Methodological questions about our independent reviews
Why did we select the twelve largest companies and not seven or twenty?
We decided to write about the companies representing at least 1% of the total container cargo in the world, and they are twelve. Besides, of the next eighteen companies (up to the thirty largest), only three have released Sustainability Reports covering the operations from January 1st, 2019 to December 31st, 2019.
Do we evaluate the environmental quality of the fleets of the twelve largest container companies?
No. Such a task would imply teams of experts with different groups evaluating the fleet of each liner. Probably a consortium of classification societies could carry out such a task. We evaluate the environmental reporting presented in the Sustainability Reports.
Why have we given to three of the twelve largest companies only from 1 to 2.5 stars out of 5?
In one case, the company has never produced a Sustainability Report (we gave 1 star, not 0); in another case, the company did not publish a Sustainability Report for the operations from January 1st 2019 to December 31st 2019 (we gave 1.5 stars); and in the third case, the company submitted data for only half of 2019 (we gave 2.5 stars).
Do we use other sources besides the Sustainability Reports?
We also look at their annual (financial) reports and their websites in the three previous cases. Regrettably, two of them did not have annual reports on their websites, and the other had only an eight-page financial report, without any environmental mentions. Of course, we also looked at their websites, trying to find some environmental reporting in this way; however, it is kind of obvious that if companies are not releasing Sustainability Reports, the information one will find in their websites is scarce.
Do we request information from the companies if they did not have a Sustainability Report for the last year?
No. Large companies are supposed to produce Sustainability Reports, even if they are not mandatory. That is the new norm in the 21st century. We evaluate the reports' quality, but an essential and fundamental part of that evaluation is that the companies produced that report. As we just said, we also looked at the annual reports and the websites, but we consider that each of those twelve large companies (each representing at least 1% of total container cargo in the world, as we mentioned above) must release their Sustainability Reports or include an environmental section on their annual reports.
Why are we releasing our independent reviews until October and not before?
We wanted to write these reviews before the Summer; however, most companies have been late releasing their reports. For instance, one released its report until August, and three released theirs until September.
Do we look at the entire content of the Sustainability Reports or only to the environmental section?
Our expertise is on environmental issues; therefore, our reviews are based only on those sections. We leave for others to evaluate governance, labor, safety, or other issues.
Do we evaluate the different Sustainability Report using the same parameters?
The work we are doing is not easy because each of the reports follows a different structure, even if most of them follow GRI guidelines. For instance, some give great relevance to GHG emissions, while others balance different environmental topics on a more equal base. Some rely highly on numbers, while others are mainly narrative. Some are overoptimistic as if they are doing everything, while others recognize limitations. Etc. Hence, the task is not easy, but we try to homogenize the most possible.
What issues are particularly important for us?
The first is the fact that the company has released a report. The second is if enough data is provided since, in the end, numbers tell the truth while words can be used to imply different stories. Third, we look at all environmental issues, but given the relevance of GHG emissions, we give at least half of the weight to that topic and the other half to the other environmental issues. Fourth, we value the company's environmental ambitions: its goals for 2050; of course, since any commitment could be provided for 2050, we take into account also the intermediate commitments for 2030 or so to estimate if the long-term goals are compatible with the short- and medium-term ones. Fifth, we also value honesty. No company can claim nowadays that it is performing 100% on environmental issues. Some of the best reports we have found are when companies acknowledge challenges that are still pending, further work they most do, etc.
Are there any environmental issues to which we give little weight to?
Yes. It is good that companies present their materiality matrixes, ISO standards, join green shipping initiatives, endorse the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), or received environmental awards. However, for us, that must be the new minimum for large shipping companies in the 21st century as in the past, it was to comply with IMO's regulations. Besides, we see companies, for instance, that only copy the 17 SDGs without explaining how their companies are impacting them; and, let's be frank: no shipping company in the world can claim that its actions are impacting the 17 SDGs.
Gliese Foundation
October 21st, 2020