E.g., financial counselling and financial planning services. ?
	Provide employment, legal empowerment, and/or educational opportunities for vulnerable groups.			E.g., support programs for victims, ex-combatants, women. ?
	Other	(Name of another progress enabler by the organization for this issue)		Another progress enabler for this issue, beyond those listed above. ?
Last year, we gave 70 sustainability-related talks in college, university and professional degree and certificate courses. At an average of 20 students per class, this education reached at least 1,400 students. About 80% of the talks were pro bono and familiarized the participants with free, open-source tools that they could use after graduation.				Dimensions of the Progress Enabler to consider in the description: * What it is * Who receives the benefit * Scale of impact / # of people touched * Depth / degree of benefit * Duration / how long the benefit lasts * Significance / importance to the recipients * Contribution / importance of company's help * Risk: what could go wrong and how it is mitigated See impactmanagementproject.com for more information about these dimensions of an impactful initiative. ?
	Approximate percentage of revenue derived from the products and/or services checked above			Be careful not to double-count revenue from products / services, or the value of monetary and in-kind donations. If they enable progress on more than one sustainability-related issue, allocate an appropriate share in the progress-enabler section of each issue. ?
	Approximate percentage of revenue represented by the monetized value of associated donations
	Equivalent percentage of revenue associated with these positive contributions			This is a proxy for how integral these positive contributions are to the company's business model. It is a bonus percentage and can lead to the score on this issue being >100%. ?

Infrastructure Progress Enablers Do your products, services and/or donations help improve infrastructure for an inclusive and resilient society, in any of the following ways? ("x" all that apply, replacing the sample illustrative choices)				This question gives credit to the company for enabling progress on stakeholders' wellbeing through their own products and services' positive impacts and by helping others cause less harm, as well as by helping / amplifying others’ positive impacts through monetary or in-kind donations. ?
	Help improve access to physical and information infrastructure through physical or technological solutions.			E.g., bridges, ports, roads, mobile telecom, software/technology, resilient buildings, sustainable transport, Internet access in rural areas ?
	Provide accessible indoor/outdoor green spaces.			E.g., green walls, green roofs, community gardens. ?
	Provide upgrades to sustainable infrastructure.			E.g., hurricane and flooding resistant infrastructure; green loans for sustainable infrastructure projects. ?
	Provide solutions for implementing sustainable smart cities.			E.g., recycling programs, software for optimizing traffic signals to improve air quality, sensors to manage water leakages. ?
	Help ensure people's access to more sustainable transit / mobility.			E.g., reduced fares for workers and students. ?
	Other	(Name of another progress enabler by the organization for this issue)		Another progress enabler for this issue, beyond those listed above. ?
(Description of any Progress Enabler checked, following the outline suggested in the comment box)				Dimensions of the Progress Enabler to consider in the description: * What it is * Who receives the benefit * Scale of impact / # of people touched * Depth / degree of benefit * Duration / how long the benefit lasts * Significance / importance to the recipients * Contribution / importance of company's help * Risk: what could go wrong and how it is mitigated See impactmanagementproject.com for more information about these dimensions of an impactful initiative. ?
	Approximate percentage of revenue derived from the products and/or services checked above			Be careful not to double-count revenue from products / services, or the value of monetary and in-kind donations. If they enable progress on more than one sustainability-related issue, allocate an appropriate share in the progress-enabler section of each issue. ?
	Approximate percentage of revenue represented by the monetized value of associated donations
	Equivalent percentage of revenue associated with these positive contributions			This is a proxy for how integral these positive contributions are to the company's business model. It is a bonus percentage and can lead to the score on this issue being >100%. ?


Summary of ESG Scores
This is a summary of the scores on ESG / sustainability issues, both weighted and unweighted.

Overall Weighted and Unweighted Scores
	Unweighted Scores					Weighted scores
	These scores are calculated in the other pages / worksheets. The Progress Enabler Scores are added to the Performance Scores to yield the Overall Unweighted Scores.					This illustrates one way users might use scores on the most relevant / highest-leverage / weighted issues to generate an Overall Weighted Score.
	All Core Issues		Performance Score	Progress Enabler Score (Bonus)	Overall Unweighted Scores	Scores on Weighted Issues
	Governance					Multi-stakeholder purpose
	Energy					CEO pay link to ESG
	Water					GHG emissions
	Procurement					Procurement
	GHG emissions					Employee living wage
	Non-GHG emissions					Taxes and donations
	Waste					Score on weighted issues
	Encroachment
	Employee wages					Overall Weighted Score
	Employee health
	Employment terms
	Discrimination					Graphical Representations The numerical scores can be used to create bar, column, radar, line, etc. charts and graphics for websites, reports and / or presentations. Users are encouraged to use whatever software they prefer for those purposes. A few possible dashboard templates are included in the Sustainability Frameworks deck in the ...
	Employee concerns
	Community impacts
	Taxes
	Business ethics
	Lobbying
	Investments
		Overall Unweighted Score				Master Slide Decks


Meaning of % Progress Scores * <100%: How far the organization is on its journey toward not causing any harm / breaking even on that issue. * 100%: The organization is not causing any harm / breaking even on that issue. * >100%: The organization is being restorative / regenerative / net positive, directly or indirectly, on that issue. Compare with scores in previous reporting periods to track organization progress.

SDG Scores

ESG Scores are mapped to their most closely-related, primary SDGs to generate scores on the SDGs.

Environment-related SDGs

Core ESG Issues

ESG Scores

7 Affordable and
clean energy

13 Climate
action

6 Clean water
and sanitation

12 Responsible
consumption
and production

14 Life below
water

15 Life on
land

Governance

Energy

GHG Emissions

Water

Procurement

Non-GHG emissions

Waste

Encroachment

Progress scores

SDG #

Employee-related SDGs

Core ESG Issues

ESG Scores

1 No poverty

4 Quality
education

8 Decent work
and economic
growth

5 Gender equality

2 Zero hunger

3 Good health
and wellbeing

Governance

Employee wages

Employment terms

Employee concerns

Employee discrimination

Employee health

Progress scores

SDG #

Society-related SDGs

Core ESG Issues

ESG Scores

9 Industry
innovation and
infrastructure

10 Reduced
inequalities

11 Sustainable
cities and
communities

16 Peace, justice
and strong
institutions

17 Partnerships
for the goals

Governance

Community impacts

Taxes

Business ethics

Lobbying

Investments

Progress scores

SDG #

Meaning of % Progress Scores
   * <100%: How far the organization is on its journey toward not working against that SDG.
   *   100%: The organization is breaking even on that SDG.
   * >100%: The organization is being restorative / regenerative / net positive, directly or indirectly, on that SDG.

Compare with scores in previous reporting periods to track organization progress.

Overall Unweighted and Weighted Scores

Unweighted Scores

Weighted scores

These scores are calculated above, using the scores on the ESG issues and
proxies fr socre on their related primary SDGs.

   This illustrates one way users might use scores on the most
   relevant / highest-leverage / weighted SDGs to generate an
   Overall Weighted Score.

SDGs

Unweighted
Scores

Scores on Weighted SDGs

1 No poverty

13 Climate action

2 Zero hunger

5 Gender equality

3 Good health and wellbeing

12 Responsible consumption
and production

4 Quality education

5 Gender equality

8 Decent work and
economic growth

6 Clean water and sanitation

7 Affordable and clean energy

3 Good health and wellbeing

8 Decent work and economic growth

Score on weighted SDGs

9 Industry innovation and infrastructure

10 Reduced inequalities

Overall Weighted Score

11 Sustainable cities and communities

12 Responsible consumption and production

   Graphical Representations

   The numerical scores can be used to create
   bar, column, radar, line, etc. charts and graphics
   for websites, reports and / or presentations.
   Users are encouraged to use whatever software
   they prefer for those purposes. A few possible
   dashboard templates are included in the
   Sustainability Frameworks deck in the ...

13 Climate action

14 Life below water

15 Life on land

16. Peace, justice and strong institutions

17 Partnerships for the goals

Overall Unweighted Score

Master Slide Decks


Non-Financial Capitals Scores
ESG Scores are mapped to natural, human and social capitals to generate impact scores on capitals.

Core ESG Issues	ESG Scores	Natural Capital	Human Capital	Social Capital
Governance
Energy
Water
Procurement
GHG emissions
Non-GHG emissions
Waste
Encroachment
Employee wages
Employee health
Employment terms
Employee concerns
Employee discrimination
Community impacts
Taxes
Ethics
Lobbying
Investments
Progress scores

Overall Unweighted Score

Meaning of % Progress Scores * <100%: How far the organization is on its journey toward not devaluing the capital. * 100%: The organization is breaking even on the capital. * >100%: The organization is adding value to the capital, directly or indirectly. Compare with scores in previous reporting periods to track organization progress.


Procurement		Overall score	See the Introduction for how to interpret the percent score. ?
Sustainable Procurement (SP) ensures that buyers obtain the best value for money when purchasing the most sustainable goods and services from the most sustainable suppliers, in support of the organization’s stated purpose and strategic goals.			"Best value" means the company receives the best financial, strategic, reputational and brand value from the procurement. ?

Performance on use of a sustainable procurement process Which of the following are true for your sustainable procurement program? (Check all that apply)			This question will give some credit to the company for managing the issue, even if the resulting score is low. ?
	We do not currently monitor and record our use of sustainable procurement, or we do not use sustainable procurement (If selected, skip to the next question)		If this choice is checked, the score will be zero, even if other choices are checked. If this is selected, ignore the rest of the choices in the list and move on to the next question. ?
	We have a sustainable procurement policy and principles.		If this choice is checked, the score will be zero, even if other choices are checked. If this is selected, ignore the rest of the choices in the list and move on to the next question. ?
	We have implemented sustainable procurement.		The targets may be relative to a baseline year of the company's choosing. ?
	We monitor and record our use of sustainable procurement.		Estimate the percentage on this scale, rounding up: 0%, 10%, 20% … 80%, 90%, 100%. Document data sources, estimation methodology and assumptions in the Notes area. ?
	Percentage of purchases, by value, that include sustainability criteria
	Percentage of purchases, by volume, that include sustainability criteria
(Notes)
	We have set targets for our use of a sustainable procurement process.		The targets may be relative to a baseline year of the company's choosing. ?
	We met targets for our use of a sustainable procurement process, for the reporting period.		These results can be compared with scores in previous reporting periods, to show a trend line. ?
	We have a goal of using sustainable procurement in 100% of appropriate procurement, regardless of organization growth.		If the goal is associated with a date, it is more credible and forceful. ?
	Score

Performance on using sustainability-related weighted criteria in bid evaluations A sustainable procurement process assigns significant weight to four criteria, when evaluating bids. (Check all criteria which are given at least a 10% weight in your sustainable procurement process)			Sustainable procurement gives significant weight to sustainability-related criteria when evaluating bids, to confirm that sustainability matters. The score is based on how the weighting that is used today compares with the 10+% weighting used in a strong SP process. ?
	How well the product meets sustainability-related performance and content specs, if relevant		These will be very product-dependent. ?
	The supplier's overall sustainability score, as an organization		This score is based on a third-party supplier sustainability / ESG assessment or certification (e.g. Certified B Corp, EcoVadis rating), or a supplier self-assessment like this one. Further, Do prospective suppliers need to fulfil any criteria regarding their social or environmental performance? Do vendors sign a code of conduct, provide proof of minimum performance, or accept occasional audits? ?
	The Total Cost / Value of Ownership (TCO) assessment for the procurement, if appropriate		A TCO calculation assesses direct and indirect ongoing costs and benefits associated with the acquisition. it also can include the strategic, reputational and balance sheet value that the company receives from the acquisition. It os appropriate for significant acquisitions. ?
	How well the acquisition aligns with our organization's stated purpose and strategic goals		This criterion reinforces the importance of reassuring internal and external stakeholders that the acquisition of the goods and services from this supplier does not send a mixed signal about the company's avowed Purpose, Values and Strategic Goals, including attainment of its ESG targets. ?
	Score		This would be 100+% if the four weights were 10+%. ?
(Notes)


GHG Emissions		Overall score	See the Introduction section for how to interpret the percent scores that below or above 100%. ?
Sustainable organizations eliminate all Scope 1, Scope 2 and Scope 3 greenhouse gas (GHG) net emissions.			Scope 1 emissions result from the company's own operational activities. Scope 2 emissions are from power plants that provide the company's electricity. Scope 3 emissions occur elsewhere in the company's value chain. Net GHG emissions means total GHG emissions, less any emissions that are permanently sequestered or adequately offset. ?

Performance on Scope 1 emissions Does your organization do any of the following to manage its Scope 1 GHG emissions? (Check all that apply; replace sample data with real organization data)			Scope 1 direct GHG emissions occur from stationary and mobile sources that are owned or controlled by the company. That is, GHG emissions from combustion in owned or controlled boilers, furnaces, vehicles, etc.. ?
	We do not currently monitor and record Scope 1 GHG emissions. (If selected, skip to the next question)		If this choice is checked, the score will be zero, even if other choices are checked. If this is selected, ignore the rest of the choices in the list and move on to the next question. ?
	We monitor and record our Scope 1 GHG emissions.		A company can ‘offset / cancel out’ its emissions, either by enabling others to avoid GHG emissions, or by capturing GHGs from the atmosphere and sequestering them. The quality of offsets is often problematic. If a company does want to purchase offsets as a means through which to reduce emissions, it must choose schemes verified by the Gold Standard Carbon Credit Scheme. Estimate the percentage on this scale, rounding up: 0%, 10%, 20% … 80%, 90%, 100%. Document data sources, estimation methodology and assumptions in the Notes area. ?
	Approximate percentage of our Scope 1 carbon footprint that is offset with certified offsets
	(Notes)
	We have set targets for Scope 1 emissions reductions, relative to a chosen baseline year, in line with IPCC recommendations.		The targets may be relative to a baseline year of the company's choosing. ?
	We met Scope 1 emissions targets for the reporting period, with or without the use of certified carbon offsets.		These results can be compared with scores in previous reporting periods, to show a trend line. ?
	We have a science-based goal to be 100% carbon neutral on our Scope 1 emissions, regardless of organization growth.		If the science-based goal is associated with a date, it is more credible and forceful. ?
	Score

Performance on Scope 2 emissions Does your organization do any of the following to manage its Scope 2 GHG emissions? (Check all that apply; replace sample data with real organization data)			This question will give some credit to the company for managing the issue, even if the resulting score is low. ?
	We do not currently monitor and record Scope 2 GHG emissions. (If selected, skip to the next question)		If this choice is checked, the score will be zero, even if other choices are checked. If this is selected, ignore the rest of the choices in the list and move on to the next question. ?
	We monitor and record our Scope 2 GHG emissions.		A company can ‘offset / cancel out’ its emissions, either by enabling others to avoid GHG emissions, or by capturing GHGs from the atmosphere and sequestering them. The quality of offsets is often problematic. If a company does want to purchase offsets as a means through which to reduce emissions, it must choose schemes verified by the Gold Standard Carbon Credit Scheme. Use appropriate conversion factors to express GHG emissions in consistent CO2 equivalent units. (See onlineconversion.com/energy.htm) Document data sources, estimation methodology and assumptions. ?
	Approximate percentage of our Scope 2 carbon footprint that is offset with certified offsets
	(Notes)
	We have set targets for Scope 2 emissions reductions relative to a chosen baseline year, in line with IPCC recommendations.		The targets may be relative to a baseline year of the company's choosing. ?
	We met Scope 2 emission reduction targets for the reporting period, with or without the use of certified carbon offsets.		These results can be compared with scores in previous reporting periods, to show a trend line. ?
	We have a science-based goal to be 100% carbon neutral on our Scope 2 emissions, regardless of organization growth.		If the science-based goal is associated with a date, it is more credible and forceful. ?
	Score


Performance on Scope 3 emissions Does your organization do any of the following to manage its Scope 3 GHG emissions? (Check all that apply; replace sample data with real organization data)			Scope 3 emissions usually account for 50%% to 90% of an organization's carbon footprint. ?
	We do not currently monitor and record Scope 3 GHG emissions. (If selected, skip to the next question)		If this choice is checked, the score will be zero, even if other choices are checked. If this is selected, ignore the rest of the choices in the list and move on to the next question. ?
	We have reviewed the 15 sources / categories of Scope 3 emissions and identified which are significant and relevant enough for our organization to measure and track. ("x" those deemed significant enough to track)		For more information on these 15 sources of Scope 3 emissions, see the "Technical Guidance for Calculating Scope 3 Emissions" by the GHG Protocol. ?
	1. Upstream (cradle-to-gate) GHGs from the production of acquired goods and services.		x
	2. Upstream (cradle-to-gate) GHGs from the production of acquired capital goods.		x
	3. GHGs from fuel- and energy-related extraction, production and transportation, not already included in Scope 1 or 2.
	4. GHGs from transportation of goods from tier 1 suppliers and between organization facilities, in non-organization vehicles.		x
	5. GHGs from transportation, disposal and treatment of organization waste by third parties.
	6. GHGs from business travel of employees, in vehicles not owned / operated by the organization.		x
	7. GHGs from employees (including contractors and consultants) commuting to worksites, in non-organization vehicles.		x
	8. GHGs from the operation of upstream assets leased to others (lessees).
	9. GHGs from the transportation, storage, distribution and retail of products, in non-organization vehicles and facilities.		x
	10. GHGs from processing of intermediate products sold by the organization to manufacturers.
	11. GHGs from end use of products and services sold by the organization.
	12. GHGs from the end-of-life waste disposal and treatment of sold products.		x
	13. GHGs from the operation of downstream assets leased to others (lessees).
	14. GHGs from the operation of franchises.
	15. GHGs from the operation of equity investments - the Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions of investees.
	Number of significant and relevant sources of Scope 3 GHGs
	We monitor and track our Scope 3 emissions from some, or all, significant sources, as identified above..		Not all Scope 3 emissions apply to all companies. ?
	Number of significant sources, above, that we monitor and track
	Percent of significant sources that we monitor and track
	(Notes)		Document data sources, estimation methodology and assumptions. ?
	We have set targets for our overall Scope 3 emissions, relative to a chosen baseline year, in line with IPCC recommendations.		The targets may be relative to a baseline year of the company's choosing. ?
	We met our overall Scope 3 emissions targets for the reporting period, with or without the use of certified carbon offsets.		These results can be compared with scores in previous reporting periods, to show a trend line. ?
	We have a science-based goal to be 100% carbon neutral on our Scope 3 emissions, regardless of organization growth.		If the science-based goal is associated with a date, it is more credible and forceful. ?
	Score


Waste		Overall score	See the Introduction section for how to interpret the percent scores that below or above 100%. ?
Sustainable organizations eliminate all avoidable hazardous and non-hazardous waste, and repurpose all remaining forms of waste.			Waste is materials generated as by-products of production and other operational activities which the company manages to contain, and which require treatment, repurposing, or disposal. This includes both hazardous and non-hazardous manufacturing materials, as well as non-production waste (e.g. office paper, food, retired equipment). The goal is to eliminate all avoidable hazardous and non-hazardous waste generation and then repurpose all remaining forms of waste in ways that minimize quality loss (and thus prolong the life of the materials concerned). (Note: Liquid, gaseous, or solid wastes which are accidentally or intentionally discharged directly into the environment are covered by Non-GHG Emissions.) ?

Performance on overall operations waste Does your organization do any of the following to manage its hazardous and non-hazardous waste? (Check all that apply; replace sample data with real organization data)			This question will give some credit to the company for managing the issue, even if the resulting score is low. ?
	We do not currently monitor and record our hazardous and non-hazardous waste. (If selected, skip to the next question)		If this choice is checked, the score will be zero, even if other choices are checked. If this is selected, ignore the rest of the choices in the list and move on to the next question. ?
	We monitor and record our hazardous and non-hazardous waste.		Estimate the percentage on this scale, rounding up: 0%, 10%, 20% … 80%, 90%, 100%. Document data sources, estimation methodology and assumptions in the Notes area. ?
	Approximate percentage of hon-hazardous waste repurposed / recycled
	Approximate percentage of hazardous waste that is properly disposed of
	(Notes)
	We have set targets for our hazardous and non-hazardous waste.		The targets may be relative to a baseline year of the company's choosing. ?
	We met targets for our hazardous and non-hazardous waste, for the reporting period.		These results can be compared with scores in previous reporting periods, to show a trend line. ?
	We have a science-based goal of zero hazardous and non-hazardous waste, regardless of organization growth.		If the science-based goal is associated with a date, it is more credible and forceful. ?
	Score

Performance on product and packaging waste Does your organization do any of the following to manage its product and packaging waste? (Check all that apply; replace sample data with real organization data)			This question will give some credit to the company for managing the issue, even if the resulting score is low. ?
	We do not currently monitor and record our product and packaging waste. (If selected, skip to the next question)		If this choice is checked, the score will be zero, even if other choices are checked. If this is selected, ignore the rest of the choices in the list and move on to the next question. ?
	We monitor and record our product and packaging waste.		Estimate the percentage on this scale, rounding up: 0%, 10%, 20% … 80%, 90%, 100%. Document data sources, estimation methodology and assumptions in the Notes area. ?
	Approximate percentage of product waste that is repurposed / recycled at end-of-use
	Approximate percentage of packaging waste that is repurposed / recycled
	(Notes)
	Our products can be broken down easily into components and recycled through local waste infrastructure		Check all that apply, even if customers do not take advantage of the recycling opportunities. ?
	Our products are at least partially recyclable, through local waste infrastructure and take-back schemes
	Our products are either completely biodegradable or recyclable through local waste infrastructure and take-back schemes
	We have set targets for our product and packaging waste.		The targets may be relative to a baseline year of the company's choosing. ?
	We met targets for product and packaging waste, for the reporting period.		These results can be compared with scores in previous reporting periods, to show a trend line. ?
	We have a science-based goal of zero product and packaging waste, regardless of organization growth.		If the science-based goal is associated with a date, it is more credible and forceful. ?
	Score


Employee Health and Wellbeing		Overall score	See the Introduction section for how to interpret the percent scores that below or above 100%. ?
Sustainable organizations provide a safe and healthy workplace. "Health" includes physical, mental and emotional health.			Companies that do not adequately address workplace health issues may cause serious long-term negative health problems for their employees. Note that “health” extends beyond physical safety to mental and emotional wellness, and encompasses stress management and mitigation. When it comes to physical safety, companies should take steps to minimize and mitigate the effects of accidents, and strive continuously to reduce work-related injuries, illnesses, and fatalities to zero. ?

Performance on employee health and safety Does your organization do any of the following to manage employee health and safety? (Check all that apply; replace sample data with real organization data)			This question will give some credit to the company for managing the issue, even if the resulting score is low. ?
	The organization is a sole proprietorship with no employees. (If selected, you score 100%. Skip to the next question)		If this choice is checked, the score will be 100%, since the company is doing no harm in this issue. ?
	We do not currently monitor and record workplace health and safety incidents. (If selected, you score 0%. Skip to the next question)		If this choice is checked, the score will be zero, even if other choices are checked. If this is selected, ignore the rest of the choices in the list and move on to the next question. ?
	We monitor and record workplace health and safety issues.		Document data sources, estimation methodology and assumptions. ?
	Approximate number of workplace injuries / safety incidents
	Approximate number of workplace fatalities
	(Notes)
	We have set health- and safety-related targets.		Controls are in place to identify, assess, and eliminate or control hazards; a risk assessment and mitigation program has been implemented; workplace safety policies and activities are regularly monitored for new hazards. ?
	We met health- and safety-related targets, for the reporting period.		The target cover employees, contractors and visitors. These results can be compared with scores in previous reporting periods, to show a trend line. ?
	We have a science-based goal of zero safety incidents and fatalities, regardless of organization growth.		If the science-based goal is associated with a date, it is more credible and forceful. ?
	We have policies, practices and programs that support a safe and healthy workplace		Our buildings / facilities are safe and healthy workplaces. Employees are trained on how to handle any incidents or emergencies, if they should arise. We conduct regular audits of our workplaces to assess and take action on any health and safety risks for employees or visitors. ?
	We have policies, practices and programs that support mental wellbeing, including condemnation of workplace bullying and harassment		We have a zero-tolerance policy regarding bullying and harassment; flexible working conditions are available to employees; employees have access to guidance or resources to address sources of stress at work or at home. ?
	We provide paid support for lost time / sick leave		We support employees affected by work-related, or other, health issues. ?
	We have a no-smoking workplace.		All work environments are smoke free; all communal areas, both inside and outside, are smoke free. ?
	We provide good nutrition.		Employees have access to healthy eating options on site or within reasonable distance ?
	We encourage physical activity in the workplace.		Employees are permitted to take breaks during working hours; the timing and length of work breaks is flexible to facilitate exercise. ?
	Score


Employment Terms		Overall score	See the Introduction section for how to interpret the percent scores that below or above 100%. ?
Sustainable organizations provide fair employment terms, aligned with human rights.			Employees who work reasonable hours, who feel secure in their employment, and who are afforded adequate time off are more likely to thrive physically, emotionally, and mentally – in and outside work. Fair employment terms align with human rights as defined by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Associated Covenants and the International Labor Organization (ILO) Declaration on the Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. ?

Performance on employee employment terms Does your organization include these terms in employment contracts and other policies? ("x" all that apply, replacing the sample illustrative choices)			This question will give some credit to the company for managing the issue, even if the resulting score is low. ?
	The organization is a sole proprietorship with no employees. (If selected, you score 100%. Skip to the next question)		If this choice is checked, the score will be 100%, since the company is doing no harm in this issue. ?
	We do not currently use employment contracts with our employees. (If selected, you score 0%. Skip to the next question)		If this choice is checked, the score will be zero, even if other choices are checked. If this is selected, ignore the rest of the choices in the list and move on to the next question. ?
	No child labor.		We adhere to the minimum working age defined by ILO Convention no. 138.2. ?
	Fair employment status.		Our part-time employees are hired on contracts that enable them to perform agreed work with the protections and employment conditions proportionate to comparable full-time workers. ?
	Freedom of association.		Our employees have the right to form and join trade unions of their choice (or to choose not to), and the right to bargain collectively. ?
	Fair working hours.		We comply with national labor laws or widely adopted minimum standards re hours of work, overtime compensation, contract hours, notice of work schedule changes, etc. Fair working hours are usually 40 hours a week. ?
	Holidays.		Our paid leave conforms to the ILO Convention no. 138.2 in the area of holidays with pay. ?
	Sick leave.		We comply with national labor laws or widely adopted minimum standards (i.e., employees who have been with the company for a minimum of three consecutive months are entitled to sick leave protection) ?
	Maternity and paternity leave.		We comply with national labor laws or widely adopted minimum standards (i.e., employees, regardless of gender, have the right to a minimum of 14 weeks of paid maternity or paternity leave). ?
	Human rights.		We have a formal process to educate our employees, temporary and contract workers on our Human Rights policy. ?
	Employee bonuses, profit sharing and/or ownership opportunities.		This is over and above the living wage, if that is provided. ?
	We have a policy that our defined benefits pension plan is always 100% funded.		Defined benefit plans provide a fixed, pre-established benefit for employees at retirement. ?
	We have a policy about the ratio of total CEO remuneration to average employee pay.		In 1965, the CEO-to-worker compensation ratio in the United States stood at about 20-to-1, according to a 2015 report by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI). But starting in the 1970s up through 2014, "inflation-adjusted CEO compensation increased 997 percent, a rise almost double stock market growth and substantially greater than the painfully slow 10.9 percent growth in a typical worker's annual compensation over the same period." In comparative terms, CEOs now make 278 times the average worker. ?
	Score