| Environmental compliance|
| Wärtsilä companies comply with all local environmental legislation. The operations of Wärtsilä's manufacturing companies require a valid environmental permit, the terms of which are generally met. Incidents of non-compliance are described in the following chapters.|
| Environmental disturbances (G4-EN24) and complaints (G4-EN34)|
| The number of disturbances, complaints, and incidents of non-compliance are presented in the table below. Reported disturbances typically cover incidents in which the Wärtsilä company concerned has been obliged to report the disturbance to the authorities. |
The main environmental disturbances that occurred in Wärtsilä's business locations in 2015 were two oily water spills and a soot spill. These disturbances were investigated and the appropriate corrective actions to minimise the impact on the environment were taken in each case. There were also two complaints made by occupants of the neighbouring property related to noise. The complaints were investigated and the noise levels promptly normalised.
| Cases of non-compliance (G4-EN29)|
| Wärtsilä India Pvt. Ltd. reported a case of a temporarily non-operational effluent treatment system at its manufacturing unit in Khopoli, and received a fine of EUR 3,600 for the non-compliance. Necessary actions are ongoing to achieve compliance with the relevant regulation as quickly as possible.|
| Wärtsilä de Mexico S.A. was fined EUR 1,851 for missing a hazardous waste log in an environmental agency inspection.|
| Wärtsilä Hungary Kft received a notice from the authorities of non-compliance with safety regulations resulting from storing oil in an unsuitable container.|
| Disturbances, complaints, and non-compliances|| 2015|| 2014|| 2013|| 2012|| 2011|
| Disturbances|| 3|| 11|| 5|| 3|| 6|
| Non-compliances|| 3|| 1|| 2|| 2|| 6|
| Complaints|| 2|| 1|| 1|| 7|| 5|
| Non-compliances|| 4|| 1|| 4|| 3|| 4|
| Fines of non-compliance cases (EUR)|| 30 111|| 9 824|| 9 787|| 45 079|| 7 869|
| Human and labour rights compliance (G4-LA16, G4-HR3, G4-HR4, G4-HR5, G4-HR6, G4-HR12, G4-SO8, G4-SO11)|
| Wärtsilä supports and respects basic human values as outlined in the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Wärtsilä also supports the Ten Principles of UN Global Compact, of which six principles are related to Human and Labour rights.|
Wärtsilä's employees represent 131 nationalities. The company supports fair and equal treatment of all its employees. Wärtsilä supports the work-related rights defined by the International Labour Organization (ILO), and works, therefore, to ensure that there is freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining in the company. In those countries where local legislation does not recognise these rights, Wärtsilä endeavours to give employees other channels for expressing their opinions.
Wärtsilä does not accept the use of forced labour or child labour in any form. Wärtsilä is unaware of any cases of human rights being breached, discrimination, infringements of rights at work, or the use of forced or child labour. During the reporting period the following misconducts were realised:
Wärtsilä Korea Ltd. was charged a penalty fee of EUR 20,438 for not fulfilling its legal obligation to hire six disabled persons. The company has mainly hired blue collar employees, which limits the suitable job offerings to disabled persons.
Wärtsilä Brasil Ltda received a notice of violation for not having a compulsory Health and Safety committee at a power plant under an Operations & Maintenance agreement. A fine is also expected to follow.
Wärtsilä Brasil Ltda has filed an appeal against several claims relating to non-compliances with labour laws in its Manaus facility that allegedly arose during a routine inspection by the Ministry of Labour.
Wärtsilä L.L.C. (UAE) received a fine of EUR 4,222 for failing to arrange compulsory occupational health cards to all relevant employees. Action was promptly taken to ensure compliance.
| Preventing corruption and bribery (G4-SO5)|
| In May 2009, a former senior manager of Wärtsilä Finland Oy was charged before a court of first instance in Finland with bribery, allegedly committed in aggravated circumstances. The charges related to a consulting agreement concluded in 1997 in connection with a power plant project in Kenya. Subsequently, in October 2009, Wärtsilä Finland Oy, which was the Wärtsilä contracting party and the former employer of the senior manager, was charged with the aggravated giving of a bribe (corporate criminal liability), for which the prosecution demanded that Wärtsilä Finland Oy be ordered to pay a corporate fine. Both the senior manager and Wärtsilä Finland Oy regarded the charges as unfounded. Wärtsilä cooperated with the investigation authorities throughout the investigation. On 18 December 2009, the court of first instance in Finland dismissed all the charges and demands. After a lengthy appeals process for reasons of procedural law, the case was referred back to the court of first instance for a new hearing as no evaluation of the evidence had been conducted earlier. On 21 March 2013, the Pohjanmaa district court, being the court of first instance to hear the case for the second time, rendered its verdict. The court dismissed the charges against Wärtsilä Finland Oy but sentenced the former senior manager to a suspended prison term of 1 year 6 months on the charge of aggravated bribery. The Vaasa Court of Appeal, by unanimous decision, overruled the verdict by the Pohjanmaa District Court by finding the former senior manager of Wärtsilä Finland Oy not guilty of aggravated bribery. The Court of Appeal thus dismissed all the charges against both the individual and Wärtsilä Finland Oy. The prosecution submitted a petition for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court but, by its decision of 3 February 2015, the Supreme Court did not grant such leave to appeal. The Vaasa Court of Appeal’s decision thus remains final.|
| Political lobbying (G4-SO6)|
| During 2015, Wärtsilä did not make any contributions to political parties.|
| Competition regulation (G4-SO7)|
| Wärtsilä arranged, as it has earlier, a number of competition law training seminars in 2015 for relevant personnel in order to further promote their knowledge of competition laws, and thus ascertain full compliance with such laws.|
| Product responsibility (G4-PR2, G4-PR4, G4-PR7, G4-PR8, G4-PR9)|
| During the review period, no instances of non-compliance related to product liability or customer privacy were identified.|