The Sustainability Report by COSCO could not be more different from the one by MSC, which we reviewed a few days ago.
The main differences between both are the following: COSCO’s length is barely 35 pages, while MSC’s is 138 pages; COSCO includes environmental numbers in its report, MSC very few; COSCO reports only about the key issues, and does it with a “minimalist” style of providing no more than the needed information, MSC has a much longer narrative (the 138 pages is for something), illustrated with examples.
Those two are, maybe, the two most disparate Sustainability Reports of all the ones we are evaluating.
Why, then, are we giving both the same score of 3.5 out of 5 stars?
That is the fascinating challenge of having to analyze documents that do not follow a mandatory template.
In the case of COSCO, it is like going to ask a question to a mathematics or physics teacher–the answer is brief and with data, while in the case of MSC, it is like going to ask the same question to an English literature or history teacher–a much larger reply, even more enjoyable, but with much fewer data.
Hence, it just happens that after analyzing both very carefully, we conclude that 3.5 is a fair score for each of them.
Source: Gliese Foundation
