Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
ISBN : 9780974211428
INTRODUCTION
June 27-28, 2012
Cambridge, UK
ISBN : 9780974211428
For those passionate about sports, the first image that comes to mind when adidas,
Nike, or Puma is mentioned may be a footballer scoring the winning goal, a tennis player
at match-point, or a runner crossing the finish line. Athletes are often identified with and
by the shoes and apparel they wear David Beckham & adidas; Maria Sharapova &
Nike; Usain Bolt & Puma - to name just a few. Of course, sporting goods companies
realize this and spend millions of dollars per year to promote that association through
sponsorship of athletic events and the endorsement of their brands by athletes. With three
years remaining on his existing deal with adidas, Beckham signed a lifetime contract in
2003, worth an estimated at $160.8 million (Boston.com, 2005). In 2010, the former #1
ranked womens player but often injured Sharapova renewed her sponsorship agreement
with Nike by eight years for $70 million (Rossingh, 2010). World record holding sprinter
Bolts contract with Puma is the largest in track & field history, comparable to Real
Madrid football star Cristiano Ronaldo's four-year contract with Nike, worth US $32.5
million (21 million) (Kessel, 2010).
However, a second image which may flash to mind when adidas, Nike, or Puma,
is mentioned is one of the poorly paid and ill-treated worker in the Asian factories with
which these companies subcontract the manufacture of their shoes and apparel. In
particular, Nike has been singled out for its use of alleged sweatshops (Beder, 2002;
Keady, 2012; Porter & Kramer, 2006). Prefacing his speech about Nikes labor initiatives
at a National Press Club lunch in 1998, Knight noted how some critics had demonized the
company.
It's been said that Nike has single-handedly lowered the
human rights standards for the sole purpose of maximizing
June 27-28, 2012
Cambridge, UK
ISBN : 9780974211428
ISBN : 9780974211428
has not been met by conventional financial reporting practices. Triple bottom-line (TBL)
reporting, a term coined by John Elkington in his 1997 book Cannibals with Forks: the
Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business, aims to remedy this shortcoming by
explicitly considering not only the economic performance of a firm but also the
companys environmental and social performance as well. Adidas, Nike, and Puma have
embraced the TBL (also known as People, Profit, and Planet or 3P reporting) and have
been recognized for the quality of their reports. This paper relies heavily on those
reports.
ADIDAS In the Real World Performance Counts
Adidas and Puma share a common heritage and a fascinating story of sibling
rivalry. In 1924, Adolf and Rudi Dassler began manufacturing shoes as the Gebrder
Dassler Schuhfabrik (Dassler Brothers Shoe Factory). Perhaps their most famous
endorser was the American sprinter Jesse Owens who won four gold medals at the
1936 Olympic Games in Berlin wearing Dassler spiked shoes. After World War II, the
brothers split bitterly with Adolf (Adi) going off his separate way to create adidas; Rudi
formed his own company which would eventually become Puma. Although located in the
same small Bavarian town of Herzogenaurach, the companies and their employees
maintained a fierce rivalry along the lines of the legendary feud between the Hatfields
and McCoys. Only recently has this relationship begun to thaw. Noteworthy enough to be
included in its 2010 Annual Report, Puma highlights the historic handshake between
adidas and PUMA heard around the world a one day soccer tournament held in
Herzogenaurach with 192 adults and children playing in mixed teams of adidas and Puma
ISBN : 9780974211428
employees (Puma, 2011: 68). At least, now the families and their respective companies
speak to one another.
Adidas, which also sells products under the Reebok, Rockport, CCM Hockey, and
TaylorMade brands, has been recognized for its sustainability reporting and performance
by numerous organizations. The company is included in the Dow Jones Sustainability
(DJSI), the FTSE4Good, STOXX Global ESG Leaders indices, and has been named
among the Global 100 Most Sustainable Corporations, and is recognized as the Industry
Leader in the DJSI (adidas, 2012a). As reflected in its reporting, adidas embraces a
balanced view of the importance of its various stakeholders. In short, it has adopted the
Triple Bottom Line (TBL).
We are striving to be the global leader in the sporting goods
industry and this demands that we return strong financial
results. But leadership is not only about results, it is also
about how success is achieved. It is about striking the
balance between business needs and social and
environmental demands. Balancing these interests requires
strong commitment, strategic direction, efficient and
careful execution, as well as regular reflection on the
progress made (adidas, 2012b: 6).
As is true for almost all companies in the sporting goods industry, adidas
outsources over 95% of production to independent third-party suppliers, primarily located
in Asia. The reason is simple lower production costs. In 2011, adidas worked with
more than 1,200 independent suppliers in 63 countries. Of all factories, 67% are located
in the Asia Pacific region, 20% in the Americas and 13% in Europe, Middle East and
Africa (EMEA). 28% of production is in Chinese factories (adidas, 2012b: 43). To
monitor the labor standards in its supply chain, adidas developed a system of key
performance indicators (KPI) which ranks its subcontractors performance along a scale
June 27-28, 2012
Cambridge, UK
ISBN : 9780974211428
ISBN : 9780974211428
ISBN : 9780974211428
production of its shoes that if a shoe worker in Korea or Taiwan had gone to sleep in the
shoe factory there ten years ago and wakened in a shoe factory in Indonesia or Vietnam
today, would have thought that he or she had died and gone to heaven (Knight, 1997).
Somewhere along the line, Nike finally got the message and responded. In 2001,
the company formed a Corporate Responsibility (CR) Committee as part of its Board of
Directors to oversee the environmental impact, sustainability, and labor issues of its
major business decisions. (Nike, 2012: 15). After arguing for over a decade that
disclosure of the locations of its subcontracting factories would be a competitive
disadvantage, Nike released this information in 2005, marking the first time this was ever
done by anyone in the industry (Nike, 2012: 32). As Hannah Jones, Nikes Vice President
for Sustainable Business & Innovation, notes, This moment also marked us taking a
non-competitive business risk that changed the system (Albanese, 2012: 2).
It certainly changed the way the investment community viewed Nike. Included in
the Calvert Social Index, the Dow Jones Sustainability Indexes (DJSI), Domini 400
Social Index, KLD Catholic Values 400 Index, KLD Broad Market Social Index, KLD
Large Cap Social Index, KLD Large-Mid Cap Social Index, KLD Global Sustainability
Index, KLD North America Sustainability Index and KLD Select Social Index, and the
FTSE4Good Index, Nike has been recognized as one of the Global 100 Most Sustainable
Corporations in the World, included on the 100 Best Corporate Citizens list, ranked as
one of the World's Most Ethical Companies each year from 2007 to 2009 in an analysis
by Ethisphere, and named in the top 10 of Newsweek's 2009 first annual Green Rankings
(Nike, 2012b). Its sustainability reports (first issued in 2001) have been recognized by
Ceres-ACCA as the best in North America (Ceres, 2011).
ISBN : 9780974211428
Despite the turnaround in public perception, Nike still faces the challenge of
managing its supply chain in a socially responsible way. As noted earlier, adidas has
developed its KPI system to rate the performance of its suppliers. Nike has a variety of
indices that perform the same function. Remembering the fall-out from Phil Knights
died and gone to heaven remark, the company has gone to great lengths to create
metrics to define what good looks like for factories that supply to Nike. The results
are complex indices for Materials Sustainability, Sourcing & Manufacturing
Sustainability, Manufacturing, and Considered Design (Nike, 2012:40).
Creating metrics and standards is one thing; making sure they are being followed
is another. Auditing is the first step toward working to improve factories that may meet
minimum compliance standards but have opportunities to improve their sustainability
performance. Its also the first step toward eliminating from our supply base those
factories with serious, recurring violations (Nike, 2012: 31). During FY09, fewer than
half of the factories with which Nike subcontracted were audited; by the end of FY11,
80% were. Of the 1,169 audits conducted in FY11, 59% were by third parties (Nike,
2012: 42). Pursuant to its membership the Fair Factories Clearinghouse (FFC), Nike
shared 39% of its audit results in order to promote transparency throughout the industry.
It is also one of 16 companies whose labor compliance program is accredited by the Fair
Labor Associations Sustainable Compliance Initiative.
Nike has taken a systems approach to the problem of limited resources and the
devastating environment impact that business operations can have. Key to this approach
is the use of the innovative concept of Considered Design, which evaluates the
environment footprint of a product during its entire life cycle from development through
ISBN : 9780974211428
10
ISBN : 9780974211428
Puma, Tretorn, and Cobra Golf brand-names. However, just as adidas and Nike have
done, Puma embraces the concept of the triple bottom line.
PUMA as a leading company within the Sportlifestyle
industry has the opportunity and the responsibility to
contribute to a better world for the generations to come.
Through our programs PUMA.Safe (focusing on
environmental and social issues), PUMA.Peace (supporting
global peace) and PUMA.Creative (supporting artists and
creative organizations), we are making our contribution to
build for ourselves and our stakeholders a more
sustainable future. Sustainability has become an integral
part of PUMAs business strategy and is essential
to the PUMA DNA (Puma, 2012: 15).
Puma has been recognized as a socially responsible company as reflected in its inclusion
in both the Dow Jones Sustainability Index (since2006) and the FTSE4Good (since
2005).
As is the norm in the industry, Puma outsources most of its production of its
footwear and apparel, with 90% taking place in Asia (39% in China; 21% in Vietnam)
(Puma, 2012: 43; 129). This creates the common problem faced by adidas, Nike, and
Puma - evaluating the working conditions at these independent factories which operate in
32 different countries (Puma, 2012: 129). To do this, Puma created World Cat, Ltd., to
serve as its procurement agent. It is within World Cat, Ltd., that the PUMA.Safe program
is housed, and it is under the PUMA.Safe program that environmental and social audits
have been conducted since 1999, with reporting directly to Reiner Seiz, a member of
Pumas Executive Board, as well as to Zochen Zeitz, the Chief Sustainability Officer of
Pumas parent PPR (Puma, 2012: 15).
Adidas has its KPI system; Nike has its indices; Puma has developed its own
Sustainability Scorecard and S-Index that assign grades to its subcontractor factories. The
June 27-28, 2012
Cambridge, UK
11
ISBN : 9780974211428
frequency with which a factory is audited depends on the grade received on the
Sustainability Scorecard once every two years for A factories; annually for B+
factories; down to every 2-6 months for Grades C or D (Puma, 2012: 45). Overall,
audits resulted in 53% of the factories received an A or B+ rating (Puma, 2012: 46).
As is readily apparent, the approaches which adidas, Nike, and Puma take to
responsibly manage their supply chains are remarkably similar. What sets Puma apart
from the other two companies is its novel approach to reporting, particularly in regards to
its environmental impact. While they have clearly adopted the Triple Bottom Line
philosophy, there is no connection between how, where, or when adidas and Nike report
their financial bottom line and the reporting of their companies environmental and social
impact. In other words, they report financial and non-financial information separately and
at different times. While this is the predominant approach used by most companies in
most industries throughout the world, the Prince of Wales Accounting for Sustainability
(A4S) Project has been advocating the necessity for connected reporting of financial,
environmental, and social performance for years (A4S, 2010). Indeed, the International
Integrated Reporting Committee (IIRC) was formed in 2010 with the specific goal of
creating a globally accepted framework for accounting for sustainability which brings
together financial, environmental, social and governance information in a clear, concise,
consistent and comparable format - put briefly, in an integrated format (IIRC, 2010).
The so-called One Report, further developed by Harvard professor Bob Eccles
and Grant Thornton partner Mike Krzus (2010), is the approach which Puma has used for
both its 2010 Annual Report and its 2011 Clever Little Report (Puma, 2011; 2012);
Pumas provide outstanding applications of this model.
12
ISBN : 9780974211428
13
ISBN : 9780974211428
its supply chain to be 145 million (Puma, 2011b). [See Appendix B for the details of
this analysis.]
Mirroring Nikes Jones call to arms in addressing the environment crisis, PPR
Chief Sustainability Officer Jochen Koch believes this Environmental Profit and Loss
Account has been indispensible for us to realize the immense value of natures services
that are currently being taken for granted but without which companies could not sustain
themselves . . . The results of the PUMA E P&L underpin the urgency for a paradigm
shift in the way we all currently do business and I have been pleased to also see that the
release of PUMAs first results has generated widespread interest among governments,
corporations, NGOs and academics (Puma, 2011b).
The results of the E P&L also reveal an interesting and important interrelationship
between the social and environment consequences of managing Pumas supply chain.
Puma found that only 6% of its environmental impact was caused by its core operations
in 2010; it was its supply chain that was responsible for 94% or 137 million (Puma,
2011b).
The E P&L is only the first stage of Pumas development of environmental
financial statements. However, unlike Grays suggestion for shadow accounting (Gray,
2002) which would actually be used to adjust reported earnings, these costs, which will
not affect PUMAs net earnings, will serve as an initial metric for the company when
aiming to mitigate the footprint of PUMAs operations and all supply chain levels
(Puma, 2011b). As Pumas initiative evolves, it will further include the impact of its
social performance (Stage 2) and indirect economic consequences (e.g. job creation and
tax contributions) of its business (Puma, 2011c). Once completed, Puma will have
14
ISBN : 9780974211428
15
ISBN : 9780974211428
-SC I) which identifies a common set of monitoring questions for subcontracting factories
they share (adidas, 2012c: 14). Along similar lines, the Fair Factories Clearinghouse
(FFC) provides a common compliance monitoring platform, enabling each company to
collaborate on activities in shared factories. As noted previously, pursuant to its
membership the Fair Factories Clearinghouse (FFC), Nike shared 39 percent of its audit
results in order to promote transparency throughout the industry.
All three companies are Founding Circle Members of the Sustainable Apparel
Coalition (SAC), an industry-wide group of leading apparel and footwear brands,
retailers, manufacturers, NGOs, academic experts and the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, representing an estimated 30% of global apparel and footwear sales (SAC,
2012). To further the SACs objective of reducing the environmental and social impacts
of apparel and footwear products around the world, Nike has made its Materials
Sustainability Index and Environmental Apparel Design Tool available publicly, through
the SAC, to help any apparel designer quickly make design decisions that would reduce
the environmental impact of their products (Nike, 2012: 29).
In another example of collaboration among competitors, adidas, Nike, Puma and
other companies in the sporting goods & apparel industry released a joint roadmap
towards zero discharge of hazardous chemicals (ZDHC) in the supply chain by 2020 for
public consultation. [See Appendix C for this response.] The roadmap included specific
commitments and timelines and sets a new standard of environmental performance for
the global apparel and footwear industry (Adidas, 2012:10).
16
ISBN : 9780974211428
CONCLUSION
Companies in the sporting goods and apparel industry are engaged in a battle
where success has traditionally been measured by revenue, profit, market share and
even the number of Olympic medals won by the athletes who wear their shoes. However,
the playing field is changing, and along with this change is how success is measured.
Consumers nowadays increasingly expect companies to do
more than just consider social and environmental issues.
They want the products they buy to be the best, helping
them be the best they can be. But they also want to buy
these products from companies that are at the leading edge
in terms of making a difference to the world at large
(adidas, 2012: 7).
This paper has explored the ways in which the industry leaders - adidas, Nike, and
Puma - have responded to the challenges presented to their corporate citizenship. It has
relied heavily on reports issued by the companies themselves. [See Appendix A for a
summary of the characteristics of the companies and their reporting.] Some may question
the significance of focusing on these communications. Indeed, the skeptic may believe
that reporting is little more than self-serving product of corporate public relations
departments. However, extending the common management maxim, if you dont
measure it, you cant manage it, this paper would argue that if you cant report it, then
you cant manage it; and, if you cant manage it, then you cant change it. In this sense,
reporting is a necessary precondition for change to a more sustainable future by forcing
organizations to measure and communicate many more dimensions of their impact on the
world than the traditional financial reporting practices would.
The working conditions in the factories with which the companies have
subcontracted to make their shoes and apparel and the wages which these independent
June 27-28, 2012
Cambridge, UK
17
ISBN : 9780974211428
factories pay their employees will continue to be the most important challenges to
corporate social responsibility. As individual entities, Adidas, Nike, and Puma take
similar approaches to responsibly manage their supply chain. These approaches involve
setting standards, grading or rating the subcontractors compliance with those standards,
and periodic auditing to further test for compliance. However, their individual efforts are
not the only responses they make.
It also leads to collaborative working. We recognise that
many of the issues we face cannot be solved by the adidas
Group alone and working with other actors in our industry
helps drive lasting change. So for example, the adidas
Group acted as the lead party in a supplier-brand caucus
formed in 2010 to engage with Indonesias trade union
movement. Its aim was to develop a basic framework for
the exercise of trade union rights in the workplace. An
agreement was finally reached and signed in Jakarta in June
2011. The protocol is recognised as a landmark
achievement in Indonesian labour rights. When Greenpeace
launched its Detox Campaign calling for an end of
discharge of hazardous chemicals in the textile industry, we
worked with a coalition of other brands to develop a joint
roadmap towards the zero discharge of hazardous
chemicals by 2020. (adidas, 2012: 4).
The second major issue facing adidas, Nike, and Puma is the environmental
impact which their operations have. This is not unique to the sporting goods industry.
Indeed, although the impact may be greater (e.g. extractive industries) or lesser, the
concern for increasingly limited resources is common to all companies in all industries.
Yet, it is in responding to this common challenge that the sporting goods companies have
differentiated themselves. Each company has its own green initiative, using
environmentally preferred materials, less toxic adhesives, with more recycling. Nike has
taken this a step further with its Considered Design approach which considers the
environmental impact at each stage of a products life cycle. Pumas development and
June 27-28, 2012
Cambridge, UK
18
ISBN : 9780974211428
release of its environmental profit & loss account represents a dramatic contribution to
the conversation. As Alan McGill, partner, Sustainability and Climate Change, PwC,
observes:
These values are enough to make any business pay
attention. The PUMA E P&L offers a real insight into the
environmental consequences of commercial decisions and
at the same time highlights potential commercial
consequences of the environmental realities unfolding
around the world. This will make many companies consider
how they can apply similar analysis in their own
organisations. Companies big and small are now reliant
on global supply chains, making their environmental
footprint much larger than many realise. Assigning
economic values to the environmental impact of a
companys operations enables a business to tackle vital
questions now, not just about environmental impacts, but
business risk, costs savings and finding new ways to
become more effective. Without measuring them, the
impacts cannot be managed, or reduced (Puma, 2011b).
Perhaps the most surprising aspect of responses made by the three largest
companies in the sporting goods industry is the remarkable willingness which they have
shown to cooperate with one another to address challenges to their corporate citizenship.
In an industry dominated by catch phrases adidas In the Real World Performance
Counts; Nikes Just Do It; Pumas Back on the Attack perhaps the best lesson
learned is we are all in this together. Citius, Altius, Fortius Faster, Higher, Stronger?
Yes, but only if we work together.
19
ISBN : 9780974211428
REFERENCES
Accounting for Sustainability [A4S] (2010). Connected reporting. Accessed 25 May
2012, [available at http://www.accountingforsustainability.org/about-us/project-history].
Albanese, M. (2012). How she leads: Hannah Jones of Nike. Accessed 25 May 2012,
[available at
http://www.greenbiz.com/blog/2012/02/06/how-she-leads-hannah-jones-nike?
page=0%2C1].
Adidas (2012a). Awards. Accessed 25 May 2012, [available at http://www.adidasgroup.com/en/sustainability/Our_Programme/Awards_and_recognition/default.aspx].
Adidas (2012b). Performance counts Sustainability progress report 2011. Accessed 25
May 2012, [available at http://www.adidas-group.com/en/SER2011/].
Adidas (2012c). Green company performance analysis 2011. Accessed 25 May 2012,
[available at http://www.adidasgroup.com/en/sustainability/assets/environmental_statements/2011_Green_Company_Per
formance_Analysis.pdf].
Beder, S. (2002). Putting the Boot In. The Ecologist 32(3), pp. 24-28, 66-7. Accessed 25
May 2012, [available at http://www.uow.edu.au/~sharonb/nike.html].
Boston.com (2005). Athletes endorsements. Accessed 25 May 2012, [available at
http://www.boston.com/business/redesign/business/gallery/sports_endorsements/].
Brettman, A. (2011). Hannah Jones of Nike delivers message of doom and hope at
GoGreen '11 conference. Accessed 25 May 2012, [available at
http://www.oregonlive.com/playbooksprofits/index.ssf/2011/10/hannah_jones_of_nike_delivers.html].
Ceres (2011). Best sustainability reports. Accessed 25 May 2012, [available at
http://www.ceres.org/press/press-releases/nike-wins-top-ceres-acca-award-for-bestsustainability-reporting].
Eccles, R. & M. Krzus (2010). One report: Integrating reporting for a sustainable
strategy. Hoboken: Wiley & Sons.
Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with forks: the triple bottom line of the 21st century
business. Oxford: Capstone.
Gray, R.H. (1992). Accounting and environmentalism: an exploration of the challenge of
gently accounting for accountability, transparency, and sustainability. Accounting
Organizations and Society, 17(5): 399-425.
20
ISBN : 9780974211428
Gray, R., Bebbington J., & Walters, D. (1993). Accounting for the environment.
Princeton: Markus Wiener Publishers.
Kessel, A. (2010). Usain Bolt signs biggest athletics sponsorship deal ever with Puma.
Accessed 25 May 2012, [available at http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2010/aug/25/usainbolt-biggest-sponsorship-deal-puma].
IIRC (2010). Integrated reporting. Accessed 25 May 2012, [available at
http://theiirc.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/IR-Discussion-Paper-2011_spreads.pdf /].
Keady, J. (2012). An open reponse to Nikes Hannah Jones Jim Keady breaks down
Nikes PR spin on wages. Accessed 25 May 2012, [available at
http://educatingforjustice.org/an-open-reponse-to-nikes-hannah-jones-jim-keady-breaksdown-nikes-pr-spin-on-wages/].
Knight, P. (1997). Remarks at Nikes annual shareholder meeting. Accessed 25 May
2012, [available at http://business.nmsu.edu/~dboje/NIKknightmeetingse2297.html].
Knight. P. (1998). Nikes labor initiatives a speech at the National Press Club Lunch,
May 12, 1998. Accessed 25 May 2012, [available at
http://business.nmsu.edu/~dboje/NIKphilspeech.html].
Nike (2010). Corporate responsibility report FY07-09. Accessed 25 May 2012, [available
at http://www.nikebiz.com/crreport/content/pdf/documents/en-US/full-report.pdf].
Nike (2012a). About Nike. Accessed 25 May 2012, [available at
http://nikeinc.com/pages/about-nike-inc].
Nike (2012b). Reporting recognition. Accessed 25 May 2012, [available at
http://www.nikebiz.com/crreport/content/about/1-4-6-reporting-recognition.php?
cat=governance-accountability].
Nike (2012c). Sustainable business performance summary FY 10-11. Accessed 25 May
2012, [available at
http://www.nikeresponsibility.com/report/files/report/NIKE_SUSTAINABLE_BUSINES
S_REPORT__FY10-11_FINAL.pdf].
PUMA (2011a). Annual report 2010. Accessed 25 May 2012, [available at
http://ir2.flife.de/data/puma/igb_html/index.php?
bericht_id=1000004&index=&lang=ENG].
PUMA (2011b). Puma completes first environmental profit and loss account which
values Impacts at 145 million. Accessed 25 May 2012, [available at
http://about.puma.com/puma-completes-first-environmental-profit-and-loss-accountwhich-values-impacts-at-e-145-million/].
21
ISBN : 9780974211428
PUMA (2011c). PUMAs environmental profit and loss account three-stage development
process.
Accessed 25 May 2012, [available at http://about.puma.com/wpcontent/themes/aboutPUMA_theme/media/pdf/2011/en/epl1116.pdf].
Puma (2012). Clever little report 2011. Accessed 25 May 2012, [available at
http://about.puma.com/wp-content/themes/aboutPUMA_theme/financialreport/pdf/2011/PUMAGeschaeftsbericht2011_ENG.pdf].
Rossingh, D (2010). Sharapova said to renew Nike contract for 8 years, $70 million.
Accessed 25 May 2012, [available at
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aEb7VavCSYtM].
SAC (2012). Sustainable apparel coalition - Founding circle members. Accessed 25 May
2012, [available at http://www.apparelcoalition.org/4.html].
Sherman, W. (2002). Corporate social responsibility, corporate social performance, and
sustainable stakeholder accounting. The International Business & Economics Research
Journal, 1 (3), 43-57.
Sherman, W., D. Steingard & D. Fitzgibbons (2003). Sustainable stakeholder accounting:
Beyond complementarity and towards integration in environmental accounting. A chapter
in Research in corporate sustainability: the evolving theory and practice of organizations
in the natural environment. Sanjay Sharma & Mark Starik, Editors, Cheltenham, UK:
Edward Elgar Press: 257-294.
Sherman, W. (2010). Measuring and communicating the value created by an
organization. American Journal of Business Education, 3 (5), 87-98.
22
ISBN : 9780974211428
adidas
13,344
671
11,380
46,824
Nike
$20,862
$2,133
$14,988
37,515
Puma
3,009
230.10
2,582
10,836
2000
2001
2002
2011
FY 2010-11
2011
12
C
External Verification
None
5
B
Review by
Stakeholder
Panel
7
A+
Limited
Assurance by
PwC
Subcontractor Factories
Factory Audits
None Named
Hannah Jones
Global
Vice President
Director of
of Sustainable
Social &
Business &
Environmental
Innovation
Affairs
1,232
1,034
1,501
1,169
Jochen Zeitz
Chief
Sustainability
Officer of the
PPR Group
540
382
23
ISBN : 9780974211428
24
ISBN : 9780974211428
25