Johnson & Johnson (NYSE: JNJ) announced a new set of five-year targets for sustainability, including a goal to increase on-site use of renewable energy to 50 megawatts (MW).
The targets build on previously attained goals and broaden the company’s ambitions to include health and social initiatives.
J&J has seven sustainability priorities including community health, philanthropy, employee health and safety, environmental impacts, and supply chain sustainability.
They set 15 targets against to achieve by 2015. Environmental targets include:
- Cut CO2 emissions 20%
- Reduce water consumption 10%
- Reduce waste 10%
- Require suppliers to have two or more publicly reported sustainability goals
Non-environmental goals include:
- Launch community health education initiatives in 25 countries
- Give 90% of employees access to "culture of health" programs
- Complete health risk assessments with 80% of employees
- Share product sustainability information on all major brand websites
- Provide affordable access to HIV and tuberculosis therapies in developing and middle-income countries.
The company’s new Responsibility website report on its progress toward these sustainability goals. The site begins by assessing its achievements and shortcomings in meeting the goals it set for 2010.
J&J has reduced emissions 23% from 1990 levels, far surpassing its 2010 goal of 7%.
However, it fell well short of a goal to reduce fleet emissions 30% from a 2003 baseline, reaching only 16%.
The company also fell short on goals for product stewardship and compliance, but met or exceeded goals on water conservation, waste reduction, environmental literacy and biodiversity.
Here’s their Responsibility website:
Loading...
We need to get rid of the silo thinking in our dcsieion making/budgeting and take a more wholistic view of major issues such as transportation. We cannot view public transit and assess the value/cost of their services without considering the whole transportation infrastructure. We subsidize road construction to no end but do not consider how more extensive and cheaper (perhaps even free) public transport may obviate the need for much road construction. Likewise, those who benefit need to pay. Large trucks do thousands of times more damage to roads than do cars but trucking companies do not bear the related cost. This indirect subsidization adversely affects efficient market resource utilization in this case to the detriment of trains who pay their own rail costs. There is no way that trains should not be used more for large shipments and heavy traffic flow between fixed locations. It must be cheaper, better for the environment and certainly safer.