8/25
IT ENERGY IMPACT
Absolute Emissions Reduction Target (2 out of 5) NEC does not have a concisely stated Scope 1 or Scope 2 reduction target, whether that be an absolute or intensity reduction goal, as the company breaks down its environmental reporting into a few different categories. The company does have an absolute reduction goal for its ‘plant and office’ related activities of 15% from a 2006 baseline by FY2011. The company does not have a future savings goal beyond this timeline. With its CO2 emissions savings goal NEC has bundled a few CO2 emissions projects that would relate to its own operational footprint, such as energy efficiency at its facilities, with a number of other savings (IT solutions, energy efficiency of its products compared to business-as-usual. NEC should set a comprehensive and ambitious reduction goal for its Scope 1, 2 and 3 (travel) emissions as other industry leaders have done. Mitigation Strategies (3 out of 10) NEC successfully surpassed its rather modest CO2 reduction goals for its operations by the end of fiscal year 2011. Some of this operational success came through increased operational efficiency but it is difficult to explain how to attribute the remaining gains. Compared to leaders such as IBM and Cisco, a more detailed explanation of NEC’s mitigation plan is needed to better understand how the company is working to reduce its operational footprint. Infrastructure Siting Policy (0 out of 5) NEC claims to not use much energy as a company, but instead focuses upon CO2 savings from its solutions, so that these solutions should enable its customers to achieve renewable energy. The company does not have any policy or preferences in siting its infrastructure near cleaner sources of energy. While IT solutions savings are indeed important and receive the most cumulative points in the Cool IT Leaderboard, the question should not be framed as an either/or situation. As IT companies grow to provide the IT solutions that will reduce emissions in other parts of the economy, their growth needs to be powered by the greenest and safest forms of energy. Leadership of this nature is especially relevant in places such as Japan, where the bulk of NEC’s operational footprint takes place, as the country determines its energy path post-Fukushima. Product Efficiency & Supply Chain Footprint (3 out of 5) NEC excels in the production of energy efficient products as seen on the company’s website. However, there is not much information about how NEC manages the embedded energy from its hardware’s supply chain. The company does have exciting initiatives relating to supply chain management, involving the use of bio-plastics. The company should extend this work to include an audit of its products’ Scope 3 emissions and put plans in place to work with its suppliers to reduce this embedded energy, along the lines of work initiated by companies such as Hewlett Packard.
-10/35
POLITICAL ADVOCACY
Political Speech (0 out of 10) Unlike other Japanese Brands such as Softbank and Sharp, NEC has not spoken out in the aftermath of the Fukushima disaster in support of policies to shift Japan toward renewable energy (also see penalty points below). Political Policy (0 out of 15) No Leadership points. Repetition Bonus (0 out of 10) No applicable examples of advocacy repetition. Negative Lobby Penalty (-10 Points) NEC’s current chairman Mr Kaoru Yano serves as the acting head of JEITA, the Japanese Electronics and Information Technology Industries Association. During COP17 in Durban, South Africa, JEITA insisted that Japan should not allow the extension of the Kyoto Protocol and urged the country to review and eliminate its commitment to a 25% reduction in greenhouse gases by 2020 (from a 1990 baseline). Given Mr Yano and NEC’s leadership in pushing these positions from JEITA, a negative 10 points have been assessed. 31