31 Oct 2012 12:16
Environmental and energy rating agency Interfax-ERA has finetuned the collection and analysis of information on the fundamental efficiency - energy, environmental and technological - of nearly 4,000 enterprises in all sectors, and the energy and technological efficiency of the economies of all 83 Russian regions, and conducted a similar assessment for the economies of 209 countries.
The collected and systematized information is used to compile fundamental efficiency ratings. The latest fundamental efficiency rating of the 150 largest companies, as well as 4,000 enterprises in all fields of the real sector of Russia‘s economy, based on data for 2011, is being released on Wednesday.
The number of leading companies has increased by 50% compared to the previous rating published on October 3, 2011. The immediacy of the rating‘s calculation and publication has improved considerably: while before the lag was nearly two years, the new rating is being published only about six months after companies file their annual reports, even before the Federal Statistics Service publishes basic statistics for 2011 on consumption of energy, natural resources and environmental impact.
As in past years, the rating is based on four criteria: eco-energy efficiency, technological efficiency, efficiency dynamics and the transparency of environmental and energy reporting.
The fundamental efficiency rating ranks the country‘s largest companies by the ability of their units to conduct their operations with the least environmental impact, produce more for every unit of energy and natural resources used, improve efficiency in the past six years (since 2005) and conduct their business with sufficient transparency.
The top 150 are the largest companies in the real sector of Russia‘s economy by total revenue. The companies are assessed according to the average efficiency of all the enterprises they operate or control. In order to determine this, an assessment is first done of the efficiency of individual enterprises or divisions (branches) located in a given region. These assessments are then consolidated proportionately according to the scale of each enterprise, whose contribution to the overall assessment of the holding company is determined by the volume of production (revenue), consumption of energy and staple natural resources, and number of personnel.
The methodology for assessment is based on using only physically quantifiable and regularly measured indicators, taken from questionnaires submitted by the managers of enterprises at the request of Interfax-ERA, from the SPARK data system developed by Interfax, or from other open sources of information. More and more enterprises are submitting questionnaires to Interfax-ERA for assessment on their own initiative. The use of quantitative data, on one hand, makes the assessment verifiable, and on the other completely free from the influence of both the enterprises being assessed and government regulators or locally active environmental groups.
The method for calculating the 2011 rating takes into account proposals and suggestions submitted by experts and specialists at the assessed companies. For example, adjustments were made to calculation of nonproduction energy consumption. The assessment of energy efficiency, based on the quantity of production per unit of energy used in actual production activities, remained unchanged. However, the calculation of the technological efficiency criteria was changed in 2011. The aggregate of all emissions, runoff, waste, water and land used was compared to the full amount of energy used, including energy later used to heat schools, pools or for other nonproduction purposes. This raised the technological efficiency of plants that provide energy support to nonproduction infrastructure.
Prior to 2011, six environmental impact indicators were given equal weight in the calculations, although many experts proposed using adjustment coefficients. The accumulation of data made it possible to mathematically identify differences in indicators by ability to indicate integral level of impact. Indicators for polluted runoff, waste generation and atmospheric emissions from stationary sources reflect integral impact with the least precision. The indicator for automobile emissions is about 50% more reliable, and the best indicator - three times more reliable - is consumption of water and use of land. Accordingly, coefficients were established for the integration of the environmental impact criteria from the six indicators.
Another major innovation concerns the assessment of the energy consumption of hydropower plants. A complete calculation of the potential energy of the water stored by the dam of every HPP made it possible to dispel the myth of their extremely high efficiency. The calculations showed, for example, that fundamental efficiency amounts to 54% at the Volga HPP, 45% at the Zhigulevsk HPP and 35% at Rybinsk HPP.
The leaders of the rating were FGUP Goznak, OJSC TAIF (and its OJSC Grid Company, OJSC Generating Company - the former OJSC Tatenergo), OJSC Uralkali , OJSC Irkut Corporation , OJSC PhosAgro, LLC Industrial Metallurgical Holding Management Company, CJSC United Metallurgical Company , OJSC Nizhnekamskneftekhim , OJSC Bashkirenergo and OJSC United Aircraft Corporation (UAC). Uralkali, Goznak, United Metallurgical Company, TAIF and Nizhnekamskneftekhim have regularly been among the leaders in recent years. It is important to note that all the leading companies also score high on disclosure of information (transparency indicator) - 70% or better.
Rounding out the list are OJSC Rosenergoatom, CJSC Eurocement Group, OJSC Atomenergoprom, OJSC Russian Railways (RZD) , OJSC Polyus Gold , OJSC Yakutugol, OJSC Russneft Oil Company , Alrosa , OJSC Mechel and OJSC Urals Mining and Metallurgical Company.
"In concluding the summary of the rating, attention should be draw to the companies that were not among the leaders in fundamental efficiency, but were among the three industry leaders by transparency of environmental and energy reporting in the far broader list of 4,000 enterprises. The transparency leaders included OJSC Gazprom Dobycha Orenburg in the gas industry, OJSC Raspadskaya in the coal industry, OJSC Severstal in ferrous metallurgy, LLC Gazprom Transgaz Samara among transport companies, and MGUP Mosvodokanal in the housing and public utilities sector. For a number of types of activity, leadership in efficiency is not always achievable due to the objectively high energy and resource intensiveness of the core production process. However, transparency of reporting reflects the efficiency of management, which is often more important for the partners, investors or creditors of the given enterprise, and ultimately for society as a whole," the authors of the study said.
Interfax presents fundamental efficiency rating for Russia‘s 150 leading companies and 4,000 enterprises
The collected and systematized information is used to compile fundamental efficiency ratings. The latest fundamental efficiency rating of the 150 largest companies, as well as 4,000 enterprises in all fields of the real sector of Russia‘s economy, based on data for 2011, is being released on Wednesday.
The number of leading companies has increased by 50% compared to the previous rating published on October 3, 2011. The immediacy of the rating‘s calculation and publication has improved considerably: while before the lag was nearly two years, the new rating is being published only about six months after companies file their annual reports, even before the Federal Statistics Service publishes basic statistics for 2011 on consumption of energy, natural resources and environmental impact.
As in past years, the rating is based on four criteria: eco-energy efficiency, technological efficiency, efficiency dynamics and the transparency of environmental and energy reporting.
The fundamental efficiency rating ranks the country‘s largest companies by the ability of their units to conduct their operations with the least environmental impact, produce more for every unit of energy and natural resources used, improve efficiency in the past six years (since 2005) and conduct their business with sufficient transparency.
The top 150 are the largest companies in the real sector of Russia‘s economy by total revenue. The companies are assessed according to the average efficiency of all the enterprises they operate or control. In order to determine this, an assessment is first done of the efficiency of individual enterprises or divisions (branches) located in a given region. These assessments are then consolidated proportionately according to the scale of each enterprise, whose contribution to the overall assessment of the holding company is determined by the volume of production (revenue), consumption of energy and staple natural resources, and number of personnel.
The methodology for assessment is based on using only physically quantifiable and regularly measured indicators, taken from questionnaires submitted by the managers of enterprises at the request of Interfax-ERA, from the SPARK data system developed by Interfax, or from other open sources of information. More and more enterprises are submitting questionnaires to Interfax-ERA for assessment on their own initiative. The use of quantitative data, on one hand, makes the assessment verifiable, and on the other completely free from the influence of both the enterprises being assessed and government regulators or locally active environmental groups.
The method for calculating the 2011 rating takes into account proposals and suggestions submitted by experts and specialists at the assessed companies. For example, adjustments were made to calculation of nonproduction energy consumption. The assessment of energy efficiency, based on the quantity of production per unit of energy used in actual production activities, remained unchanged. However, the calculation of the technological efficiency criteria was changed in 2011. The aggregate of all emissions, runoff, waste, water and land used was compared to the full amount of energy used, including energy later used to heat schools, pools or for other nonproduction purposes. This raised the technological efficiency of plants that provide energy support to nonproduction infrastructure.
Prior to 2011, six environmental impact indicators were given equal weight in the calculations, although many experts proposed using adjustment coefficients. The accumulation of data made it possible to mathematically identify differences in indicators by ability to indicate integral level of impact. Indicators for polluted runoff, waste generation and atmospheric emissions from stationary sources reflect integral impact with the least precision. The indicator for automobile emissions is about 50% more reliable, and the best indicator - three times more reliable - is consumption of water and use of land. Accordingly, coefficients were established for the integration of the environmental impact criteria from the six indicators.
Another major innovation concerns the assessment of the energy consumption of hydropower plants. A complete calculation of the potential energy of the water stored by the dam of every HPP made it possible to dispel the myth of their extremely high efficiency. The calculations showed, for example, that fundamental efficiency amounts to 54% at the Volga HPP, 45% at the Zhigulevsk HPP and 35% at Rybinsk HPP.
The leaders of the rating were FGUP Goznak, OJSC TAIF (and its OJSC Grid Company, OJSC Generating Company - the former OJSC Tatenergo), OJSC Uralkali , OJSC Irkut Corporation , OJSC PhosAgro, LLC Industrial Metallurgical Holding Management Company, CJSC United Metallurgical Company , OJSC Nizhnekamskneftekhim , OJSC Bashkirenergo and OJSC United Aircraft Corporation (UAC). Uralkali, Goznak, United Metallurgical Company, TAIF and Nizhnekamskneftekhim have regularly been among the leaders in recent years. It is important to note that all the leading companies also score high on disclosure of information (transparency indicator) - 70% or better.
Rounding out the list are OJSC Rosenergoatom, CJSC Eurocement Group, OJSC Atomenergoprom, OJSC Russian Railways (RZD) , OJSC Polyus Gold , OJSC Yakutugol, OJSC Russneft Oil Company , Alrosa , OJSC Mechel and OJSC Urals Mining and Metallurgical Company.
"In concluding the summary of the rating, attention should be draw to the companies that were not among the leaders in fundamental efficiency, but were among the three industry leaders by transparency of environmental and energy reporting in the far broader list of 4,000 enterprises. The transparency leaders included OJSC Gazprom Dobycha Orenburg in the gas industry, OJSC Raspadskaya in the coal industry, OJSC Severstal in ferrous metallurgy, LLC Gazprom Transgaz Samara among transport companies, and MGUP Mosvodokanal in the housing and public utilities sector. For a number of types of activity, leadership in efficiency is not always achievable due to the objectively high energy and resource intensiveness of the core production process. However, transparency of reporting reflects the efficiency of management, which is often more important for the partners, investors or creditors of the given enterprise, and ultimately for society as a whole," the authors of the study said.