Raytheon’s report skirts round some of the material issues for an arms manufacturer

The world’s largest producer of guided missiles seems to be a bit misguided in its corporate responsibility reporting.

Raytheon, an international defence technology company specialising in weapons and electronics, reports annually. This year’s edition comes in two forms: a low-interactivity web version and a 28-page downloadable PDF. A corporate responsibility webpage organises reports and presents a streaming news feed for relevant announcements and stories. While the report’s compressed length offers an effective summary of programmes and policies, it does not present a complete picture of Raytheon’s work in corporate responsibility, and Raytheon does not seem to fully embrace the value of reporting.

The clear headline and most commendable achievement of this year’s report is the announcement of 15 environmental sustainability goals. The goals cover a range of areas including energy efficiency, greenhouse gas emissions, sustainable purchasing, recycling and waste disposal, water, fleet petroleum use and product design for sustainability. Most goals are quantitative, attaching a reduction or increase target percentage, and all carry a 2015 deadline.

Noticeably missing are a goal on product energy efficiency – an important issue for a company that makes such hulking machines, and a timely topic given the recent push from the US armed forces (Raytheon’s biggest customer) towards non-fossil fuels – and explicit mention of the baseline year for quantitative goals. Otherwise, the new goals are quite comprehensive and provide a solid framework and launch point for both continuing and nascent environmental initiatives. But the goals require and deserve discussion on materiality for establishing each methodology for accomplishing and measuring progress against them.

In fact, the report as a whole begs for a broader discussion on why sustainability matters to the business. A full page at the outset of the report (which could very well be lifted from Raytheon’s annual report) is dedicated to the company’s vision, strategy, goals and values. Here, a more meaningful examination of the business case for sustainability would help justify the company’s corporate responsibility programme. 

Product placement

It’s frustrating when a company uses a portion of its corporate responsibility report to promote its products and services. Not to say that the storylines of products and sustainability can’t ever merge. On the contrary, a shift in discourse from operational impacts to product impacts – which are normally, considerably greater – is what the responsibility sphere needs.

But as a defence company, Raytheon is in a tricky situation. Many of the company’s products are designed for use in war, and this report fails to address the wider responsibilities of being a defence company entirely. Instead, the company blunders in trying to make an environmental sustainability or public safety connection to several of its products in the engineering, technology and mission assurance section of the report.

For example, one product helps rescue teams breach concrete structures in disaster situations. While the tool’s intended use offers invaluable, life-saving results, without addressing the challenges of creating products that are ultimately used to kill, this approach causes the report to lose credibility. Raytheon could make the product/responsibility connection more effectively, by featuring endeavours to increase product accuracy to reduce civilian casualties.

Raytheon’s community support programmes are noteworthy. We are presented with a solid explanation of the company’s approach, management systems, programmes and initiatives – from the company’s ongoing contributions to science, technology, engineering and mathematics (Stem) education through its MathMovesU scholarship and sponsorship programme, to its five-year, multi-million-dollar partnership with the Wounded Warrior Project, which empowers wounded veterans to compete for tech jobs. But a lack of lively, illustrative case studies obscures the programmes’ impact and makes for a dull read in an area of reporting that is most often the most endearing and inspiring. Profiles on those reached through successful philanthropic campaigns would help highlight Raytheon’s standout signature programmes.

Exciting things are expected when a tech behemoth such as Raytheon uses QR coding (barcodes that can be scanned by smartphone apps that lead you to additional web-based media) in its annual sustainability report. This report has two QR codes. The first promises to lead you to the company’s “interactive corporate responsibility report” but only links to the community relations page of the corporate responsibility website. The other QR code links to a visuals-only YouTube clip on one of the company’s imaging systems aboard a Nasa satellite and offers no clear connection to sustainability. QR codes can offer interactivity and a bit of flash to a printed report, but the codes in this report aren’t worth the time it takes to download a QR scanning app to your mobile.

While it’s refreshing to encounter an abridged report in a sea of reports with never-ending page counts, Raytheon does not utilise the space most advantageously, leaving readers wanting more. A more robust report would help breathe life info the Raytheon’s responsibility story and challenge the company to consider corporate responsibility’s place and future in the business.

Bianca Mazzarella is a consultant at Context America.

Snapshot

Follows GRI? No

Assured? No

Materiality analysis? No

Goals? Yes – environmental sustainability only.

Targets? Yes

Stakeholder input? No

Seeks feedback? No

Key strengths? Strong environmental goals.

Chief weakness? Minimal commentary on how corporate responsibility fits into the company’s current state and future.

Pleasant surprise? Concise document that is light on jargon and fluff.