research report 134 - hse: information … savoy court london wc2r 0ez his report details the...

HSE Health & Safety

Executive

The provision of health and safety information in the annual reports, websites and other publicly available documents

produced by the UK’s top companies and a sample of government departments, agencies, local authorities

and NHS trusts

Prepared by System Concepts for the Health and Safety Executive 2003

RESEARCH REPORT 134

HSE Health & Safety

Executive

The provision of health and safety information in the annual reports, websites and other publicly available documents

produced by the UK’s top companies and a sample of government departments, agencies, local authorities

and NHS trusts

Laura Peebles Ansgar Kupper

Vivienne Robertson Tanya Heasman

System Concepts 2 Savoy Court

London WC2R 0EZ

his report details the findings of a study to investigate the current (2002) provision of health and safety information found in the annual reports, websites and other publicly available documents of 279 of the UK’s top companies and a sample of 42 Government Departments, Agencies, Local Authorities and NHS Trusts. The main objectives of the study were:

To determine the current (2002) level of reporting of health and safety issues in the annual reports, websites and other publicly available documents (for example, health and safety, corporate social responsibility and sustainability reports) of the UK’s top companies, and a sample of Government Departments, Agencies, Local Authorities and NHS Trusts

To identify the issues reported in terms of health and safety principles, performance and targets

To determine the quality (low, medium or high) of the health and safety principles, performance and targets information presented

To investigate if certain industry and public sectors were more likely to publicly report health and safety issues than others

To compare the current (2002) level and quality of reporting with that in 2000 and 1995.

Since this report was first published section 2.1 of the report has been amended to clarify the situation with regard to businesses that operate in the UK but are incorporated elsewhere.

This report and the work it describes were funded by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). Its contents, including any opinions and/or conclusions expressed, are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect HSE policy.

HSE BOOKS

© Crown copyright 2003

First published 2003

ISBN 0 7176 2710 1

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may bereproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted inany form or by any means (electronic, mechanical,photocopying, recording or otherwise) without the priorwritten permission of the copyright owner.

Applications for reproduction should be made in writing to: Licensing Division, Her Majesty's Stationery Office, St Clements House, 2-16 Colegate, Norwich NR3 1BQ or by e-mail to [email protected]

ii

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................... v

1. INTRODUCTI ON ........................................................................................................... 1

2. METHODS OF INVESTIGATION ................................................................................ 2

2.1 DETERMINATION OF THE CURRENT LEVEL OF REPORTING ................... 2

2.2 IDENTIFICATION OF THE ISSUES REPORTED AND DETERMINATION OF THE QUALITY OF REPORTING.................................................................... 2

2.3 INVESTIGATION OF REPORTING BY INDUSTRY AND PUBLIC BODY SECTOR .................................................................................................................. 4

2.4 COMPARISON OF CURRENT REPORTING WITH THAT IN 1995 AND 2000 (FOR COMPANIES ONLY) .......................................................................... 4

3. OUR FINDINGS – PUBLIC REPORING OF HEALTH AND SAFETYINFORMATION BY THE UK’S TOP COMPANIES ................................................... 5

3.1 CURRENT LEVEL OF REPORTING .................................................................... 5

3.2 HEALTH AND SAFETY ISSUES REPORTED .................................................... 6

3.2.1 Health and safety principles issues ............................................................. 6 3.2.2 Health and safety performance issues ........................................................ 7 3.2.3 Health and safety targets issues.................................................................. 8 3.2.4 Total number of health and safety issues reported ..................................... 9

3.3 QUALITY OF REPORTING ................................................................................ 10

3.3.1 Health and safety principles issues ........................................................... 10 3.3.2 Health and safety performance issues ...................................................... 11 3.3.3 Health and safety targets issues................................................................ 11

3.4 REPORTING BY INDUSTRY SECTOR ............................................................. 12

3.4.1 Level of reporting...................................................................................... 12 3.4.2 Quality of reporting .................................................................................. 13

3.5 COMPARISON OF CURRENT (2002) LEVELS OF REPORTING WITHTHAT IN 1995 AND 2000 .................................................................................... 14

3.5.1 Comparison of the UK’s top companies’ reporting levels........................ 14 3.5.2 Comparison of FTSE 100 reporting levels................................................ 14

3.6 COMPARISON OF CURRENT (2002) ISSUES REPORTED WITH THOSE IN 2000 .................................................................................................................. 15

3.7 COMPARISON OF CURRENT (2002) QUALITY OF REPORTING WITHTHAT IN 2000....................................................................................................... 16

iii

3.8 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ................................................................................. 16

4. OUR FINDINGS – PUBLIC REPORTING OF HEALTH AND SAFETYINFORMATION BY PUBLIC BODIES ...................................................................... 18

4.1 CURRENT LEVEL OF REPORTING .................................................................. 18

4.2 HEALTH AND SAFETY ISSUES REPORTED .................................................. 19

4.2.1 Health and safety principles issues ........................................................... 19 4.2.2 Health and safety performance issues ...................................................... 20 4.2.3 Health and safety targets issues................................................................ 21 4.2.4 Total number of health and safety issues reported ................................... 22

4.3 QUALITY OF REPORTING ................................................................................ 22

4.3.1 Health and safety principles issues ........................................................... 22 4.3.2 Health and safety performance issues ...................................................... 23 4.3.3 Health and safety targets issues................................................................ 24

4.4 REPORTING BY PUBLIC BODY SECTOR ....................................................... 24

4.4.1 Level of reporting...................................................................................... 24 4.4.2 Quality of reporting .................................................................................. 25

4.5 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ................................................................................. 25

5. CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................... 27

6. RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................................... 28

Appendix 1 – Details of companies and public bodies included in the study ......................... 30

Appendix 2 – Our interpretation of the HSC’s guidance on public reporting of health and safety issues .......................................................................................................................... 46

Appendix 3 – Quality of reporting .......................................................................................... 47

Appendix 4 – Examples of high quality health and safety reporting ...................................... 58

Appendix 5 – Health and safety reporting by FTSE 100 companies ...................................... 68

iv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report details the findings of a study of the current (2002) provision of health and safety information in the annual reports, websites and other publicly available documents of 279 of the UK’s top companies and a sample of 42 of the UK’s Government Departments, Agencies, Local Authorities and NHS Trusts (hereafter referred to as ‘public bodies’).

The study was undertaken to evaluate the effectiveness of Action Points 2 and 13 of the Health and Safety Commission’s Revitalising Health and Safety Strategy Statement1 which challenged the UK’s top companies and public bodies to publicly report on health and safety from 2002 onwards.

The main objectives of the study were:

· To determine the current (2002) level of reporting of health and safety issues in the annual reports, websites and other publicly available documents (for example health and safety, corporate social responsibility and sustainability reports) of the UK’s top companies and a sample of public bodies

· To identify the issues reported in terms of health and safety principles, performance and targets

· To determine the quality (low, medium or high) of the health and safety principles, performance and targets information presented

· To investigate whether certain industry and public sectors were more likely to publicly report health and safety issues than others

· To compare the current (2002) level and quality of reporting with that in 2000 (based on our previous research findings2) and 1995 (based on research conducted by Disaster Action3).

Our findings are detailed separately for companies and public bodies.

Public reporting of health and safety information by the UK’s top companies:

Of the 279 companies whose annual reports, websites and other publicly available documents were reviewed:

· 78% made reference to health and safety.

Health and safety principles information was the most common type of information to be made publicly available by companies (98%). The most common issues reported were information on the company’s health and safety policy, and details of progress made towards achieving health and safety goals. The majority of information reported was rated as medium quality.

Health and safety performance information was also commonly reported, with 47% of companies making such information publicly available. Information on RIDDOR, lost time injuries and fatalities were the most common issues to be reported. The majority of performance information presented was rated as low quality.

1 Revitalising Health and Safety Strategy Statement, June 2000, Published by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.2 A Study of the Provision of Health and Safety Information in the Annual Reports of the Top UK Companies,System Concepts Ltd., 2000, HSE Contract Research Report 446/2002. 3 Health and Safety in Company Annual Reports, Disaster Action, 1996.

v

Health and safety targets information was reported by only 21% of companies. However, the quality of the majority of targets information presented was rated as high quality.

Each company was assigned an overall score, based on the total number of health and safety issues made publicly available (with the maximum score achievable being 11). We identified several companies as being exemplars in that they scored 9 or more. These were:

· United Utilities Plc (11)· The Boots Company Plc (10) · Carillion Plc (10) · Rio Tinto Plc (10) · Alfred McAlpine Plc (9) · Amec Plc (9) · Balfour Beatty Plc (9)

· BHP Billiton Plc (9) · Dixons Group Plc (9) · Imperial Tobacco Group Plc (9) · Gallagher Group Plc (9) · London Electricity Plc (9) · Trinity Mirror Plc (9)

Without exception, all companies in the following sectors publicly reported on health and safety:

· Chemicals · Construction and building

materials· Food and drug retailers · Food producers and processors · Forestry and paper · Health· Household goods and textiles

· Insurance · Mining · Oil and gas · Personal care and household

products · Real estate · Tobacco · Water

However, very few or no companies in the following sectors publicly reported on health and safety issues:

· Investment companies · Diversified industrials · Speciality and other finance · Software and computer service

The mining sector reported the highest quality health and safety information, with an average score of 8.8. The tobacco industry also reported high quality information, with an average score of 7.7.

Since 2000, there has been an increase in the number of the UK’s top companies that publicly report on health and safety issues:

· In 2000, 47% of the UK’s top companies publicly reported on health and safety · Currently (2002), 78% publicly report on health and safety.

The number of FTSE 100 companies who publicly report on health and safety issues has also increased:

· In 1995, 47% of FTSE 100 companies publicly reported on health and safety issues · In 2000, 56% of FTSE 100 companies publicly reported on health and safety issues · Currently (2002), 91% of FTSE 100 companies report on health and safety issues.

In terms of the health and safety issues made publicly available by the UK’s top companies, a slightly greater percentage of companies now report on health and safety performance and

vi

targets issues. However, slightly fewer companies now report on principles-related issues than in 2000.

The quality of the information currently presented by the UK’s top companies has also changed since 2000. The quality of health and safety principles information reported has improved, as has the quality of health and safety targets. However, it appears that the quality of performance-related information reported has decreased since 2000.

Public reporting of health and safety information by public bodies:

Of the 42 public bodies whose annual reports, websites and other publicly available documents were reviewed:

· 79% made reference to health and safety.

Health and safety principles information was the most common type of information to be made publicly available by public bodies (75%). Information of progress made towards achieving health and safety goals was the most common issue to be reported. The majority of principles information reported was rated as low quality.

Health and safety performance information was reported by 43% of public bodies. Data on lost time injuries was the most common type of information to be reported. The majority of performance information presented was rated as low quality.

Health and safety targets information was reported by 54% of public bodies. The majority of targets information presented was rated as medium quality.

A greater percentage of Local Authorities (91%) and NHS Trusts (90%) publicly reported health and safety information in comparison with Government Departments and Agencies (67%).

Each public body was assigned an overall score, based on the total number of health and safety issues made publicly available (with the maximum score achievable being 11). We identified several public bodies as being exemplars in that they scored 9 or more. These were:

· The Health and Safety Executive (10) · The Department of Trade and Industry (10) · Sefton Borough Council (10)

Conclusions and recommendations:

Given that a large number of the UK’s top companies and public bodies publicly report on health and safety issues (and that the level and quality of reporting has generally increased since 2000), it can be concluded that the HSC’s ‘Challenge’ has had a positive and encouraging impact. However, there is still progress to be made, as there are many companies and public bodies who do not make such information available, most noticeably in the investment, speciality and other finance, diversified industrials and software and computer service sectors.

In addition to improvements in the level of health and safety reporting, there is also scope for improvements in terms of the type and quality of health and safety issues reported, particularly performance-related issues.

vii

Based on the findings of this investigation, we make the following recommendations and suggestions for further work:

· Continue to raise awareness of the ‘Challenge’ and the benefits of public reporting of high quality health and safety information

· Extend the ‘Challenge’ to all UK public limited companies and public bodies

· Research ways of improving the quality of health and safety information reported

· Investigate why public bodies report lower quality health and safety information than companies

· Research the relationship between health and safety reporting and performance

· Conduct a further review of the annual reports, websites and other publicly available documents of the UK’s top companies and public bodies in 2004.

viii

1. INTRODUCTION

This report details the findings of a study to investigate the current (2002) provision of health and safety information found in the annual reports, websites and other publicly available documents of 279 of the UK’s top companies, and a sample of 42 Government Departments, Agencies, Local Authorities and NHS Trusts (hereafter referred to as ‘public bodies’).

The study was undertaken primarily to evaluate the effectiveness of the Health and Safety Commission’s Revitalising Health and Safety Strategy Statement, specifically Action Point 2, which challenged 350 of the UK’s top companies to publicly report on health and safety from 2002 onwards.

To establish baseline-reporting figures at the ‘Challenge’ onset in 2000, System Concepts carried out a review of the annual reports (including health and safety, corporate social responsibility and sustainability reports) of the UK’s top companies. The findings were published in HSE Contract Research Report 446/2002, entitled ‘A Study of the Provision of Health and Safety Information in the Annual Reports of the Top UK Companies’. It was found that less than half (47%) of the company annual reports examined contained health and safety information.

To enable a comparison between 2000 and current (2002) reporting, and thus evaluate the effectiveness of the HSC’s ‘Challenge’, System Concepts were commissioned to conduct a further review of the current annual reports of the UK’s top companies. We also reviewed the company’s website and any other publicly available documents (for example, health and safety, corporate social responsibility and sustainability reports).

A sample of public bodies were also included in the current study. Action point 13 of the Strategy Statement states that public bodies should report on health and safety performance and plans from 2000/01 onwards. Therefore, a small sample were included in this study to establish baseline-reporting figures and to investigate the type of health and safety issues reported.

The main objectives of the study were:

· To determine the current (2002) level of reporting of health and safety issues in the annual reports, websites and other publicly available documents of the UK’s top companies and a sample of public bodies

· To identify the issues reported in terms of health and safety principles, performance and targets

· To determine the quality (low, medium or high) of the health and safety principles, performance and targets information presented

· To investigate whether certain industry and public body sectors were more likely to publicly report health and safety issues than others

· To compare the current (2002) level and quality of reporting with that in 2000 (based on our previous research findings) and 1995 (based on research conducted by Disaster Action4).

The method of investigation that we used to address each of these objectives is described in Section 2 of the report. We present our findings separately for companies and public bodies in Sections 3 and 4. In Section 5 we detail our conclusions and finally, in Section 6, we make recommendations and suggestions for further work.

4 Health and Safety in Company Annual Reports, Disaster Action, 1996.

1

2. METHODS OF INVESTIGATION

The method of investigation that we used to address each of the study objectives is outlined below.

2.1 DETERMINATION OF THE CURRENT LEVEL OF REPORTING

To determine the current level of reporting of health and safety issues, we obtained a copy of the most recently available annual report for 279 of the UK’s top companies. These comprised all FTSE 100 companies, as well as around 180 predominantly FTSE 350 companies. We also reviewed 42 annual reports from a selection of Government Departments, Agencies, Local Authorities and NHS Trusts. Most UK Government Departments were included in the study, as were a geographically representative sample of Local Authorities and NHS Trusts. Details of all companies and public bodies included in the review can be found in Appendix 1.

The goal HSE set us was to use health and safety information organisations made available in their company annual reports (or in separate reports referred to in the annual report, for example health and safety, corporate social responsibility and sustainability reports) or via their websites as the basis of our review.

It should be noted that our analysis was based on information presented by companies and public bodies in their most recently available annual report, other publicly available documents and website during the period of January to March 2003.

The same methodology was applied to all companies reviewed whether or not incorporated in the UK. The results for companies operating in the UK, but incorporated elsewhere can be misleading. What they make public about the management of their business may well reflect requirements placed upon them by other countries in which they are based or in which they also operate. In some cases their UK annual reports were confined to business headlines and information on health and safety was contained elsewhere, for example, in a global report on health and safety. In such cases this information was rated by us, providing that it also contained UK data. However, in a few cases global reporting made it hard to be certain that everything relevant to the UK had been traced. Given the above and the diverse nature of how these companies operate and report, it is possible that our score has disadvantaged some of them.

Note that the level of reporting does not indicate how well an organisation performs or manages its health and safety. For example, an organisation may be poor at public reporting and given a low score, but be exemplary in its performance and management of health and safety.

Findings from this step of the project are detailed separately for companies and public bodies, and can be found in Sections 3.1 (companies) and 4.1 (public bodies) of the report.

2.2 IDENTIFICATION OF THE ISSUES REPORTED AND DETERMINATION OF THE QUALITY OF REPORTING

For those companies and public bodies who did publicly report on health and safety, we analysed the information and categorised it according to whether or not details were presented on health and safety principles, performance and targets issues.

Where such information was provided, the level of information presented was assigned a quality rating score of low, medium or high. This was based on guidance given by the HSC

2

entitled ‘Health and Safety in Annual Reports’ (www.hse.gov.uk/revitalising/annual.htm) which sets out the HSC’s views on the type of health and safety information that should be made publicly available. Details of our interpretation of the HSC’s guidance are presented in Appendix 2. All health and safety information presented by companies and public bodies was separately reviewed by at least two individuals.

For health and safety principles, the HSC recommended that information on the following issues be presented:

· The broad context of the health and safety policy · Significant risks faced by employees and the strategies in place to control the risks · Health and safety goals · Progress towards achieving health and safety goals · Arrangements for consulting employees.

A low quality rating score was assigned if only 1 of the 5 recommended items was addressed; a medium quality score was assigned if 2 or 3 items were addressed; and a quality rating score of high was assigned if 4 or 5 items were addressed.

For health and safety performance, the HSC recommended that information on the following issues be presented:

· The number of RIDDOR injuries, illnesses and dangerous occurrences · Details of any fatalities and preventative actions taken · The number of employee days lost (lost time injuries) · The number of health and safety enforcement notices · The number and nature of convictions for health and safety offences.

A low quality rating score was assigned if 1 or 2 of the recommended 5 items were addressed; a medium quality score was assigned if 3 items were addressed; and a quality rating score of high was assigned if 4 or 5 items were addressed.

The HSC recommended that information also be presented on health and safety targets. These should be used to monitor progress towards specific health and safety plans and objectives. No specific guidance was given on the nature of health and safety targets as companies were encouraged to set their own targets.

For targets information, a low rating score was assigned if general information was presented (i.e. a general statement outlining that the company had targets or objectives for the forthcoming year/s); a medium score if a numerical target was also detailed (i.e. it is the objective of the group to reduce the incidence of accidents by 50% by 2004); and a rating score of high if more than one numerical target was detailed.

Additionally, each company and public body was assigned an overall score, based on the total number of health and safety issues made publicly available. The maximum score achievable was 11 (based on 5 points for presenting information on all HSC recommended principles items, 5 points for presenting information on recommended performance items and 1 point for including targets information).

Findings from this step of the project are detailed separately for companies and public bodies. Details of the health and safety issues reported can be found in Sections 3.2 (companies) and 4.2 (public bodies) and details of the quality of the information presented can be found in Sections 3.3 (companies) and 4.3 (public bodies).

3

2.3 INVESTIGATION OF REPORTING BY INDUSTRY AND PUBLIC BODY SECTOR

Each of the companies was assigned an industry sector and differences in the level and quality of reporting between the various industry sectors and public bodies were investigated. This was performed to determine any trends, as well as to try and establish if certain sectors were more likely to publicly report on health and safety issues than others.

Findings from this step of the project are presented in Section 3.4 (companies) and 4.4 (public bodies) of the report.

2.4 COMPARISON OF CURRENT REPORTING WITH THAT IN 1995 AND 2000 (FOR COMPANIES ONLY)

In 1996, the charity ‘Disaster Action’ carried out an analysis of the annual reports of the FTSE 100 companies (based on reports published in 1995) to see whether they included health and safety related information. Their findings were published in a report entitled ‘Health and Safety in Company Annual Reports’.

In 2001, System Concepts carried out a further review of the annual reports of the UK’s top companies, including FTSE 100 companies (based on reports published in 2000). The findings were published in a report entitled ‘A Study of the Provision of Health and Safety Information in the Annual Reports of the Top UK Companies’.

In order to establish whether there had been any change in the level of reporting, we compared current FTSE 100 company reporting levels with those in 1995 and 2000. We also compared the number of the UK’s top companies that currently report on health and safety issues (based on our current findings) with the number of the UK’s top companies that reported in 2000 (based on our previous research findings).

Findings from this step of the project can be found in Sections 3.5, 3.6 and 3.7 of the report.

4

3. OUR FINDINGS – PUBLIC REPORING OF HEALTH AND SAFETY INFORMATION BY THE UK’S TOP COMPANIES

In the following sections we provide our findings from each step of the project. The findings are based on our review of the annual reports, websites and other publicly available documents produced by 279 of the UK’s top companies.

3.1 CURRENT LEVEL OF REPORTING

The percentage of companies that mentioned health and safety in their annual report (including other publicly available documents, for example health and safety, corporate social responsibility and sustainability reports) and/or website is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1 – Level of reporting of health and safety information

No

Companies

Yes 78%

22%

Of the 279 companies whose reports and websites were reviewed, 217 (78%) mentioned the term ‘health and safety’. However, not all companies actually presented detailed information on health and safety matters. Of these 217 companies, 12 (6%) presented minimal information only (that is, their annual report, other publicly available document or website mentioned the words health and safety but insufficient information was provided to be rated even as low quality). A breakdown of the level of reporting organised by industry sector is presented in Section 3.4.

It is interesting to note that the vast majority of companies presented health and safety information in both their annual report (including supplementary health and safety, corporate social responsibility and sustainability reports) and website. Only 17 companies (8%) did not present health and safety information in their annual report, but chose to present information on their website instead.

5

3.2 HEALTH AND SAFETY ISSUES REPORTED

Details of the health and safety issues presented in the annual reports, websites and other publicly available documents analysed is presented in Figure 2. This information has been categorised into health and safety principles, performance and targets (as described in Section 2.2).

Figure 2 – Health and safety issues reported

0

%

20 40 60 80 100

Targets

Performance

Principles

Health and safety principles information was the most common issue to be made publicly available by companies. Of the 205 companies who reported detailed health and safety information, 98% (201) provided principles information.

Health and safety performance information was also commonly reported, with 47% (96) of (205) companies making such information publicly available.

Health and safety targets were the least reported issue with only 21% (42) of companies presenting such information.

As detailed in Section 2.2, the HSC published guidance that sets out the type of health and safety principles, performance and targets issues that should be made publicly available. Each of these three information types are now discussed in more detail in the following sections.

3.2.1 Health and safety principles issues

The HSC recommended that the following principles-related issues be presented:


6

The percentage of companies who reported these specific issues is shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3 – Health and safety principles issues reported

0

%

20 40 60 80 100

Consulting arrangements

Progres s

Goals

Ris ks

Policy

Very few companies reported on all five principles-related issues that are recommended by the HSC.

Health and safety policy information was the most common type of principles-related information made publicly available by companies, with 165 of the 205 companies (81%) that report on health and safety matters including such information.

Information on the significant risks faced by employees was the least reported principlesrelated issue.

3.2.2 Health and safety performance issues

The HSC recommended that the following performance-related issues be presented:


The percentage of companies who reported on these specific issues is shown in Figure 4.

7

Figure 4 – Health and safety performance issues reported

0

%

20 40 60 80 100

Convictions

Enforcements

Lost days

Fatalities

RIDDOR

Data on RIDDOR was the most common type of performance-related information reported by companies, with 62 out of 205 companies (30%) reporting such information. Information of lost day/time injuries was also commonly reported, with 26% of companies making such information publicly available.

Information on health and safety enforcement notices was the least performance-related information type reported by companies.

3.2.3 Health and safety targets issues

The HSC recommended that information also be presented on health and safety targets. However, no specific guidance was given; companies were encouraged to set their own targets. Based on the health and safety targets presented, however, we organized them into three categories: a general statement; a numeric target; and more than one numeric target.

The percentage of companies who reported these target categories is shown in Figure 5.

8

Figure 5 – Health and safety targets issues reported

0

%

20 40 60 80 100

>1 Numeric target

Numeric target

General statement

As can be seen, the majority of companies who reported targets information reported more than one numeric target (10%).

3.2.4 Total number of health and safety issues reported

We assigned each company an overall score, based on the total number of health and safety issues made publicly available. The maximum score achievable was 11 (based on 5 points for presenting information on all HSC recommended principles items, 5 points for presenting information on recommended performance items and 1 point for including targets information). The overall scores for all companies are detailed in Appendix 3.

We identified several companies as being health and safety reporting exemplars in that they scored 9 or more. These were:

· United Utilities Plc (11) · The Boots Company Plc (10) · Carillion Plc (10) · Rio Tinto Plc (10) · Alfred McAlpine Plc (9) · Amec Plc (9) · Balfour Beatty Plc (9) · BHP Billiton Plc (9) · Dixons Group Plc (9) · Imperial Tobacco Group Plc (9) · Gallagher Group Plc (9) · London Electricity Plc (9) · Trinity Mirror Plc (9)

Examples of reporting by two of the highest scoring companies, United Utilities and The Boots Company, are presented in Appendix 4.

9

3.3 QUALITY OF REPORTING

Details of the quality (low, medium or high, as detailed in Section 2.2) of the health and safety principles, performance and targets information presented in the reports, websites and other publicly available documents analysed is given in Appendix 3 and is summarised below in the following sections.


The quality of the principles information presented by companies is shown in Figure 6.

Figure 6 - Quality of health and safety principles information presented

0

20

40

60

80

%

100

Low Medium High

As can be seen, the quality of the information reported varied greatly from company to company.

The majority of principles information reported by companies was rated as medium quality (50%).

10


The quality of the performance information presented by companies is shown in Figure 7.

Figure 7 - Quality of health and safety performance information presented

0

20

40

60

80

%

100

Low Medium High

The majority of health and safety performance information presented by companies was rated as low quality (67%).


The quality of the targets information presented by companies is shown in Figure 8.

Figure 8 - Quality of health and safety targets information presented

0

20

40

60

80

%

100

Low Medium High

The majority of company targets information was rated as high quality (50%).

11

3.4 REPORTING BY INDUSTRY SECTOR

The level and quality of health and safety reporting according to industry sector is presented in the following sections.

3.4.1 Level of reporting

All companies were assigned an industry sector based on the FTSE industry sector classifications.

The level of health and safety reporting according to industry sector is shown in Figure 9. The numbers in brackets relate to the number of companies who reported health and safety out of the total number of companies in that particular sector.

Figure 9 – Level of health and safety reporting (organised by sector)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

) )

(1/4) (2/6)

) (7/ )

) )

( (

) ) ) ) ) )

(8/10) (

) )

() ) ) ) ) ) )

() ) )

( ( (

No

Software & computer service (0/4Speciality & other finance (1/5

Diversified industrialsInvestment companies

Steel & other metals (1/2Engineering & machinery 13

Automobiles & parts (9/16Life assurance (4/6

General retailers 12/18) Media & photography 11/16)

Electronic & electrical equipment (7/10IT hardware (5/7

Leisure, entertainment & hotels (8/11Aerospace & defence (3/4

Telecommunication services (6/8Pharmaceuticals & biotechnology (4/5

BanksSupport services 14/17)

Beverages (7/8Electricity (10/11Transport 13/14)

Forestry & paper (1/1Insurance (2/2

Personal care & household (2/2Real estate (3/3

Tobacco (3/3Health (4/4

Household goods & textiles (4/4Mining 4/4)

Water (4/4Chemicals (5/5

Food & drug retailers (6/6Oil & gas 10/10)

Food producers & processors 12/12) Construction & building 24/24)

Yes

12

Without exception, all companies in the construction and building material, food producers and processors, oil and gas, food and drug retailers, chemicals, water, mining, household goods and textiles, health, tobacco, real estate, personal care and household, insurance, and forestry and paper sectors mentioned health and safety in their annual report, other publicly available document or website. The transport, electricity and beverage sectors were also well represented as a high number mentioned health and safety. However, investment companies, diversified industrials, speciality and other finance and software and computer service sectors were poorly represented, as very few or no companies publicly reported on health and safety issues.

3.4.2 Quality of reporting

The quality of health and safety reporting according to industry sector is shown in Figure 10. This information is based on the average overall scores (as detailed in Section 2.2) of the companies that make up each of the sectors.

Figure 10 – Quality of health and safety reporting (organised by industry sector)

Industry sector Average score (maximum 11)

% of companies reporting health and safety information

Mining 8.8 100 Tobacco 7.7 100 Water 5.3 100 Chemicals 4.8 100 Oil & gas 4.5 100 Electricity 4.4 91 Pharmaceuticals & biotechnology 3.8 80 Construction & building materials 3.8 100 Health 3.8 100 Aerospace & defence 3.5 75 Household goods & textiles 3.3 100 IT hardware 3.0 71 Insurance 3.0 100 Real estate 3.0 100 Media & photography 2.9 69 Transport 2.8 93 Food producers and processors 2.7 100 Telecommunication services 2.3 75 General retailers 2.2 67 Electronic & electrical equipment 2.2 70 Beverages 2.1 88 Support services 2.0 82 Food & drug retailers 1.8 100 Banks 1.7 80 Automobiles & parts 1.6 56 Steel & other metals 1.5 50 Personal care & household products 1.5 100 Engineering & machinery 1.4 54 Leisure, entertainment & hotels 1.1 73 Life assurance 1.0 67 Forestry & paper 1.0 100 Investment companies 0.5 33 Speciality and other finances 0.2 20 Diversified industrials 0 25 Software and computer services 0 0

13

The mining sector reported the highest quality health and safety information, with an average score of 8.8. The tobacco industry also reported high quality information, with an average score of 7.7.

The quality of information reported by investment companies and speciality and other finance companies was of very low quality (with average scores of 0.5 and 0.2 respectively).

It should be noted that whilst one of the four companies that comprise the diversified industrial sector mentioned health and safety, not enough information was included for it to be assigned a quality score.

3.5 COMPARISON OF CURRENT (2002) LEVELS OF REPORTING WITH THAT IN 1995 AND 2000

In order to establish whether there has been any change in the level of reporting, we compared current (2002) reporting levels with those in 2000 (based on our previous research). We also compared current FTSE100 reporting levels with those in 1995 and 2000.

3.5.1 Comparison of the UK’s top companies’ reporting levels

The number of the UK’s top companies (comprising all FTSE 100 companies and around 180 predominantly FTSE 350 companies) who publicly reported on health and safety issues in 2000, compared with those who currently report is shown in Figure 11.

Figure 11 – Comparison of the UK’s top companies current (2002) health and safety reporting levels with those in 2000

No

(

78%

No

2000

Yes 47%

53%

Current 2002)

Yes 22%

As shown above, the number of the UK’s top companies who publicly reported on health and safety issues increased from 2000 to 2002, with 78% of companies currently publicly reporting on health and safety issues, compared with only 47% in 2000.

3.5.2 Comparison of FTSE 100 reporting levels

The number of FTSE 100 companies who publicly reported on health and safety issues in 1995 and 2000, compared with those who currently (2002) report is shown in Figure 12.

Details of the 2000 and current (2002) FTSE 100 companies are presented in Appendix 5.

14

Figure 12 – Comparison of FTSE 100 companies’ current (2002) health and safety reporting levels with those in 1995 and 2000

No 56%

No 44%

(

No 9%

1995

53%

Yes 47%

2000

Yes

Current 2002)

Yes 91%

As shown above, the number of FTSE 100 companies who publicly reported on health and safety issues increased by 9% from 1995 to 2000. However, there has been a significant increase in public reporting since 2000, with 91% of FTSE 100 companies now publicly reporting on health and safety issues.

3.6 COMPARISON OF CURRENT (2002) ISSUES REPORTED WITH THOSE IN 2000

In order to establish whether there has been any change in the type of health and safety information reported, we compared the issues currently (2002) reported by the UK’s top companies with those in 2000 (based on our previous research findings). The results are shown in Figure 13.

Figure 13 – Comparison of the UK’s top companies current (2002) health and safety reporting issues with those in 2000

0

%

20 40 60 80 100

Targets

Performance

Principles

2002 2000

As can be seen, there has been some change in the type of health and safety issues reported by the UK’s top companies since 2000. A slightly greater percentage of companies now report on health and safety performance and targets issues, however, slightly fewer companies than that in 2000 now report principles-related issues.

15

3.7 COMPARISON OF CURRENT (2002) QUALITY OF REPORTING WITH THAT IN 2000

In order to establish whether there has been any change in the quality of health and safety information reported, we compared the current (2002) quality of information reported by the UK’s top companies with that in 2000 (based on our previous research findings). The results are shown in Figure 14.

Figure 14 – Comparison of the UK’s top companies current (2002) health and safety reporting quality with that in 2000

0

20

40

60

80

%

0

20

40

60

80

%

0

20

40

60

80

%

Principles 100

Low

Med

ium

Hig

h

2000 2002

Performance 100

Low

Med

ium

Hig

h

2000 2002

Targets 100

Low

Med

ium

Hig

h

2000 2002

The quality of the principles-related information reported by the UK’s top companies has improved since 2000, as most companies currently report medium quality principles information, as opposed to low quality as in 2000. The quality of targets information presented has also increased, with the majority of companies now reporting high quality target information in their annual reports. It should be noted that no companies reported high quality targets information in 2000. However, it appears that the quality of performance information has decreased since 2000. Currently, most companies report low quality performance information, whereas in 2000 most companies reported medium quality information.

3.8 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

Based on the findings of our review of the annual reports, websites and other publicly available documents produced by 279 of the UK’s top companies:

· 78% of companies mentioned the term ‘health and safety’ in their annual report, other publicly available document (for example health and safety, corporate social responsibility and sustainability reports) or website.

· The majority of companies presented health and safety information in both their annual report and website. Only 17 companies (8%) did not present health and safety information in their annual report and presented information on their website only.

· Health and safety principles information was the most common type of information to be made publicly available by companies (98%). Information on their health and safety policy, and details of progress made towards achieving health and safety goals were the most common information types to be reported. The majority of principles information reported by companies was rated as medium quality.

16

· Health and safety performance information was reported by 47% of companies. Data on RIDDOR was the most common type of information to be reported. Information on lost day/time injuries was also commonly reported. The majority of performance information presented was rated as low quality.

· Health and safety targets information was reported by 21% of companies, with the majority being rated as high quality.

· The mining sector reported the highest quality health and safety information, with an average score of 8.8 (maximum 11). The tobacco industry also reported high quality information, with an average score of 7.7.

· The quality of information reported by investment companies and speciality and other finances companies was of very low quality (with average scores of 0.5 and 0.2).

· The number of the UK’s top companies who publicly report on health and safety issues has increased since 2000. 78% of companies currently report on health and safety issues (compared with 47% in 2000).

· The number of FTSE 100 companies who publicly report on health and safety issues has also increased, with 91% of FTSE 100 companies currently reporting on health and safety issues in their annual report (compared with 47% in 1995 and 56% in 2000).

· There has been some change in the type of information publicly reported by companies since 2000. A slightly greater percentage of companies now report on their health and safety performance and targets information. However, slightly fewer companies now report on principles-related information than in 2000.

· The quality of the information currently reported by the UK’s top companies has changed since 2000. The quality of health and safety principles information reported has improved, as has the quality of health and safety targets. However, the quality of performance information reported has decreased since 2000.

17

4. OUR FINDINGS – PUBLIC REPORTING OF HEALTH AND SAFETY INFORMATION BY PUBLIC BODIES

In the following sections we provide our findings from each step of the project. The findings are based on our review of the annual reports, websites and other publicly available documents produced by a sample of 42 public bodies.

4.1 CURRENT LEVEL OF REPORTING

The percentage of public bodies who mentioned health and safety in their annual report (including other publicly available documents, for example health and safety, corporate social responsibility and sustainability reports) and/or website is shown in Figure 15.

Figure 15 – Level of reporting of health and safety information

No

Public bodies

Yes 79%

21%

Of the 42 public bodies whose reports and websites were reviewed, 33 (79%) mentioned health and safety. Of these 33, 5 (15%) presented minimal information only (that is, their annual report, other publicly available document, or website mentioned the words health and safety but insufficient information was provided to be rated even as low quality). Based on our sample of public bodies:

· 91% of Local Authorities; · 90% of NHS Trusts; and · 67% of Government Departments and Agencies mentioned health and safety issues.

It is interesting to note that the vast majority of public bodies presented health and safety information in both their annual report (including supplementary health and safety, corporate social responsibility and sustainability reports) and website. Only 3 public bodies (9%) did not present health and safety information in their annual report, but chose to present information on their website instead.

18

4.2 HEALTH AND SAFETY ISSUES REPORTED

Details of the health and safety issues presented in the annual reports, websites and other publicly available documents analysed is presented in Figure 16. This information has been categorised into health and safety principles, performance and targets (as described in Section 2.2). It should be noted that the guidance issued by the HSC requires public bodies to publicly report on health and safety performance and plans only. For the purpose of this investigation, however, we assessed the information presented using the same methodology as that used for company reporting of health and safety information.

Figure 16 – Health and safety issues reported

0

%

20 40 60 80 100

Targets

Performance

Principles

Health and safety principles information was the most common issue to be made publicly available by public bodies. Of the 28 public bodies who reported detailed health and safety information, 75% (21) provided principles information.

Health and safety performance information was reported by 43% (12) of (28) public bodies.

Health and safety targets information was reported by 54% (15) of public bodies.

Each of these three information types are now discussed in more detail in the following sections.


The HSC recommended that the following principles-related issues be presented:


19

The percentage of public bodies who reported these specific issues is shown in Figure 17.

Figure 17 – Health and safety principles issues reported

0

%

20 40 60 80 100

Consulting arrangements

Progress

Goals

Ris ks

Policy

Very few public bodies reported on all five principles-related issues that are recommended by the HSC.

Health and safety progress information was the most common type of principles-related information made publicly available by public bodies, with 18 of 28 (64%) including such information.

Information on health and safety goals was the least reported principles-related issue.


The HSC recommended that the following performance-related issues be presented:


The percentage of public bodies who reported on these specific issues is shown in Figure 18.

20

Figure 18 – Health and safety performance issues reported

0

%

20 40 60 80 100

Convictions

Enforcements

Lost days

Fatalities

RIDDOR

Data on lost day injuries was the most common type of performance-related information reported by public bodies, with 11 out of 28 (39%) reporting such information.

Information of health and safety convictions was the performance-related information type least reported by public bodies.


The HSC recommended that information also be presented on health and safety targets. However, no specific guidance was given; organisations were encouraged to set their own targets. Based on the health and safety targets presented, however, we organized them into three categories: a general statement; a numeric target; and more than one numeric target.

The percentage of public bodies who reported these target categories is shown in Figure 19.

21

Figure 19 – Health and safety targets issues reported

0

%

20 40 60 80 100

>1 Numeric target

Numeric target

General statement

The majority of public bodies reported a numeric target (36%).

4.2.4 Total number of health and safety issues reported

We assigned each public body an overall score, based on the total number of health and safety issues made publicly available. The maximum score achievable was 11 (based on 5 points for presenting information on all HSC recommended principles items, 5 points for presenting information on recommended performance items and 1 point for including targets information). The overall scores for all public bodies are detailed in Appendix 3.

We identified several public bodies as being reporting exemplars in that they scored 9 or more (out of a maximum 11). These were:

· The Health and Safety Executive (10) · The Department of Trade and Industry (10) · Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council (10)

4.3 QUALITY OF REPORTING

Details of the quality (low, medium or high, as detailed in Section 2.2) of the health and safety principles, performance and targets information presented in the reports, websites and other publicly available documents analysed is given in Appendix 3 and is summarised below in the following sections.


The quality of the principles information presented by public bodies is shown in Figure 20.

22

Figure 20 - Quality of health and safety principles information presented

0

20

40

60

80

%

100

Low Medium High

As can be seen, the quality of the information reported varied greatly from public body to public body.

The majority of principles information reported by public bodies was rated as low quality (62%).


The quality of the performance information presented by public bodies is shown in Figure 21.

Figure 21 - Quality of health and safety performance information presented

0

20

40

60

80

%

100

Low Medium High

The majority of health and safety performance information presented by public bodies was rated as low quality (75%).

23


The quality of the targets information presented by public bodies is shown in Figure 22.

Figure 22 - Quality of health and safety targets information presented

0

20

40

60

80

%

100

Low Medium High

The quality of the majority of targets information presented by public bodies was rated as medium quality (67%).

4.4 REPORTING BY PUBLIC BODY SECTOR

The level and quality of health and safety reporting according to public body sector is presented in the following sections.

4.4.1 Level of reporting

The level of health and safety reporting according to public body sector is shown in Figure 23. The numbers in brackets relate to the number of organisations who reported health and safety out of the total number in that particular sector.

24

Figure 23 – Level of health and safety reporting (organised by sector)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

(

(9/10)

(

no

Government Depts & Agencies

14/21)

NHS Trust

Local authority 10/11)

yes

A greater percentage of Local Authorities (91%) and NHS Trusts (90%) publicly reported health and safety information in comparison with Government Departments and Agencies (67%).

4.4.2 Quality of reporting

The quality of health and safety reporting according to public body sector is shown in Figure 24. This information is based on the average overall scores (as detailed in Section 2.2.2) of the Government Departments and Agencies, Local Authorities and NHS Trusts, which make up each of the sectors.

Figure 24 – Quality of health and safety reporting (organised by sector)

Industry sector Average score (maximum 11)

% Reporting health and safety information

Government Dept & Agencies 2.3 67 Local authority 2.1 91 NHS Trusts 0.6 90

The information reported by Government Departments, Agencies and Local Authorities was of a higher quality than that reported by NHS Trusts. However, the quality of information reported by all public bodies was generally low (with average scores of 2.3, 2.1 and 0.6)

4.5 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

Based on our findings of our review of the annual reports, websites and other publicly available documents produced by a sample of 42 public bodies:

· 79% of public bodies mentioned the term ‘health and safety’ in their annual report, other publicly available document (for example health and safety, corporate social responsibility and sustainability reports) or website.

· The majority of public bodies presented health and safety information in both their annual report and website. Only 3 public bodies (9%) did not present health and safety information in their annual report and presented information on their website only.

25

· Health and safety principles information was the most common type of information to be made publicly available by public bodies (75%). Information of progress made towards achieving health and safety goals was the most common issue to be reported. The majority of principles information reported by public bodies was rated as low quality.

· Health and safety performance information was reported by 43% of public bodies. Data on lost day injuries was the most common type of information to be reported. The majority of performance information presented was rated as low quality.

· Health and safety targets information was reported by 54% of public bodies. The majority of targets information presented was rated as medium quality.

· A greater percentage of Local Authorities (91%) and NHS Trusts (90%) publicly reported health and safety information in comparison with Government Departments and Agencies (67%).

26

5. CONCLUSIONS

Given that a large number of the UK’s top companies and public bodies publicly report on health and safety issues (and that the level and quality of reporting has generally increased since 2000), it can be concluded that the HSC’s ‘Challenge’ to promote the public reporting of health and safety information has been effective. However, there is still progress to be made, as there are many companies and public bodies who do not make such information available, most noticeably in the investment, speciality and other finance, diversified industrials and software and computer service sectors.

In addition to improvements in the level of health and safety reporting, there are also improvements that can be made in terms of the type and quality of reporting. Health and safety principles information was the most common information type to be reported. However only around half of the companies and public bodies included in the study presented information on their health and safety performance. Similarly, only a small number presented information on their health and safety targets. In terms of the quality of reporting, only a small number of companies and public bodies reported high quality information. There is scope for quality improvement, particularly of performance-related information.

The HSC’s ‘Challenge’ to the UK’s top companies has undoubtedly had a positive and encouraging impact. We at System Concepts are proud to be part of this important initiative and would be pleased to assist the HSC in the future to ensure the success of the ‘Challenge’ and promote the benefits of high quality public reporting of health and safety information.

27

6. RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the findings of this investigation we make the following recommendations and suggestions for further research:

· Continue to raise awareness of the ‘Challenge’ and the benefits of public reporting of high quality health and safety information

Findings from our research show that there has been an overall increase in the level and quality of health and safety information currently reported by companies compared with 2000. However, there is still progress to be made as 22% of companies and 21% of public bodies do not publicly report on their health and safety issues.

To raise awareness of the ‘Challenge’, we recommend that all companies and public bodies included in this study be provided with a copy of the research findings. This will allow them to benchmark their performance against others and encourage improvements in health and safety reporting.

· Extend the ‘Challenge’ to all UK public limited companies and public bodies

We are aware that the HSC plan to work towards extending the ‘Challenge’ to all businesses with more than 250 employees. Whilst we fully support this, we recommend that all companies, Government Departments, Agencies, Local Authorities and NHS Trusts (regardless of size) in the UK be encouraged to accept the ‘Challenge’ and publicly report on their health and safety issues. This will help the HSC achieve their national health and safety targets to revitalize health and safety.

· Research ways of improving the quality of health and safety information reported

Whilst many companies and public bodies report medium to high quality information, there are a large number who provide low quality information, particularly performance-related information. All companies and public bodies should be encouraged to report high quality principles, performance and target-related information. The benefits of reporting high quality information are numerous and companies and public bodies should be encouraged to realise these benefits. A transparent account of health and safety issues in an annual report and/or website will encourage companies and public bodies to improve their performance and allow them to benchmark their progress against others.

· Investigate why public bodies report lower quality health and safety information than companies

Public bodies generally presented lower quality principles, performance and targetrelated information than companies. The reasons for this should be explored.

· Research the relationship between health and safety reporting and performance

It would be interesting to investigate if any relationships exist between the level of health and safety reporting and the health and safety performance of the company or public body in question.

28

Are companies and public bodies who have a high incidence of workplace accidents and fatalities less likely to publicly report this information? Do organisations that have a good performance record opt not to publicly report health and safety information in their annual report or website?

All companies and public bodies, regardless of their health and safety performance, should include health and safety information in their annual report, website or other publicly available document (for example health and safety, corporate social responsibility and sustainability reports). This demonstrates commitment to effective health and safety risk management, and allows health and safety performance to be monitored and improved.

· Conduct a further review of the annual reports, websites and other publicly available documents of the UK’s top companies and public bodies in 2004

To investigate the effectiveness and success of the HSC’s ‘Challenge’ a further review of the annual reports, websites and other publicly available documents of the UK’s top companies and public bodies should be conducted in 2004. This will provide a means of monitoring the success of the ‘Challenge’ and will highlight particular areas where attention may be needed to ensure the commitment of all ‘Challenge’ participants.

29

Appendix 1 - Details of companies and public bodies included in the study

Companies

It should be noted that company names presented in an italic font are either companies which have changed name, have been taken over, or belong to a parent company that produces an annual report. The website addresses given are in most instances the direct link to the health and safety information reviewed. This could be a link to the annual report, any other relevant report (e.g. health and safety, corporate responsibility, sustainability etc) or to specific pages that contain health and safety information. If the company or public body home website address is given only, this generally means that no health and safety information could be found (e.g. http://www.acgocorp.com)

Company name Website Date of Annual Report

H&S information reported?

3i http://www.3i.com/us/home.html 2002 Yes

ABB Ltd. http://www.abb.com/global/abbzh/abbzh251.nsf!OpenDatabase&db=/GLOBAL/ABBZH/abbzh25 8.nsf&v=4C12&e=us&c=47D4E19E56F741BAC1256BC7003F0DD9 2001 Yes

Abbey National Group http://www.abbeynational.com/home/inst_inv/inst_inv-fin_res.htm 2001 Yes Aegis Group Plc http://www.aegisplc.com/aegis/home.asp# 2001 Yes Aegon (Guardian Financial Services) http://www.aegon.com/top-1.html 2001 No Agco Corporation http://www.agcocorp.com 2001 No Aggregate Industries Plc http://www.aggregate.com/plc/flash_template/index.html?/plc/flash_template/investor.htm&2 2001 Yes Airtours Plc http://www.mytravelgroup.com 2001 No Alfred McAlpine Plc http://www.alfred-mcalpine.com 2002 Yes Alliance & Leicester Plc http://www.alliance-leicester.co.uk/home/index.asp?page=home 2001 Yes Alliance UniChem Plc http://www.alliance-unichem.com/ 2001 Yes Allied Domecq http://www.allieddomecq.com/social-responsibilty/socialres-fr.asp?Page=8 2002 Yes Amec http://www.amec.com/pdf/Sustainability2002.pdf 2001 Yes Amersham http://www.amersham.com/ 2001 Yes

30



Amvescap Plc http://www.amvescap.com/amvescap/index.html 2001 No

Anglo American Plc http://www.angloamerican.co.uk/social/sm.asp?url=/social/principles.asp&searchtext+healthand safety 2001 Yes

Arcadia Group Plc http://www.arcadiagroup.co.uk/promostores/arcadia/?session_id=15718069 2001 No Arnold Clark Automobiles Ltd. http://www.arnoldclark.co.uk/ 2001 No Arriva Plc http://www.arriva.co.uk/ 2001 Yes Associated British Foods Plc (British Sugar) http://www.abf.co.uk/about/faq-hs.html 2002 Yes

AstraZeneca http://www.astrazeneca.com/mainnav1/about/csr/performance/c_performance/social.html 2001 Yes Aviva Plc http://www.aviva.com/responsibility/2002report/index.htm 2002 Yes AWG Plc (Anglian Water) http://www.awg.com/ 2002 Yes BAA Plc http://www.baa.co.uk/main/corporate/sustainable_development_frame.html 2001/02 Yes Bae Systems Plc http://www.baesystems.com/index.htm 2001 Yes Balfour Beatty Plc http://www.balfourbeatty.com/aboutus/mn_safety_first.shtml 2001 Yes Barclays Plc http://www.barclays.com 2001 Yes Barlow Ltd. http://www.barlow.co.uk/index.html web No Barratt Developments Plc http://www.barratthomes.co.uk/ 2002 Yes BBA Group Plc http://www.bbagroup.com/static/index.htm 2001 Yes BG Group Plc http://www.bg-group.com/policy/hse.htm# 2001 Yes BHP Billiton Plc http://www.bhpbilliton.com/bb/sustainableDevelopment/home.jsp 2002 Yes Bidvest (Booker Foodservice Group Ltd.) http://www.bidvest.com/index.asp 2002 Yes

BMW Group http://www.bmw.com 2001/02 Yes Bovis Homes Group http://www.bovishomes.co.uk/html/index5.htm 2001 Yes Bovis Lend Lease Ltd. http://www.bovislendlease.com/llweb/llc/main.nsf/all/all_healthcommitment 2002 Yes

31



BPB Plc http://www.bpb.com/main.asp 2002 Yes Bradford & Bingley http://www.bbg.co.uk/ 2001 No Brake Bros Plc http://www.brake.co.uk/ 2001 Yes Brambles Industries Plc http://www.brambles.com/html/menu_frameset.asp 2002 Yes

British Airways Plc http://www.britishairways.com/responsibility/docs/performing/social_and_enviromental_report_2 002.pdf 2001/02 Yes

British American Tobacco http://www.bat.com/oneweb/sites/uk__3mnfen.nsf/vwPagesWebLive/55B23B076727E8CA80256 BF4000331E6?opendocument 2001 Yes

British Broadcasting Corporation http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/report99/board3.shtml#health 2001/02 Yes British Energy Plc http://www.british-energy.com/environment/index.html 2000/1 Yes British Land Co. http://www.britishland.com 2001 Yes British Petroleum (Burmah Castrol Plc) http://www.bp.com/environ_social/health_safety/index.asp 2001 Yes British Sky Broadcasting Group Plc http://www.sky.com/skycom/home/ 2002 Yes British Telecommunications Plc http://www.btplc.com/Betterworld/Employees/Healthandsafety/Healthandsafety.htm 2002 Yes British Vita Plc http://www.britishvita.com/ 2001 Yes Bunzl Plc http://www.bunzl.com/flash/index.html 2001 Yes Cable & Wireless Plc http://www.cw.com/template_03.jsp?ID=au_corpresp_hs 2002 Yes Cadbury Schweppes Plc http://www.cadburyschweppes.com/pdfs/environment_report/brochure.pdf 2001 Yes Camelot Group Plc http://www.camelotgroup.co.uk/index.jsp 2002 Yes Canary Wharf Group Plc http://www.canarywharfenvironmentalandsocialreport.com/ 2001 Yes Capita Group Plc http://www.capita.co.uk/ 2001 No Carillion Plc http://www.carillionplc.com/sustain-2001/safety_frameset.htm 2001 Yes Carlsberg Group http://www.carlsberg.com/ 2001 Yes Carphone Warehouse Group http://www.carphonewarehouse.com/commerce/servlet/gben-Home 2002 No Caterpillar Inc. http://www.cat.com/index.html 2001 No

32



Centrica (British Gas Trading Ltd.) http://www.centrica.com/framesets/frontfset.htm 2001 Yes Charter Plc http://www.charterplc.com/ 2001 No Chubb http://www.chubb.com/indexPC.html 2001 No Citroen UK Ltd. http://www.citroen.com/site/htm/en 2001 No Coats Plc http://www.coatsplc.co.uk 2001 Yes Commerzbank (Jupiter Unit Trust Managers Ltd.) http://www.jupiteronline.co.uk 2002 No

Compass Group http://www.compass-group.com/A-and-I-reports.cfm 2002 Yes Computacenter http://www.computacenter.com/ 2001 No Conoco Inc. (Phillips Petroleum Ltd.) http://www.conoco.com/safety/safety/index.asp 2001 Yes Cookson Group Plc http://www.cooksongroup.co.uk/index.html 2001 Yes

Cordiant Communications Group Plc http://www.cc+A513gww.com/cgibin/WebObjects/Cordiant.woa/1/wo/T8nyoeHztwb5cxBtxPw7sM/4.5.0.0 Web No

Corus Group Plc http://www.corusgroup.com/sustainability/index.cfm?id=E811EEBA-6EE0-11D6-B30500508BC987DD 2001 Yes

Daily Mail and General Trust Plc http://www.dmgt.co.uk 2001 No Daimler Chrysler UK Ltd. http://www.daimlerchrysler.co.uk, www.daimlerchrysler.com 2001 Yes

Dairy Crest Group Plc http://www.dairycrest.co.uk/corp/env/health_safety_policy.doc, http://www.dairycrest.co.uk/corp/env/env.htm 2002 Yes

David S Smith (Holdings) Plc http://www.dssmith.uk.com 2002 Yes Dawson Holdings Plc http://www.dawson.co.uk 2002 Yes De La Rue Holdings Plc http://www.delarue.com/about/grphsp02.pdf 2002 Yes

Debenhams Plc http://www.debenhams.com/site_services/heading_summary.jsp?FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=34 49337&bmUID=1041851685218 2002 Yes

Delta Plc http://www.deltaplc.com 2001 Yes Diageo Plc (United Distillers & Vinters Ltd.) http://www.diageo.com 2002 Yes

33



Dixons Group Plc http://www.dixons-group-plc.co.uk/webcode/content.asp?pageid=809 2001/02 Yes

Du Pont (UK) Ltd. http://www1.dupont.com/NASApp/dupontglobal/corp/index.jsp?page=/content/US/en_US/social/ SHE/europe/europe2.html 2001 Yes

EasyJet Plc http://www.easyjet.com 2002 Yes EDS International Ltd. http://www.eds.com 2001 No Electrocomponents Plc http://www.electrocomponents.com 2002 Yes EMAP http://www.emap.com 2002 Yes EMI Group Plc http://www.emigroup.com 2002 Yes Enodis Plc http://www.enodis.com 2002 No Ericsson http://www.ericsson.com 2001 No Exel Plc http://investor.exel.com/exelplc/csr/ 2001 Yes Express Dairies Plc http://www.expressdairies.co.uk 2002 Yes Exxon Mobil http://www.exxonmobil.co.uk/UK-English/Responsibility/UK_CR_HS.asp 2001 Yes Fiat Group http://www.fiatgroup.com 2001 No First Choice Holidays Plc http://www.firstchoice.co.uk 2001 Yes FirstGroup Plc http://www.firstgroup.com 2002 Yes FKI Plc http://www.fki.co.uk 2002 Yes Ford Motor Company Ltd. http://www.ford.com and www.ford.co.uk 2001 Yes Friends Provident http://www.friendsprovident.com/csr/social_responsibility_frameset.jhtml 2001 Yes Gallagher Group Plc http://www.gallaher-group.com, www.gallaher-group.com/documents/HSPolicy2002.pdf 2001 Yes Gehe UK Plc (AAH Pharmaceuticals Ltd.) http://www.gehe.de 2001 No

George Wimpey Plc http://www.georgewimpey.co.uk 2001 Yes GKN Plc http://www.gknplc.com 2001 Yes GlaxoSmithKline http://www.gsk.com 2001 Yes

34



Go-Ahead http://www.go-ahead.com/policies/heathandsafety.html 2002 Yes GPU Power (Avon Energy Partners Holdings) http://www.gpupower.co.uk/gpu/safety-record.htm 2001 Yes

Granada Plc http://www.granadamedia.com 2002 Yes Great Universal Stores (GUS) Plc http://www.gusplc.com/about_csr_people.html 2002 Yes H J Heinz Co. http://www.heinz.com and www.heinz.co.uk 2000 Yes Hanson Plc http://www.hansonplc.com 2001 Yes Hartest Holdings Plc http://www.hartest-holdings.plc.uk 2001 No Hays Plc http://www.hays.com/sustainability/social_contract.asp 2002 Yes HBOS Plc http:///www.hbosplc.com 2001 Yes Hewlett-Packard Ltd. (Compaq Computer Corporation) http://www.hp.com 2001 Yes

Hexagon http://www.hexagon.se 2001 No Hilton Group Plc http://www.hiltongroup.com/hilton/con_social/health_safety/social_health_safe.shtml 2001 Yes Hitachi Ltd. http://www.hitachi.com and www.hitachi-eu.com 2002 No HMV Media Group Plc http://www.hmvgroup.com, www.hmv.com 2002 Yes Hogg Robinson Plc http://www.hoggrobinson.co.uk 2002 Yes Honda Motor Europe Ltd. http://www.hondacorporate.com 2002 No House of Fraser (Stores) Ltd. http://www.houseoffraser.co.uk 2001/02 Yes HSBC Holdings Plc http://www.hsbc.com 2001 Yes Hunting Plc http://www.enabledsites.co.uk/hunting/people.asp 2001 Yes IBM http://www.ibm.com/ibm/environment/annual2002 2002 Yes ICI Plc http://www.ici.com/2002_site/index.htm 2001 Yes ICL Plc http://www.icl.com 2001 No IMI Plc http://www.imiplc.com/about/hse.htm 2001 Yes

35



Imperial Tobacco Group Plc http://www.imperial-tobacco.com 2002 Yes Inchcape Plc http://www.inchcape.com/code/browse_code/ViewDocument.asp?Documentid=22 2001 Yes Intel Corporation http://www.intel.com/intel/finance/social.htm 2001 Yes Interbrew Plc http://www.interbrew.com/index2b.html 2001 Yes International Power http://www.deesidepower.com 2001 Yes

Interserve Plc (Tilbury Douglas Plc) http://www.interserveplc.co.uk/projectservices/aboutus/safety.htm ….industrial services/aboutus/safety,+health+and_environment.htm 2001 Yes

Invensys Plc http://www.invensys.com/about/ehs02/EHS_policy.pdf 2002 Yes iSteelAsia (Stemcor Holding Ltd.) http://www.isteelasia.com/ 2002 No Itochu Corporation http://www.itochu.co.jp/main/ir/annual/2002/ar2002e.html 2001 No Jardine Strategic Holdings Ltd. (Jardine Motors Group) http://www.jardines.com 2001 Yes

John Laing Plc http://www.laing.com and www.laing.com/aboutus/safety.html 2001 Yes John Lewis Partnership Plc (Waitrose Ltd.) http://www.john-lewis-partnership.co.uk 2002 No

Johnson & Johnson http://www.jnj.com/community/health_safety/index.htm 2001 Yes Johnson Matthey http://www.matthey.com/AR01/11.html 2002 Yes Kelda Group http://www.keldageoup.com 2002 Yes Kier Group Plc http://www.kier.co.uk 2002 Yes Kingfisher Plc http://www.kingfisher.co.uk 2002 Yes Kodak Ltd. http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/environment/index.shtml 2001 Yes Kvaerner Construction Group Ltd. http://www.kvaerner.com 2001 Yes Lafarge Group (Blue Circle Industries Plc) http://www.lafarge.com 2001 Yes

Land Securities http://www.landsecurities.com/env_community.asp?PageID=497 2002 Yes Lattice Group Plc http://annuals.lattice-group.com/how_we_do_business/health_and_safety/index.html 2002 Yes

36



Legal & General Group Plc http://www.legalandgeneral.com 2001 Yes Lex Services Plc http://www.lex.co.uk 2001 Yes Lloyds TSB Group http://www.lloydstsb.com 2001 No London Electricity Plc http://www.le-group.co.uk 2001 Yes London Transport http://www.londontransport.co.uk/tfl/reports_library_annual.shtml 2002 Yes Man Group Plc http://www.mangroupplc.com 2002 Yes Marks and Spencer Plc http://www.marksandspencer.com 2002 Yes Matsushita Electric Europe (Headquarters) Ltd. http://www.matsushita.co.jp/environment/2001e/index.html 2002 Yes

Menzies Group (John Menzies Partnership Plc & John Menzies Distribution Ltd.)

http://www.menziesgroup.com/governance/report.html#hs 2001 Yes

Merrill Lynch Investment Managers (Mercury Fund Managers) http://www.ml.com 2001 No

Mitsubishi Corporation http://www.mitsubishi.co.jp/En/index_top.html 2002 No Mitsui & Co. Ltd. http://www.mitsui.co.jp 2002 No MMO2 http://www.mmo2.com/docs/cr/objectives_work4.html 2001 Yes Motability Finance Ltd. http://www.mfl.co.uk 2001 No Mothercare Plc http://www.mothercare.com 2002 Yes Motorola http://www.motorola.com/EHS/safety/management/ 2002 Yes Mowlem Plc http://www.mowlem.com/healths.htm 2001 Yes National Express Group Plc http://www.nationalexpressgroup.com 2001 Yes National Grid Group Plc http://www.nationalgrid.com/uk/ 2001 Yes NEC Corporation http://www.nec.co.jp 2002 No Nestle Group http://www.nestle.com 2002 Yes Newton Fund Managers Ltd. http://www.newton.co.uk 2002 No

37



Next Plc http://www.next.co.uk 2002 No Nissho Iwai Europe http://www.nisshoiwai.co.jp/nic/e/ir/index6.html 2002 No Nokia http://www.nokia.com/cda2/0,1083,1169,00.html 2001 Yes Nomura International Plc http://www.nomura.com 2002 No Nortel Networks Corporation http://www.nortelnetworks.com/corporate/community/environment/health_safety/policy.html 2001 Yes Northern Foods http://www.northern-foods.co.uk/company/employmentissues.html 2002 Yes Northern Rock Plc http://www.northernrock.co.uk 2001 Yes Northrop Grumman (TRW) http://www.northgrum.com/ 2001 No Novar Plc http://www.novar.com/investors 2001 Yes NTL http://www.ntl.com 2001 No Old Mutual Plc http://www.oldmutual.com 2001 Yes Orange Plc http://www.orange.com/English/investorrelations/annualreports11.asp?bhcp=1 2001 Yes P&O Princess Cruises http://www.poprincesscruises.com/inveframes.htm 2002 Yes Pearson Plc http://www.pearson.com/community/env_property.htm 2001 Yes Pendragon Plc http://www.pendragonplc.com 2001 Yes Pernod Richard (Seagram) http://www.seagram.com 2001 Yes Persimmon Plc http://www.persimmonhomes.com/plc_index.htm 2001 Yes Peugeot Motor Co. Plc http://www.peugeot.co.uk Web No Pfizer Inc. http://www.pfizer.com/ehs/ 2000 Yes

Philips http://www.philips.com/InformationCenter/Global/FArticleSummary.asp?lNodeId=771&channel= 771&channelId=N771A2045 2002 Yes

Pilkington Plc http://www.pilkington.com/corporate/english/investors/company+reports/twothousandandtwo/ann ual+report+2002+corporate+social+responsibility+.htm 2002 Yes

Pizza Express Plc http://www.pizzaexpress.co.uk/finance.htm 2002 Yes Powergen Plc http://www.powergenplc.com/world/health.asp 2002 Yes

38



Premier Farnell Plc http://ww6.investorrelations.co.uk/premierfarnell/ListCustom2.shtml 2002 Yes Procter & Gamble http://www.pg.com 2001 Yes Prudential http://www.prudential.com 2001 No Publicis Plc (Zenith Media Holdings Plc) http://www.publicis.com 2001 No

Railtrack http://www.railtrack.co.uk/crr/ 2002 Yes Reckitt Benckiser Plc http://www.reckittbenckiser.com/documentlib/normal/healthandsafety-policy.pdf 2001 Yes Reed Elsevier http://www.reed-elsevier.com/ 2001 Yes Renault UK Ltd. http://www.renault.co.uk/RenaultSITe/index.jsp 2000 No Rentokil Initial Plc http://www.rentokil-initial.com/who/corp_responseV3.asp 2001 Yes Reuters Group Plc http://www.about.reuters.com/csr/ 2001 Yes Rexam Plc http://www.rexam.com/index.asp?url=main.asp 2001 Yes Rhodia Consumer Specialities Ltd. (Albright & Wilson Ltd.)

http://www.rhodia.com/us/f_resultatsbourse.asp?mainframe=/us/resultatsbourse/bibliotheques/pub lications.asp&rubrique=Biblio&lien=Publications 2001 Yes

Rio Tinto http://www.riotinto.com/community/information/default.asp 2001 Yes RMC Group Plc (The Rugby Group Ltd.) http://www.rmc-group.com/ 2001 Yes

Rolls Royce Plc http://www.rolls-royce.com/default.htm 2001 Yes Royal & Sun Alliance http://www.royalsunalliance.co.uk/ 2001 Yes Royal Bank of Scotland http://www.rbs.co.uk/default.asp 2001 Yes SAB Miller Plc http://www.sab.co.za/ 2002 Yes Safeway Plc http://www.safeway.co.uk/cgi-bin/search.cgi?000012000007&location=000012 2002 Yes Sage Group http://www.sage.com 2001 No Sainsbury (J) Plc http://www.j-sainsbury.co.uk/csr/health.htm 2002 Yes Schlumberger (Sema Group Plc) http://www.slb.com/Hub/index.cfm?id=id48 2001 Yes

39



Schroders http://www.schroders.com/content/cda/homepages/home1/0,4295,audienceID%253D34,00.html 2001 Yes Scottish & Newcastle Plc http://www.scottish-newcastle.com/sn/ 2002 Yes

Scottish & Southern Energy Plc http://www.scottish-southern.co.uk/safetyenvironment/safetypolicy.asp?sMenu=sseSafety&subMenu=1 2002 Yes

Scottish Power

http://www.scottishpower.com/applications/publish/downloadPublicDocument.jsp?guid=190b75_f 213b6ae93_-7f440a026463&folderPath=/root/ScottishPower%20Media%20Library/Documents%20and%20Re ports/&downloadParameter=Attachment

2001/02 Yes

Seeboard Group Plc http://www.seeboard.com/Corporate/Environment/000_en.htm 2000 Yes

Selfridges http://www.selfridges.co.uk/internet/iweb2002.nsf/frameset?openview&restricttocategory=frontpa ge 2002 No

Severn Trent Plc http://www.severn-trent.com/obop/index_frameset.html 2002 Yes Shell Transport & Trading Co. (Enterprise Oil Plc) http://www.shell.com/home/Framework?siteId=home 2001 Yes

Shire Pharmaceuticals Group http://www.shire.com/default.asp?wci=main 2001 Yes Siemens Plc http://www.siemens.co.uk/default.asp?page_id=215 2000 Yes SIG Plc http://www.sigplc.co.uk/ 2001 Yes Signet Group Plc http://www.signetgroupplc.com/signet/hr_health/ 2002 Yes Six Continents http://www.sixcontinents.com/environment/guidelines_for_conduct.htm#health 2001 Yes Smith & Nephew http://www.smith-nephew.com/sustainability/HandS.htm 2001 Yes Smiths Group Plc http://www.smiths-group.com/plc/default.asp 2002 Yes Somerfield Plc http://www.somerfield.plc.uk/index.asp?p=2&t=5&l=4 2001/02 Yes Sony Corporation http://www.sony.net/ 2002 Yes Southern Electric Contracting Ltd. http://www.s-e-c.co.uk/index.html 2002 Yes Stagecoach Group Plc http://www.stagecoachgroup.com/sgc/ 2002 Yes Standard Chartered http://www.standardchartered.com/global/csr/people_hws.html 2001 Yes

40



Sumitomo Corporation Europe Plc http://www.sumitomocorpeurope.com/ 2001 No Tate & Lyle Industries Ltd. http://www.tateandlyle.com/IR/our_business/social_responsibility/health_safety_environment.asp 2002 Yes Taylor Woodrow Plc http://www.taylorwoodrow.com/content.html?pageID=113 2001 Yes Tesco Plc http://www.tesco.com/corporateinfo/ 2002 Yes The Big Food Group (Iceland) http://www.iceland.co.uk 2002 Yes The BOC Group Plc http://www.boc.com/socialResp/sub3.cfm?cat_id=94&index=1 2002 Yes The Boots Company Plc http://www.boots-plc.com/healthandsafety/default.asp 2002 Yes The Coca-Cola Company http://www.coca-cola.com/index.html 2001 No

The Co-operative Group http://www.co-op.co.uk/ext_1/Development.nsf/504ca249c786e20f85256284006da7ab/bd6e023790cad7b680256 c6a00407a42?OpenDocument

2001 Yes

The Corporate Services Group Plc http://www.corporateservices.co.uk/home/fr_home.htm 2001 No The Gillette Company http://www.gillette.com/homepage.asp 2001 Yes The Laird Group Plc http://www.laird-plc.com/ 2001 No The Mayflower Corporation Plc http://www.mayflowercorp.com/ 2001 Yes The Morgan Crucible Company Plc http://www.morgancrucible.com/ 2001 Yes The Rank Group Plc http://www.rank.com/rank?action=GoMainIndex&nav=IE 2001 Yes The Royal Mail Group Plc (The Post Office) http://www.royalmailgroup.com/home.asp 2001/02 Yes

Tibbett & Britten Group Plc http://www.tibbett-britten.com/mainon.htm 2001 Yes Tomkins Plc http://www.tomkins.co.uk/index.html 2002 Yes TotalFinaElf http://www.totalfinaelf.com/ho/en/library/theme/intro.htm#env 2001 Yes Toyota Motor Corporation http://www.toyota.co.jp/en/ci.html 2002 Yes Travis Perkins Plc http://www.travisperkins.co.uk/ 2001 Yes

Trinity Mirror Plc (The Mirror Group) http://www.trinitymirror.com/investorrelations/socialresponsibility/csrreview/page.cfm?objectid=1 1983713&method=full&siteid=73007 2001 Yes

41



TUI (Britannia Airways) http://www.tui-uk.co.uk/index.htm 2001 No TXU Europe Group Plc http://www.txucorp.com/about/intl/eu/default.asp 2001 Yes

Unilever Plc http://www.unilever.com/environmentsociety/socialreview/default.asp?ComponentID=2428&Sour cePageID=64#1 2000 Yes

Uniq Plc (Unigate Plc) http://www.uniqplc.com/Uniqplc/infopool.nsf/HTML/92AAF3FEAD05A90780256C4600378A8 A 2002 Yes

United Business Media http://www.unitedbusinessmedia.com 2001 No United Utilities Plc http://www.unitedutilities.com/index.asp?subsection=workplace_health_and_safety 2002 Yes Vauxhall Motors Ltd. http://buypower.vauxhall.co.uk/framesets/sustainability.jhtml?_requestid=893483 2001 Yes Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd. http://www.virgin-atlantic.com Web No

Vodafone Group http://www.vodafone.com/article/0,2049,PARENT_CATEGORY_ID%253D3040604%2526CAT EGORY_ID%253D304060403%2526CONTENT_ID%253D10109%2526LANGUAGE_ID%253 D0,00.html?

2001/02 Yes

Volkswagen Group United Kingdom Ltd. http://www.volkswagen.co.uk 2001 No

Wal-Mart (Asda Stores Ltd.) http://www.walmartstores.com/wmstore/wmstores/Mainnews.jsp?pagetype=news&categoryOID=-8775&template=DisplayAllContents.jsp 2002 No

Western Power Distribution (South Western Electricity Plc & Hyder Plc) http://www.westernpower.co.uk 2002 No

Wetherspoon (JD) http://www.jdwetherspoon.co.uk/pages/finance_q0102.html 2002 No WH Smith Plc http://www.whsmithplc.com/grp/social_4.htm 2002 Yes Whitbread Plc http://www.whitbread.co.uk/students/index.jsp#jump9 2001/02 Yes Winterhur Life UK Holdings Ltd. (Colonial UK Plc) http://www.winterthur-life.co.uk/newcorporate/corporate.asp 2002 No

Wm Morrison Supermarkets Plc http://www.morereasons.co.uk/ 2002 Yes Wolseley Plc http://www.wolseley.com/archive/annual_report_2001/Default.htm 2001 Yes WPP Group Plc http://www.wpp.com 2001 No Xerox Corporation http://www.xerox.com/go/xrx/template/020e.jsp?view=Programs&cat=EHS%20Corporate%20Pol 2002 Yes

42



icy&Xcntry=USA&Xlang=en_US

Xstrata http://www.xstrata.com/pub_other.php 2002 Yes Zurich (Threadneedle Investment Services Ltd.) http://www.zurich.com/about_zurich/health_sport.jhtml 2001 Yes

Government Departments & Agencies

Name Website Date of Annual Report


Cabinet Office http://www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/index.htm 2002 Yes Department for Culture, Media & Sport http://www.culture.gov.uk/index_noflash.html 2002 Yes Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs http://www.defra.gov.uk/ 2002 No

Department for International Development http://www.dfid.gov.uk/ 2002 No

Department for Transport http://www.dft.gov.uk/ 2002 Yes Department for Work & Pensions http://www.dwp.gov.uk/publications/dwp/2002/es_report/app3.pdf 2002 Yes Department of Health http://www.doh.gov.uk/index.htm 2001/02 Yes Department of Trade & Industry http://www.dti.gov.uk/hsreport2002/health2002.html 2001/02 Yes

Foreign & Commonwealth Office http://www.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid= 1007029390554 2002 No

Health & Safety Executive http://www.hse.gov.uk/aboutus/reports/hsinhse.htm 2001/02 Yes Highways Agency http://www.highways.gov.uk/aboutus/corpdocs/ann_rpt/1995_1996/ann9608.htm 2000/01 Yes HM Treasury http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/about/about_health.cfm 2002 Yes Home Office http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/dob/cssu.htm 2002/03 Yes Lord Chancellor's http://www.lcd.gov.uk/ 2001/02 Yes

43



Ministry of Defence http://www.mod.uk/index.html 2001/02 Yes Office of the e-Envoy http://www.e-envoy.gov.uk 2002 No Ordnance Survey http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/ 2001/02 Yes Scotland Office http://www.scottishsecretary.gov.uk/ 2002 No The Housing Corporation http://www.housingcorp.gov.uk/ 2001/02 No The Northern Ireland Office http://www.nio.gov.uk/index.htm 2002 Yes The Wales Office http://www.ossw.wales.gov.uk/index.html 2002 No

Local Authorities



Aberdeen Council http://www.aberdeencity.gov.uk/acc/default.asp 2002 Yes

Bristol City Council http://www.bristol-city.gov.uk/Fuguri/frame.html?N+NHE00110+BG+F+BMM00105+NHM00106 2002 Yes

Cardiff County Council http://www.cardiff.gov.uk/ 2001/02 Yes Greenwich Council http://www.greenwich.gov.uk/council/az_frames.htm 2001/02 Yes Hampshire County Council http://www.hants.gov.uk/hcc/ 2001/02 Yes Peterborough City Council http://www.peterborough.gov.uk/ 2001/02 Yes Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council http://www.sefton.gov.uk/ 2002 Yes Slough Borough Council http://www.slough.gov.uk/default.asp 2001/02 Yes Sunderland City Council http://www.sunderland.gov.uk/default.asp 2002 Yes The Highland Council http://www.highland.gov.uk/index.htm 2001/02 Yes Wandsworth Borough Council http://www.wandsworth.gov.uk/ 2001/02 No

44

NHS Trusts



Dudley Group of Hospitals NHS Trust http://www.dudleygoh-tr.wmids.nhs.uk/web/index.htm 2002 Yes Guys & St Thomas NHS Trust http://www.hospital.org.uk/index.htm 2001/02 Yes Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust http://www.leedsteachinghospitals.com/index.html 2001/02 Yes North Glasgow University Hospitals NHS Trust http://www.ngt.org.uk/annualreport/contents.htm 2001/02 Yes

Poole Hospitals NHS Trust http://www.poolehos.org/ 2001/02 Yes Swansea NHS Trust http://www.swansea-tr.wales.nhs.uk/page1.htm 2001/02 No Swindon & Marlborough NHS Trust http://www.swindon-marlborough.nhs.uk/ 2001/02 Yes West Lothian Healthcare NHS Trust http://www.show.scot.nhs.uk/wlt/index.asp 2001/02 Yes Wirral Hospital NHS Trust http://www.wirral-wellness.org/wirral_ver2.htm 2000/01 Yes York Health Services NHS Trust http://www.yorkhealthservices.org/index.php3 2001/02 Yes

45

Appendix 2 - Our interpretation of the HSC’s guidance on public reporting of health and safety issues

Companies and public bodies who reported the following issues were awarded one point (maximum achievable was 11). This is based on the HSC’s guidance entitled ‘Health and Safety in Annual Reports’ (www.hse.gov.uk/revitalising/annual.htm).

Principles

(1) Context of health and safety policy: information on who is responsible, what the policy is, how it is implemented etc was accepted.

(2) Significant risks faced by employees and/or others: a point was awarded for any information or details of significant risks; information on the systems in place to control the risks was not required.

(3) Health and safety goals: goals did not have to relate to the H&S policy or the Revitalising Health and Safety Strategy Statement but had to be realistic; a goal of no accidents or zero injuries etc was not acceptable as a stand-alone statement.

(4) Progress and plans: information on current progress or forthcoming plans, including for example, developments affecting H&S, employee training and development, new working practices etc was accepted. The information did not have to relate to health and safety goals to be awarded a point.

(5) Consulting arrangements: information on how employees are consulted, the frequency of consultation etc was accepted. Any reference to safety representatives and trade unions in a H&S context was also awarded a point.

Performance

(6) RIDDOR: any RIDDOR related information was acceptable. The information could be presented as a number or a rate (the rate did not have to be presented per 100,000 employees).

(7) Fatalities: the number of fatalities only was acceptable; details of the circumstances surrounding the fatalities or preventative actions taken were not required.

(8) Employee days lost: the information did not have to include all cases of physical and mental illness, disability or other health problems; for example, employee days lost for physical injures only was accepted.

(9) Number of health and safety enforcement notices: the number only was acceptable. No further information was required for a point to be awarded.

(10) Number of health and safety convictions: the number only was acceptable. Additional information on the nature of the conviction, outcome or measures to prevent recurrence was not required for a point to be awarded.

Targets

(11) Targets: only targets that included a date or timeframe were awarded a point.

46

Appendix 3 – Quality of reporting

Companies

It should be noted that industry sectors marked with a ‘*’ have been assigned based on the current FTSE index (as these companies were not FTSE listed). The symbol ‘-‘ denotes that no information was presented.

Company name Principles Performance Targets Score Industry sector 3i Low - - 1 Investment Companies

ABB Ltd. Low - - 1 Engineering & machinery *

Abbey National Group Medium - 2 Banks

Aegis Group Plc Low - - 1 Media & photography

Aggregate Industries Plc Medium - - 3 Construction & building materials

Alfred McAlpine Plc High High High 9 Construction & building materials

Alliance & Leicester Plc Medium - 2 Banks

Alliance UniChem Plc - - - 0 Health

Allied Domecq Low - - 1 Beverages

Amec Medium High High 9 Construction & building materials

Amersham Medium Medium Medium 6 Health

Anglo American Plc High Medium High 8 Mining

Arriva Plc Medium - 2 Transport

Associated British Foods Plc (British Sugar) Low - - 1 Food producers & processors

AstraZeneca High Medium - 8 Pharmaceuticals & biotechnology

Aviva Plc Medium - 2 Life assurance

AWG Plc (Anglian Water) Medium Low High 4 Water

BAA Plc High Medium High 8 Transport

Bae Systems Plc - - - 0 Aerospace & defence

47

Company name Principles Performance Targets Score Industry sector Balfour Beatty Plc High Medium High 9 Construction & building materials

Barclays Plc Low Low - 2 Banks

Barratt Developments Plc Medium - - 2 Construction & building materials

BBA Group Plc High Low Medium 7 Transport

BG Group Plc High Low High 8 Oil & gas

BHP Billiton Plc High Medium High 9 Mining

Bidvest (Booker Foodservice Group Ltd.) Medium - - 2 Food producers & processors*

BMW Group Low Low - 2 Automobiles & parts*

Bovis Homes Group Medium Low Low 7 Construction & building materials

Bovis Lend Lease Ltd. Low - - 1 Construction & building materials

BPB Plc Medium - - 2 Construction & building materials

Brake Bros Plc - - - 0 Food producers & processors

Brambles Industries Plc Medium Low - 5 Support services

British Airways Plc Medium Low Low 5 Transport

British American Tobacco Medium Low - 5 Tobacco

British Broadcasting Corporation Medium Medium - 6 Media & photography*

British Energy Plc Medium Low - 3 Electricity

British Land Co. Low - 1 Real estate

British Petroleum (Burmah Castrol Plc) Medium Low Low 6 Oil & gas

British Sky Broadcasting Group Plc High - High 6 Media & photography

British Telecommunications Plc Medium High High 8 Telecommunication services

British Vita Plc Medium Low Low 5 Chemicals

Bunzl Plc Low - 1 Support services

Cable & Wireless Plc Medium - 2 Telecommunication services

Cadbury Schweppes Plc High - - 5 Food producers & processors

48

Company name Principles Performance Targets Score Industry sector Camelot Group Plc Low Low - 2 Leisure, entertainment & hotels*

Canary Wharf Group Plc Medium Low - 4 Real estate

Carillion Plc High High High 10 Construction & building materials

Carlsberg Group - Low - 1 Beverages*

Centrica (British Gas Trading Ltd.) Medium - 2 Oil & gas

Coats Plc Low - - 1 Household goods & textiles

Compass Group Low - 1 Support services

Conoco Inc. (Phillips Petroleum Ltd.) Medium Low - 4 Oil & gas*

Cookson Group Plc Medium Low - 3 Engineering & machinery

Corus Group Plc Low Low - 3 Steel & other metals

Daimler Chrysler UK Ltd. - - - 0 Automobiles & parts*

Dairy Crest Group Plc Low - - 1 Food producers & processors

David S Smith (Holdings) Plc Low - - 1 Forestry & paper

Dawson Holdings Plc Medium - 2 Support services

De La Rue Holdings Plc High Low - 5 Support services

Debenhams Plc High - 4 General retailers

Delta Plc Low - 1 Electronic & electrical equipment

Diageo Plc (United Distillers & Vinters Ltd.) - - - 0 Beverages

Dixons Group Plc High High - 9 General retailers

Du Pont (UK) Ltd. Medium Low - 4 Chemicals*

EasyJet Plc Low - 1 Transport

Electrocomponents Plc Low - 1 Electronic & electrical equipment*

EMAP Medium - - 2 Media & photography

EMI Group Plc - High - 4 Media & photography

Exel Plc Low - 1 Transport

49

Company name Principles Performance Targets Score Industry sector Express Dairies Plc Low - - 1 Food producers & processors

Exxon Mobile Medium Low - 4 Oil & gas

First Choice Holidays Plc Low - - 1 Leisure, entertainment & hotels

FirstGroup Plc High - 4 Transport

FKI Plc High Medium Medium 8 Engineering & machinery

Ford Motor Company Ltd. Medium Low - 4 Automobiles & parts*

Friends Provident Medium - 2 Life assurance

Gallagher Group Plc High High - 9 Tobacco

George Wimpey Plc Medium - - 2 Construction & building materials

GKN Plc Medium Medium - 6 Automobiles & parts

GlaxoSmithKline Medium - Medium 4 Pharmaceuticals & biotechnology

Go-Ahead Low - 1 Transport

GPU Power (Avon Energy Partners Holdings) High - 4 Electricity*

Granada Plc High Medium - 7 Media & photography

Great Universal Stores (GUS) Plc Low Low - 2 General retailers

H J Heinz Co. Medium - - 2 Food producers & processors*

Hanson Plc Low - High 2 Construction & building materials

Hays Plc Low - 1 Support services

HBOS Plc Medium - 3 Banks

Hewlett-Packard Ltd. (Compaq Computer Co.) Medium Low - 5 Information technology hardware*

Hilton Group Plc Medium - - 2 Leisure, entertainment & hotels

HMV Media Group Plc - - 0 General retailers

Hogg Robinson Plc Low - 1 Support services*

House of Fraser (Stores) Ltd. Low - 1 General retailers

HSBC Holdings Plc Medium - 3 Banks

50

Company name Principles Performance Targets Score Industry sector Hunting Plc Low - - 1 Oil & gas

IBM Medium Low - 3 Information technology hardware*

ICI Plc Medium Medium High 6 Chemicals

IMI Plc Medium - - 2 Engineering & machinery

Imperial Tobacco Group Plc High Medium Low 9 Tobacco

Inchcape Plc Medium - - 2 Automobiles & parts

Intel Corporation Medium Medium Low 7 Information technology hardware*

Interbrew Plc Medium - 3 Beverages*

International Power Medium Low Low 5 Electricity

Interserve Plc (Tilbury Douglas Plc) High - 4 Support services

Invensys Plc High Low - 6 Electronic & electrical equipment

Jardine Strategic Holdings Ltd. - - - 0 Diversified Industrials

John Laing Plc Medium Low - 4 Construction & building materials

Johnson & Johnson High Low - 6 Health*

Johnson Matthey Medium - 3 Chemicals

Kelda Group Medium - 2 Water

Kier Group Plc Medium - - 2 Construction & building materials

Kingfisher Plc - - 0 General retailers

Kodak Ltd. Medium - Medium 5 Media & photography*

Kvaerner Construction Group Ltd. Low Low - 3 Construction & building materials*

Lafarge Group (Blue Circle Industries Plc) Medium Low - 5 Construction & building materials*

Land Securities Medium Low - 4 Real estate

Lattice Group Plc High Low Low 8 Oil & gas*

Legal & General Group Plc Low - - 1 Life assurance

Lex Services Plc Medium - 2 Support services

51

Company name Principles Performance Targets Score Industry sector London Electricity Plc High Medium High 9 Electricity*

London Transport Low - 1 Transport*

Man Group Plc Low - - 1 Speciality & other finance

Marks and Spencer Plc Low - 1 General retailers

Matsushita Electric Europe (Headquarters) Ltd. Medium Low - 3 Electronic & electrical equipment* Menzies Group (John Menzies Partnership Plc & John Menzies Distribution Ltd.) Low - 1 Support services

MMO2 Medium - 2 Telecommunication services

Mothercare Plc Low - 1 General retailers

Motorola Medium Low - 5 Information technology hardware

Mowlem Plc Medium - - 3 Construction & building materials

National Express Group Plc Medium - 2 Transport

National Grid Group Plc Medium Low - 5 Electricity

Nestle Group Medium - - 2 Food producers & processors*

Nokia Low - 1 Information technology hardware*

Nortel Networks Corporation Low - 1 Telecommunication services*

Northern Foods Medium Low - 3 Food producers & processors

Northern Rock Plc Low - - 1 Banks

Novar Plc Low - - 1 Construction & building materials

Old Mutual Plc Low - - 1 Life assurance

Orange Plc Low - 1 Telecommunication services

P&O Princess Cruises Low - - 1 Leisure, entertainment & hotels

Pearson Plc Medium - - 2 Media & photography

Pendragon Plc - - - 0 Automobiles & parts

Pernod Richard (Seagram) - Low - 2 Beverages*

Persimmon Plc Medium - - 2 Construction & building materials

52

Company name Principles Performance Targets Score Industry sector Pfizer Inc. High Low - 5 Pharmaceuticals & biotechnology*

Philips Low - 1 Electronic & electrical equipment

Pilkington Plc Medium Low - 4 Construction & building materials

Pizza Express Plc Medium - - 2 Leisure, entertainment & hotels

Powergen Plc Medium Low High 6 Electricity*

Premier Farnell Plc Medium Low Medium 5 Support services

Procter & Gamble Medium Low Medium 5 Household goods & textiles*

Railtrack Medium Low - 4 Transport

Reckitt Benckiser Plc Low - - 1 Personal, care & household products

Reed Elsevier Low Low - 2 Media & photography

Rentokil Initial Plc Medium - 3 Support services

Reuters Group Plc Low Low - 2 Media & photography

Rexam Plc Medium Low - 3 Support services Rhodia Consumer Specialities Ltd. (Albright & Wilson Ltd.) Medium - High 4 Household goods & textiles*

Rio Tinto High High High 10 Mining

RMC Group Plc (The Rugby Group Ltd.) Medium Low - 4 Construction & building materials

Rolls Royce Plc High High - 8 Aerospace & defence

Royal & Sun Alliance Medium Low - 4 Insurance

Royal Bank of Scotland Medium - 2 Banks

SAB Miller Plc Medium Low - 4 Beverages

Safeway Plc Medium - - 3 Food & drug retailers

Sainsbury (J) Plc Low - - 1 Food & drug retailers

Schlumberger (Sema Group Plc) - - - 0 Oil & gas

Schroders Medium - 2 Investment companies

Scottish & Newcastle Plc Medium Low Low 6 Beverages

53

Company name Principles Performance Targets Score Industry sector Scottish & Southern Energy Plc Medium Low - 4 Electricity

Scottish Power High Low - 6 Electricity

Seeboard Group Plc Low - 1 Electricity*

Severn Trent Plc Medium Medium - 6 Water Shell Transport & Trading Co. (Enterprise Oil Plc) Medium Low - 4 Oil & gas

Shire Pharmaceuticals Group Medium - 2 Pharmaceuticals & biotechnology

Siemens Plc Medium - 2 Electronic & electrical equipment

SIG Plc Low - - 1 Construction & building materials

Signet Group Plc Medium - 2 General retailers

Six Continents Low - - 1 Leisure, entertainment & hotels

Smith & Nephew Medium - 3 Health

Smiths Group Plc High Low - 6 Aerospace & defence

Somerfield Plc Medium - - 2 Food & drug retailers

Sony Corporation Medium - - 3 Household goods & textiles

Southern Electric Contracting Ltd. Low - - 1 Engineering & machinery*

Stagecoach Group Plc Medium - 2 Transport

Standard Chartered Medium - 2 Banks

Tate & Lyle Industries Ltd. High Low - 6 Food producers & processors

Taylor Woodrow Plc Medium - - 2 Construction & building materials

Tesco Plc Low - - 1 Food & drug retailers

The Big Food Group (Iceland) Low - - 1 Food & drug retailers

The BOC Group Plc Medium Low Medium 6 Chemicals

The Boots Company Plc High High High 10 General retailers

The Co-operative Group Medium - 2 General retailers* The Gillette Company - Low - 2 Personal, care & household products

54

Company name Principles Performance Targets Score Industry sector The Mayflower Corporation Plc - - - 0 Automobiles & parts

The Morgan Crucible Company Plc Low - - 1 Engineering & machinery

The Rank Group Plc Low - - 1 Leisure, entertainment & hotels

The Royal Mail Group Plc - - 0 Support services*

Tibbett & Britten Group Plc Low - 1 Transport

Tomkins Plc Medium - - 2 Engineering & machinery

TotalFinaElf Medium Low Medium 6 Oil & gas*

Toyota Motor Corporation High Low Low 6 Automobiles & parts

Travis Perkins Plc High - - 4 Construction & building materials

Trinity Mirror Plc (The Mirror Group) High High - 9 Media & photography

TXU Europe Group Plc Low High - 5 Electricity*

Unilever Plc Medium Medium - 6 Food producers & processors

Uniq Plc (Unigate Plc) Medium Low - 3 Food producers & processors

United Utilities Plc High High High 11 Water

Vauxhall Motors Ltd. High Medium High 6 Automobiles & parts*

Vodafone Group Medium Low - 4 Telecommunication services

WH Smith Plc Medium Medium Medium 7 General retailers

Whitbread Plc Medium - - 2 Leisure, entertainment & hotels

Wm Morrison Supermarkets Plc Medium - - 3 Food & drug retailers

Wolseley Plc Low - - 1 Construction & building materials

Xerox Corporation High Medium Medium 8 Electronic & electrical equipment*

Xstrata High Medium High 8 Mining Zurich (Threadneedle Investment Services Ltd.) Medium - 2 Insurance

55

Government Departments & Agencies

The symbol ‘-‘ denotes that no information was presented.

Name Principles Performance Targets Score Sector

Cabinet Office Low - High 2 Government Departments & Agencies

Department for Culture, Media & Sport Medium - - 2 Government Departments & Agencies

Department for Transport Low - Medium 2 Government Departments & Agencies

Department for Work & Pensions Medium - Medium 3 Government Departments & Agencies

Department of Health Low - Medium 2 Government Departments & Agencies

Department of Trade & Industry High High High 10 Government Departments & Agencies

Health & Safety Executive High High High 10 Government Departments & Agencies

Highways Agency Low - - 1 Government Departments & Agencies

HM Treasury Medium Low Medium 5 Government Departments & Agencies

Home Office Medium - - 2 Government Departments & Agencies

Lord Chancellor's - - Medium 1 Government Departments & Agencies

Ministry of Defence Medium Low - 4 Government Departments & Agencies

Ordnance Survey Low Low - 3 Government Departments & Agencies

The Northern Ireland Office - - Medium 1 Government Departments & Agencies

Local Authorities


Name Principles Performance Targets Score Sector Aberdeen Council - Low - 1 Local Authority Bristol City Council - - - 0 Local Authority Cardiff County Council Low Low Medium 3 Local Authority

56

Name Principles Performance Targets Score Sector Greenwich Council - Low Medium 2 Local Authority Hampshire County Council - Low Medium 2 Local Authority Peterborough City Council - - - 0 Local Authority Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council High High High 10 Local Authority Slough Borough Council - Low Medium 2 Local Authority Sunderland City Council - Low - 1 Local Authority The Highland Council Low - Low 2 Local Authority

NHS Trusts


Name Principles Performance Targets Score Sector Dudley Group of Hospitals NHS Trust - - - 0 NHS Trust Guys & St Thomas NHS Trust Low - - 1 NHS Trust Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust - - - 0 NHS Trust North Glasgow University Hospitals NHS Trust - - - 0 NHS Trust Poole Hospitals NHS Trust Low - - 1 NHS Trust Swindon & Marlborough NHS Trust Low - - 1 NHS Trust West Lothian Healthcare NHS Trust Low - - 1 NHS Trust Wirral Hospital NHS Trust Low - - 1 NHS Trust York Health Services NHS Trust Low - - 1 NHS Trust

57

Appendix 4 – Examples of high quality health and safety reporting

Excerpts from the annual reports and websites of the following companies have been reproduced with full permission from the companies involved:

· United Utilities Plc · The Boots Company Plc

We would like to thank these companies for their support.

58

United Utilities

This information was sourced from:

http://www.unitedutilities.com/index.asp?section=community_environment&subsection=w orkplace_health_and_safety

http://www.unitedutilities.com/index.asp?section=community_environment&subsection=w orkplace_context_and_targets

59

The Boots Company

This information was sourced from:

http://www.boots-plc.com

63

http://www.boots-plc.com

Appendix 5 – Health and safety reporting by FTSE 100 companies

The following table presents details of the companies which comprised the FTSE 100 index in 2000, as well as those which are currently (2002) FTSE 100 listed, and includes details of whether they publicly reported on health and safety issues.

Company name 2000 2002 3i Group Plc Yes Yes ARM Holdings No Not FTSE 100 listed Abbey National Plc No Yes Alliance & Leicester Plc Yes Yes Alliance Unichem Plc Not FTSE 100 listed Yes Allied Domecq Plc Yes Yes Amersham Yes Yes Amvescap No No Anglo American Plc Yes Yes Associated British Foods Plc No Yes AstraZeneca Plc Yes Yes Aviva Plc Not FTSE 100 listed Yes BAA Plc Yes Yes Bae Systems Plc No Yes BG Group Plc Yes Yes BHP Billiton Yes Yes BOC Group Plc Yes Yes BP Plc Yes Yes Bank of Scotland No Not FTSE 100 listed Barclays Plc No Yes Boots Company Plc No Yes Bradford & Bingley Not FTSE 100 listed No Bramble Industries Plc Not FTSE 100 listed Yes British Airways Plc Yes Not FTSE 100 listed British American Tobacco Yes Yes British Land Co Not FTSE 100 listed Yes British Sky Broadcasting Group Plc Yes Yes British Telecommunications Plc Yes Yes Bunzl Plc Not FTSE 100 listed Yes CGNU Plc No Not FTSE 100 listed CMG Plc No Not FTSE 100 listed Cable & Wireless Plc No Yes Cadbury Schweppes Plc Yes Yes Canary Wharf Group Plc No Yes Capita Group Plc No No Carlton Communications Plc Yes Not FTSE 100 listed Celltech Group Plc Yes Not FTSE 100 listed Centrica Plc Yes Yes Colt Telecom Group Plc No Not FTSE 100 listed Compass Group Plc Yes Yes Corus Group Plc Not FTSE 100 listed Yes Daily Mail & General Trust Plc No No Diageo Plc No Yes Dimension Data Holdings Plc No Not FTSE 100 listed Dixons Group Plc No Yes EMI Group Plc No Not FTSE 100 listed Electrocomponents Plc Yes Not FTSE 100 listed EMAP Not FTSE 100 listed Yes

68

Company name 2000 2002 Energis Report not available Not FTSE 100 listed Exel Plc Not FTSE 100 listed Yes Friends Provident Not FTSE 100 listed Yes GKN Plc Yes Yes GUS Yes Yes Gallagher Group Plc Not FTSE 100 listed Yes GlaxoSmithKline Plc Yes Yes Granada Plc No Yes HBOS Plc Not FTSE 100 listed Yes HSBC Holdings Plc No Yes Halifax Group Plc No Not FTSE 100 listed Hanson Plc Yes Yes Hays Plc Yes Yes Hilton Group No Yes Imperial Chemical Industries Plc Yes Yes Imperial Tobacco Group Plc Yes Yes International Power Plc Yes Not FTSE 100 listed Invensys Plc Yes Yes Johnson Matthey Not FTSE 100 listed Yes Kingfisher Plc No Yes Land Securities Plc Yes Yes Lattice Group Plc Yes Not FTSE 100 listed Legal & General Group Plc Yes Yes Lloyds TSB Group Plc No No Logica Plc No Not FTSE 100 listed MMO2 Not FTSE 100 listed Yes Man Group Plc Not FTSE 100 listed Yes Marconi Plc Yes Not FTSE 100 listed Marks & Spencer Plc No Yes Misys Plc Yes Not FTSE 100 listed Morrison (Wm) Supermarkets Plc Yes Yes National Grid Group Plc Yes Yes Next Plc No No Northern Rock Plc Not FTSE 100 listed Yes Old Mutual Plc No Yes P&O Princess Cruises Not FTSE 100 listed Yes Pearson Plc Yes Yes Powergen Plc Yes Not FTSE 100 listed Prudential Plc No No Reckitt Benckiser Plc Yes Yes Reed Elsevier Not FTSE 100 listed Yes Reed International Plc No Not FTSE 100 listed Rentokil Initial Plc Yes Yes Reuters Group No Yes Rexam Plc Not FTSE 100 listed Yes Rio Tinto Plc Yes Yes Rolls Royce Plc Yes Yes Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance No Yes Royal Bank of Scotland Yes Yes Safeway Plc Yes Yes Sage Group Plc No No Sainsbury (J) Plc No Yes Schroders No Yes Scottish & Newcastle Plc No Yes Scottish & Southern Energy Plc Yes Yes Scottish Power Plc Yes Yes Severn trent Not FTSE 100 listed Yes

69

Company name 2000 2002 Shell Transport & Trading Co Plc Yes Yes Shire Pharmaceuticals Group Plc No Yes Six Continents Yes Yes Smith & Nephew Plc Yes Yes Smiths Group Plc Yes Yes South African Breweries Yes Yes Spirent Plc Yes Not FTSE 100 listed Standard Chartered Plc No Yes Telewest Communications Plc No Not FTSE 100 listed Tesco Plc No Yes Tomkins Plc Not FTSE 100 listed Yes Unilever Plc Yes Yes United Business Media Plc No Not FTSE 100 listed United Utilities Plc Yes Yes Vodafone Group Plc Yes Yes WPP Group Plc No No Wolseley Plc Not FTSE 100 listed Yes Xstrata Not FTSE 100 listed Yes

70

Printed and published by the Health and Safety ExecutiveC30 1/98

Printed and published by the Health and Safety Executive C1.25 11/03

ISBN 0-7176-2710-1

RR 134

9 78071 7 6271 03£15.00