Transparency benchmark 2012 · 2013. 4. 25. · Transparency benchmark 2012 The Kristal 1 * The companies with an asterisk are companies based in the Netherlands which are subsidiaries

Transparency benchmark 2012 The Kristal 1

* The companies with an asterisk are companies based in the Netherlands which are subsidiaries of an international parent company.

* Capgemini Nederland BV publishes a sustainability report. However, since this had not been published before 1 August, the above score has only been based on the financial report.

* BASF publishes a corporate sustainability report. However, because the corporate report does not explicitly refer to the Dutch activities, the above score has only been based on the Dutch financial report.

Transparency benchmark 2012 The Kristal2

Transparency benchmark 2012 The Kristal Transparency benchmark 2012 The Kristal 3

Contents1 Preface 5

2 Summary 7

3 Results 93.1 Approach 9

3.1.1 Goal 9

3.1.2 Differences to previous year 9

3.1.3 Defining public responsibility information 9

3.1.4 Participating companies 10

3.1.5 Process 10

3.1.6 Criteria 11

3.2 Transparency Ladder 133.2.1 Introduction 13

3.2.2 The winner of the Kristal 2012 13

3.2.3 Transparency Ladder 15

3.2.4 Companies that didn’t finish 16

4 Trends 214.1 Theme comparison 21

4.1.1 High scoring categories 21

4.1.2 Low scoring categories 22

4.2 Sector comparison 234.2.1 Banks and Insurers 24

4.2.2 Construction and Maritime 24

4.2.3 Consumer products 25

4.2.4 Services 25

4.2.5 Energy, oil and gas 28

4.2.6 Trading companies 28

4.2.7 Industrial products 29

4.2.8 Media 30

4.2.9 Retail 30

4.2.10 Technology 30

4.2.11 Transport 31

4.2.12 Universities 31

4.2.13 Real estate 33

4.2.14 Food and beverage 33


4.3 International Trends 354.3.1 Integrated reporting 35

4.3.2 Global Reporting Initiative 37

4.3.3 Dow Jones Sustainability Index 38

5 Evaluation 415.1 Dialogue with the participants 41

A Annexes 43A.1 Thematic comparisons 43

B Weblinks to the reports 47

C Companies with zero points awarded 56

D Transparency Bench mark criteria of 2012 61

E Panel of Experts Transparency Benchmark and Jury of The Kristal prize 2012 82


1 PrefaceThis booklet contains the results of the Transparency Benchmark 2012, about the reporting year 2011. The Transparency Benchmark provides insight into the degree of transparency in corporate responsibility reporting at the 473 largest companies in the Netherlands.The Ministry of Economic Affairs has left the Transparency Benchmark 2012 virtually unchanged compared to the Transparency Benchmark 2011. The criteria have been modified by adjusting the weighting, while the self-assessment methodology remained the same. Companies have once again been invited to self-assess the quality of their reports through an online tool. Answers have been checked on accuracy by a team of researchers. The answers have again been critically inspected this year.An independent expert panel has further reviewed the top 20 participants based on its own criteria. All criteria are listed on the website www.transparantiebenchmark.nl. All scores and participants can be found there as well. Being an open source website, all information can be shared with others.

The Kristal is the prize for the best corporate responsibility reporting which the Ministry of Economic Affairs and the Netherlands Institute of Chartered Accountants (NBA) have set up. For this prize, both the criteria and the method of the Transparency Benchmark and the ACC Award (best corporate responsibility report) have been combined. The Kristal aims to be the most prestigious prize for corporate responsibility reporting and is awarded to the company which reporting ranks number in the Transparency Benchmark.

The jury, consisting of Ms Bibi de Vries (chair), HRH Prince Carlos de Bourbon de Parme and Professor Leen Paape RA RO CIA, has picked the winner out of the top 3.

Stakeholders such as shareholders, interest groups and governments expect that a company is transparent about its considerations and performance towards society. Being open and clear to makes a company vulnerable and often responsive to its stakeholders. Transparency drives dialogues. This dialogue could then lead to changes in the policy of a company. This has since 2004 been the motive for executing the Transparency Benchmark.

For a proper understanding of the Transparency Benchmark it is important to emphasize that transparency in reporting is measured, not companies’ actual activities or results in the field of corporate responsibility. The Transparency Benchmark is primarily concerned with determining the scores for each company. It is more important to identify trends and developments. Which sectors show an increase in transparency and which do not? How many companies issue a first time corporate responsibility report?

In this booklet you will find more information about the background of the Transparency Benchmark and the results of the measurement for the reporting year 2011.



2 SummaryDSM (1), Akzo Nobel (2) and Philips (3) are in the places of honor at the Transparency Ladder. DSM wins for the second year in a row the Kristal prize for the best corporate responsibility reporting. Compared to last year, Philips and Akzo Nobel changed places. With their clever performance these leading Dutch industrial companies show that transparency and competitiveness clearly go hand in hand.

There are special prizes for Royal Wessanen and Mondial Movers. Royal Wessanen rose up 77 places to 27 and is honored as the fastest climber. Mondial Movers with a 73d place is the best performing SME. The more than ten participating SME’s, including new entrants, deserve special mentioning for their voluntary participation in the Transparency Benchmark.The average total score increased from 92 to 104 points, an increase of 13%. The participants showed a significant increase in transparency.

The number of companies/organizations that integrates corporate responsibility information in the annual report increases. Last year 114 compa-nies/organizations published an integrated annual report. In 2012 these were 117 companies/organiza-tions that did so. This is an indication of growing connectivity of information. The application of the other four principles of integrated reporting has also grown. Strategic focus, future orientation, responsiveness and stakeholder inclusiveness and materiality/reliability/conciseness are increasingly reflected in the reporting of the research group.

For the first time this year all first 50 companies on the Transparency Ladder adhered to the GRI guidelines. Worldwide, almost 5000 organizations are known to report according to the guidelines

of the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). In the Netherlands, GRI is widely used and we see its numbers of followers still growing. Last year it was only the top 20 who completely reporting using this voluntary standard.

The companies in the sectors of transport (149 points), banks and insurers (133 points) and food and beverages (129 points) have on average scored relatively well. Industrial goods (82 points), univer-sities (73 points) and retail (67 points) are relatively doing less well. The Transparency Benchmark has fourteen different sectors. This year, the real estate sector was added.

There are not only differences between sectors, within the criteria there are also certain categories scoring better than others. The categories ‘profile’, ‘strategy’, ‘results’ and ‘clarity’ on average achieved the highest scores. The categories of ‘reliability’, ‘contextual coherence’ and ‘stakeholder involve-ment’ have the lowest scoring average.



3 Results3.1 Approach

3.1.1 GoalThe Transparency Benchmark aims to provide an opinion on the content and quality of external reporting on corporate responsibility issues. To this end, the accounting information of the largest Dutch organisations is reviewed against fifty criteria related to corporate responsibility aspects of organisations and their operations. The Transparency Benchmark explicitly does not give an opinion on the actual performance of organisations.

3.1.2 Differences to previous yearCompared to the previous year the participant protocol has been adjusted. Only accounting information that was published before 1 July 2012 is now eligible to answer the criteria. This was August 1, 2011 in the previous year. Since most participants have fiscal years running parallel to calendar years, this tightening for them means an incentive to report on the results and policy within the first six months after the completion of the fiscal year.

Concerning the criteria set only the allocation of points to a number of criteria has been slightly modified. The ministry has set the bar a little higher.

3.1.3 Defining public responsibility information

The scores are based upon publicly available reports through which organizations report on (part of ) the year 2011. Various types of reports are eligible for the Transparency Benchmark, including annual reports, financial reports, sustainability reports and social reports. It is a condition that the reporting is publicly available. This implies that either the report is available at the counter free of charge, or can be

downloaded from the company website. Reports that are only available at a cost with the Chamber of Commerce are not eligible for the allocation of points. It is also important that the report is issued periodically and that it has the status of accounting information.

Any information on websites is eligible for answering the criteria provided the periodic accounting information gives an explicit and detailed reference to it. An ‘explicit and detailed reference’ refers to a specific web link for the reader to directly navigate to the right, marked, informa-tion on the website. Any general webpage on CSR, which in no way refers to the periodic reporting information, is not eligible to answer the criteria.

If the accounting information is entirely digitally available (web-based reporting), the information should be presented clearly demarcated from the other information on the site. Information on web pages which cannot be demonstrated to be periodic accounting information is invalid.

Concluding, transparency has not been considered in a broad sense, but only on the basis of periodic reporting. Speeches, reports of meetings with stakeholders, press releases, brochures, internal magazines or special reports on support for chari-ties are therefore not included in the assessment. These documents have insufficient status of regular reporting. In total, 230 organizations received a score based on their public statements. The remaining 243 organizations have received a zero-score because they did not meet the above criteria.


3.1.4 Participating companiesA total of 473 organizations are included in the Transparency Benchmark. Organizations are selected based on the following criteria:

• AEX and AMX recorded (and/or);• Belonging to the selection of 500 largest Dutch

companies registered at RJ 400 (Council for Annual Reporting).

• Universities and companies in which government owns a majority stake

For the selection of the 500 companies registered at the RJ 400 the following requirements are appli-cable. In addition, the company must meet two of the following three requirements:

• the assets should a higher value than 17.5 million euro;

• the net sales of the commercial part are higher than 35 million;

• within the fiscal year the company employs more than 250 employees on average.

Additionally, 14 Dutch universities and a number of (partially) state owned companies are included. Also, several (eight) companies voluntarily joined the Transparency Benchmark this year. A detailed overview of the participating organizations is included in Annexes B and C.

3.1.5 ProcessAll process steps of the evaluation are built into a web application that enables the participating organizations to perform a self-assessment and return any comments they may wish to add. Four process steps can be distinguished before the scores are final:

• Self-assessment: between June 1 and July 15 2012, organizations have had the opportunity to assess their own accounting information against the criteria of the Transparency Benchmark using the web application. This led to a provisional score.

• Review self-assessment and/or integrated assess-ment: to assure the quality of the provisional scores and to restore differences in interpreta-tion between participants, all self-assessments have been reviewed by a team of evaluators and reviewers. The accounting information of participants who had no self-assessment carried out was subject to an integral assessment. This also applies to self-assessments that are incom-plete or inadequate, as well as those companies that ended in the top 40 in 2011. The scores thus established were communicated to participants on 3 August. An explanation on the differences with possible provisional was added.

• Comments round: participants who wished to commented on the set score, could pass their comments before to August 31 through the web application. On September 15, they received a response to their comments, and the final scores were established and communicated.

• Objection round: it is possible that participants disagree with their final score. Often due to a difference in interpretation of accounting infor-mation or criteria between the participant and the reviewer. Therefore, companies until could file objection to the Ministry before 1 October, after which an independent Panel of Experts reviewed these. A total of 7 organisations filed 23 objections. The Panel of Experts evaluated these concerns and upheld 2 of the 23 complaints. At the close of the objection period, the scores are fixed.

• Panel of Experts: the 20 highest scoring partici-pants were submitted to the Panel of Experts (for composition, see Annex E). The Panel has reviewed these reports on the basis of the ‘Panel criteria’ (see bottom of Annex D). The scores of the participants in each category of quality-oriented criteria could be adjusted by 15% upwards or downwards.

• Jury: the jury then decided which company from the top 3 was to become the winner of “The Crystal”. They also pick two other prize winners: SME-runner-up and runner-up of the year.


The ministry is keen that companies make maximum use of the self-assessment, as this strengthens the involvement of companies in the theme of transparency. Participants who performed a self-assessement therefore received as a reward for their efforts two additional benchmarks. The first is a comparison with five chosen (inter) national peers, from the Dow Jones Sustainability Index or the research group of the Transparency Benchmark. Second, they receive an environmental benchmark, with information about the indicators greenhouse gas emissions, waste generation, water use and impact by purchasing.

3.1.6 CriteriaThe Transparency Benchmark is based on fifty criteria. The criteria are divided into content-related criteria and quality-oriented criteria, which in turn are grouped around five themes or categories each. A total of 200 points can be achieved, 100 points for the substantive and 100 points for the quality-oriented criteria. The total score is achieved by summing the total content oriented score and the score on the quality-oriented criteria. The maximum number of points for each theme varies (see appendix D).

The criteria of this year are almost the same as the criteria of last year. The scoring has been slightly modified and some criteria have had the conditions for obtaining points altered slightly.


Content-oriented criteria (100 points) Quality-oriented criteria (100 points)

• Profile (15 points) This category discusses whether reporting provides insight on topics such as staff size, main products and services, core processes of the organization and the influence on people, environ-ment and society, ownership - and the position within the value chain.

• Strategy and Policy (20 points) This category examines the vision of the organization with respect to corporate responsibility and how support is provided by highest management. This includes supply chain responsibility for which the organization amongst others should include examples of interventions/policy.

• Governance structure and management approach (25 points) This category examines whether reporting provides an insight into the governance structure and management system of CR. Also part of this section is the distribution and nature of tasks and responsibilities including the structure of rewarding systems in relation to CR performance.

• Results (30 points) This category examines to what extent reporting is transparent about economic, environmental and social results of the operations.

• Corporate responsible reporting policy (10 points) This category examines whether the reporting provides insights in the reporting policy, reporting process, scope and focus with respect to reporting itself.

• Relevance (20 points) The category “Relevance” addresses the question of whether the reporting on CR-issues and dilemmas, are actually considered as being relevant by the stakeholders. In other words does the report meets expectations of the users?

• Clarity (20 points) This category examines the comprehensiveness, transparency and accessibility of the (corporate responsible) report. The information in the report should be understandable for its users in order to avoid erroneous interpretation. This means the format should be aligned with the knowledge and experience of users. A good design, systematic classification of subjects, clear language use and an explaining unfamiliar terms increase comprehension.

• Reliability (20 points) This category covers “Reliability.” Reporting is reliable when it is accurate, complete and offers a balanced picture of the actual situation. This category examines the way the report and content are verified by an independent external party. Verifications can be conducted by subject matter experts such as accountants, civil society organizations, industry experts and stakeholder panels.

• Stakeholder engagement (20 points) The category “Stakeholder engagement” examines the policy of the organization with respect to stakeholder engagement and how it is explained in the report. Questions relate amongst others to how stakeholders are identified, how dialogue is held and what kind of influence the dialogue had.

• Framework (20 points) The category “framework” examines to what extent results of the organization with respect to corporate responsibility are placed in a broader perspective. Questions relate among others to business strategic context, trends and develop-ments in the sector, and geographical context.


3.2 Transparency Ladder

3.2.1 IntroductionThe Transparency Ladder shows total scores of companies. The companies that are part of the Transparency Benchmark are arranged in different groups, namely the frontrunners, the followers, the peleton, the laggards and the group that didn’t finish. The division into groups is determined by the positions in the ranking. The broom wagon concerned companies without publicly available accounting information. These companies are assigned a zero score.

Category Transparency Ladder Ranking

Frontrunners 1-20

Followers 21-50

Peloton 51-180

Laggards 181-230

‘didn’t finish’ 231-473

3.2.2 The winner of the Kristal 2012

Jury report 2012

The jury of the Kristal prize is responsible for assessing the top 3 companies and drawing a winner. The top 3 consists of the same companies as last year, Akzo Nobel, DSM and Philips.

This is the third year that the Kristal awards is awarded. The jury notes that the reports they receive are handsomely put together. They always score very high on the Transparency Benchmark. The Ministry of Economic Affairs, ordering the annual execution of the Transparency Benchmark intends to adjust the criteria of the benchmark. The Transparency Benchmark aims to assess the content and quality of external reporting on corporate responsibility (CR) issues. The annual benchmark illustrates how the transparency of the average Dutch organization, of sectors and of individual organizations develop.

Experience shows that this creates an incentive towards greater transparency, which enables stake-holders to have an effective dialogue on the social performance of the organization.Corporate responsibility reporting has continued to evolve since the last revision of the criteria in 2010 in sich a way that on some criteria each organiza-tion scores 100%, while for other valuable aspects the forerunners report on no criterion and number of points is determined. The launch of the new criteria takes place late 2012.The Ministry, the Netherlands Institute of Chartered Accountants, the panel of experts from the Transparency Benchmark and the jury of the Kristal hope that the bar will be raised and that average performers as well as laggards will continue to be encouraged to further transparency.

The jury has noticed that all three reports have been further improved this year. The jury congratu-lates Akzo Nobel, DSM and Philips each with their achievement. In particular, the integration of corporate responsibility into three integrated reports, again more shape. More attention has been paid in the reports to the relationship between strategy, corporate responsibility objectives and the reporting thereon.Corporate responsibility targets are again more concrete and measurable. All three companies pay close attention to communication with stake-holders and there is also much focus on current topics such as remuneration policy and diversity.So it was no small task to make a choice as in the end there are only gradual differences.

The jury believes that there are still things to be improved, and gladly recommends companies to take up this challenge for the coming year. The substantiation and measurability of CR objec-tives can generally be improved, so that the reader exactly understands how matters are calculated and determined. Ambitions are very valuable, but the question is how they can be measured.


Also, the information on activities and achieve-ments in the chain (upward and downward) can be further improved. Often the biggest impact actually takes place in the supply chain. Further, informa-tion on sustainability performance would ideally be interrelated. For example, information could be provided about investments in process and product innovations in the field of sustainability and the relationship with related revenue or cost savings.Finally, the jury notes that the verification of non-financial information (i.e. corporate responsibility information) still lags behind the verification of financial information. While corporate respon-sibility grows in importance, the question of the reliability of this information arises. In other words, it’s a good thing that the company claims that there were no major accidents during the year, but is it the verified truth? This check occurs much less frequent than the check on whether the annual figures are correct. There is room for improvement here.

Jury Criterion 2012The jury of the Kristal award applies for 2012 again the criterion “Show who you are” to pick the winner. The jury emphasized that CR is a continuous growth and learning process. Learning is by trial and error. It is a fact, no company is first time right in its corporate responsibility. You learn from your mistakes, if handled correctly.

The jury primarily values authenticity. The CR reporting is balanced and honest and must not omit negative information that is relevant stakeholders. Stakeholders appreciate disclosure. They value companies for being transparent about mistakes, while at the same time indicating how these are to be prevented in the future. In short, a company must in its sustainability report dare to show its true nature.

According to the jury, companies must clearly demonstrate that they can be held accountable to the information in their annual reports. They can do so by having their annual report verified by an independent expert, preferably an accountant. The jury in the assessment has placed accent on the way companies dare to give insight into their dilemmas and setbacks in their annual reports. And the way that these have been dealt with, commu-nicated about with their stakeholders and how they have used this feedback. It’s not about minor incidents or the enumeration of the number of complaints dealt with, but things that affect the company. It is important that companies demon-strate that their annual reports are to the point and concise, and that they limit them to the relevant core business.

Best SME prize:SMEs can volunteer for the Transparency Benchmark. This year’s Kristal award for Best SME, goes to Mondial Movers. This removal company has been working systematically on corporate responsibility. Their first report, released a few years ago, was an instant combined economic and social report. They drive with electric moving vans. And transport movements that are not electrically are compensated for theur GHG emissions. Their CR policy has vision and content. Of SMEs in the Transparency Benchmark Mondial Movers has the highest score and ends four places higher than last year, on the 73d place.The greatest relative improvement is in the category of corporate responsibility reporting policy (3 to 8 points), where the scope of the reporting is better justified, as well as the period to which the report relates.The contextual coherence is also better (10 to 14 points) because the achieved CR results have been better associated to relevant internal and external developments.


In short: the appreciation for Mondial Movers’ own policy hasn’t changed much, but the quality of the report has significantly improved this year.

Runner-up prize:The prize for the fastest runner-up in the list goes to a company where sustainability runs through their veins. This is immediately apparent when you visit the website. In big letters it says “Our organic food, your natural choice.” The company’s brands include Whole Earth, Zonnatura and Ekoland. Royal Wessanen rises up 77 places on the Transparency Benchmark this year.Their goal is not only healthy and tasty products, but also to create a sustainable society, now and in the future. On the website you can read that workers at Wessanen are proud to work for a company that generates its revenues in a manner consistent with the attitude of employees (life-affirming is the term they use). Apparently it’s in the veins of the company, but also of the people. And they make a very good report: Wessanen demonstrates this year that the strategic decision of the board of directors to completely focus on the European market for organic products, leads to a better transparency on the strategy and policy for sustainability. In addi-tion, the report has taken a big step with a broader and clearer description of what organic products are. Additionally, the report contains more informa-tion about the sustainable chain and stakeholder dialogue. On the other hand, Wessanen might have set more ambitious objectives in the area of corpo-rate social responsibility.Wessanen has progressed on all fronts except in size. It went back from 120 to 108 pages. Less is apparently more.Wessanen has listened to the expectations of the outside world, and has maybe even used its 2011 score on the Transparency Benchmark to be inspired for the next annual report.The quality of non-financial information has strongly improved. Some of the improvements are: The chain in which it operates (from 0 to 6 points) has received increasing attention. remuneration

policy is more transparent, an explanation of the roles and responsibilities within the organization with respect to CSR is added, dilemmas are exposed, stakeholder involvement has received a boost.In categories such as reliability and performance are still ample opportunities for improvement, but overall it can be said: Wessanen shows that Transparency Benchmark has an effect!

Kristal prize 2012:DSM is the winner of the Crystal Prize 2012.The jury was confronted with a difficult choice this year. They were all very good reports.The jury is of the opinion that the winning is easily to read in the first place. Furthermore, the report is clearly an integral report which even treats CR issues first. There is improved information about the dialogue with stakeholders, compared to last year.The jury finds the explanation of remuneration clear. What the jury thought was very strong, is the focus on the things that went wrong ... “What still went wrong”.The main themes and their development are placed in a wider social context. They made progress by installing a Sustainability Advisory Board.Of the three finalists, the winning report has the most external orientation.The roles that each member of the Board of Directors performs in the social context and the example that they thus give to the rest of the organi-zation. Walk the talk!The report contains concrete data and numbers on CR, which provides clarity.The external recognition of what DSM does is great.

The numbers two and three are Akzo Nobel and Philips. The jury believes that these reports have improved compared to last year.

3.2.3 Transparency LadderPage 17 contains the summary of the scores of the companies. Each company shows a subdi-vision in scores on the respective topics. This includes profile, strategy and policy, governance


structure and management approach, results, social reporting policy, relevance, clarity, reliability, stake-holder involvement and contextual coherence. The number of points on the various themes can vary widely. The chapter theme comparison elaborates on these issues in more detail.

The companies with a 0-score are listed in Annex C.

3.2.4 Companies that didn’t finishThere are 243 companies that didn’t finish, because no reporting was available that could be considered for evaluation. Annex C sets out this matter in more detail. The causes of failure to meet the criteria are diverse. Examples are:

• the report is not freely and publicly available;

• companies did not file a report, but only issued a ‘instemmingsverklaring’;

• accounting information report was only available at the level of a parent company, without a refer-ence to that report in a report from the Dutch entity reference;

• the company failed to timely submit a report ánd the most recent report had already been included in a previous Transparency Benchmark.


Transparency benchmark ladder 2012

0 50 100 150 200

Stern Groep N.V.Janssen De Jong Groep B.V.

Blokker Holding B.V.Euretco B.V.

Intres B.V.Amsterdam Commodities N.V.

Broekhuis HoldingAllianz Nederland Groep N.V.

Pon Holdings B.V.Koops Furness N.V.

Hyva Group B.V.Brocacef Holding

Core Laboratories N.V.Vrije Universiteit

Kuiken N.V.VDL Groep

Maxeda Nederland B.V.*Hunter Douglas N.V.

Zesko Holding B.V.Audax B.V.

Sogeti Nederland B.V.Hurks groep B.V.

Apollo Vredestein B.V. (voorheen AMTEL N.V.)ASM International N.V.

Unica Installatiegroep B.V.Neways Electr. Int. N.V.

Van Leeuwen Buizen Groep B.VOpen Universiteit

Gamma HoldingEriks B.V.

Koninklijke Reesink N.V.AerCap Holdings N.V.

Argos North Sea GroupLyondellBasell Industries Holdings N.V.

Tele2 Netherlands Holding N.V.Ultra-Centrifuge Ned. N.V.

Vastned Retail N.V. (voorheen VastNed Management B.V.)Royal HaskoningSpyker Cars N.V.

Koninklijke Wegener N.V.Universiteit van Tilburg

Eurocommercial PropertiesDe Goudse N.V.

Coöperatie UVIT GroepBE Semiconductor Indus. N.V.

Exact Holding N.V.Batenburg Beheer N.V.

Yara Sluiskil B.V.Terberg Group B.V.

DAF Trucks N.V.*Van Wijnen Groep N.V.

TKH Group N.V.IHC Merwede Holding B.V.

Coöperatie AVEBE U.A.Nieuwe Steen inv

Simac Techniek N.V.C1000

Wereldhave Manag. Holding B.V.Refresco Holding B.V.

Brunel International N.V.Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen

ONVZLegal & General

Technische Universiteit Del�Unit 4 N.V.

Slibverwerking Noord-Brabant N.V.Forbo Flooring B.V.

AperamForFarmers Group B.V.

Fugro N.V.TomTom N.V.

DOW Benelux B.V.Coop Holding

Meurs & MolijnAsito B.V.

Aalberts Industries N.V.USG People N.V.

ConnexxionTMG - Telegraaf Media Groep

BinckBank N.V.Universiteit Leiden

TNOAMG Advanced Metallurg. Gr. NV

Rijksuniversiteit GroningenKoninklijke Coöperatie Cosun U.A.

Ordina N.V.Cooperative Agri�rm U.A.

Coca-Cola Ent. Nederl. B.V.Vanderlande

Koninklijke Ten Cate N.V.Erasmus Universiteit Ro�erdam

Nedap N.V.Meeuwsen Ten Hoopen Accountants BV

Du Pont De Nemours B.V.CZ Groep

Centric B.V.Koninklijke Grolsch N.V.

Grontmij N.V.EBN

Beter Bed Holding N.V.Universiteit Twente

Technische Universiteit EindhovenAtradius N.V.

Universiteit van AmsterdamASR Nederland N.V.

Sligro Food Group N.V.Facilicom Services Group

Universiteit UtrechtPost-Kogeko

Delta N.V.De Kon. Nederlandse Munt N.V.ArcelorMi�al Netherlands B.V.*

Jumbo Groep Holding B.V.Zeeman Groep B.V.Amphia Ziekenhuis

TranspaRAbility B.V.APG

Wageningen URVION Holding N.V.

Sperwer Holding B.V.Nidera Holdings B.V.

Macintosh Retail Group N.V.KPMG N.V.

Capgemini N.V.LeasePlan Corporation N.V.

GasTerra B.V.Twynstra Gudde

Accell GroupVan Oord

Royal Dutch Shell plcRandstad Holding B.V.

UPC Nederland*Schu�elaar & Partners

OBT BVKendrion N.V.

Dura Vermeer GroepWolters Kluwer N.V.

Reed Elsevier N.V.Ontwikkelingsmaatschappij Oost Nederland NV

Enexis B.V.Unibail Rodamco

NV NOM Investerings- en Ontwikkelingsmaatschappij voor Noord-NederlandSBM O�shore

Arcadis N.V.Koninklijke Vopak N.V.

Joh. Mourik & Co. Holding B.V.Dutch Flower Group B.V.

Vos Logistics B.V.Imtech

TenneT Holding B.V.Koninklijke Ahrend N.V.

Deloi�e Holding B.V.Teijin Aramid B.V.

Industriebank LIOF N.V.CSM N.V.

Stichting Exploitatie Nederlandse StaatsloterijProRail B.V.

Mondial Movers B.V.Delta Lloyd Groep

Unilever N.V.The Greenery B.V.

TBI HoldingsT-Mobile Nederland

MediqVebego International N.V.

Perfe�i v. MelleASML

Vitens N.V.Brab. Ontw. Maatschappij N.V.

ABN AMROQ Park N.V.

COVRABeelen Groep B.V.

VanDrie GroupDe Nederlandsche Bank N.V.

CoMoreCorio N.V.

EssentBallast Nedam N.V.

Deli XL B.V.TUI Nederland

TNT ExpressNIBC Bank N.V.

Schiphol GroupSNS REAAL N.V.

Eneco Holding N.V.Nederlandse Gasunie N.V.

Koninklijke Boskalis Westminster N.V.Koninklijke Ahold N.V.

Holland CasinoHeijmans

PricewaterhouseCoopersVan Lanschot Bankiers

Océ N.V.Roto Smeets Group N.V.

Koninklijke FrieslandCampina N.V.Air France KLM (voorheen KLM)

Holding Nationale Goede Doelen Loterijen N.V.NWB BankWavin N.V.

Crown Van Gelder N.V.Aegon N.V.

NSKoninklijke Wessanen N.V.

FMOSiemens Nederland

Nuon Energie N.V.Menzis Holding B.V.

NutrecoANWB B.V.Rabobank

PostNLMN

VolkerWesselsDHV B.V.

Bavaria N.V.Alliander N.V.

ING GroepBNG Bank

AchmeaVan Gansewinkel Groep

Royal BAM GroupVodafone

Heineken N.V.Havenbedrijf Ro�erdam N.V.

KPNA�ero Holding N.V.

Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V.AKZO Nobel N.V.

DSM N.V.


| 001| 002| 003| 004| 005| 006| 007| 008| 009| 010| 011| 012| 013| 014| 015| 016| 017| 018| 019| 020| 021| 022| 023| 024| 025| 026| 027| 028| 029| 030| 031| 032| 033| 034| 035| 036| 037| 038| 039| 040| 041| 042| 043| 044| 045| 046| 047| 048| 049| 050| 051| 052| 053| 054| 055| 056| 057| 058| 059| 060| 061| 062| 063| 064| 065| 066| 067| 068| 069| 070| 071| 072| 073| 074| 075| 076| 077| 078| 079| 080| 081| 082| 083| 084| 085| 086| 087| 088| 089| 090| 091| 092| 093| 094| 095| 096| 097| 098| 099| 100| 101| 102| 103| 104| 105| 106| 107| 108| 109| 110| 111| 112| 113| 114| 115| 116| 117| 118| 119| 120| 121| 122| 123| 124| 125| 126| 127| 128| 129| 130| 131| 132| 133| 134| 135| 136| 137| 138| 139| 140| 141| 142| 143| 144| 145| 146| 147| 148| 149| 150| 151| 152| 153| 154| 155| 156| 157| 158| 159| 160| 161| 162| 163| 164| 165| 166| 167| 168| 169| 170| 171| 172| 173| 174| 175| 176| 177| 178| 179| 180| 181| 182| 183| 184| 185| 186| 187| 188| 189| 190| 191| 192| 193| 194| 195| 196| 197| 198| 199| 200| 201| 202| 203| 204| 205| 206| 207| 208| 209| 210| 211| 212| 213| 214| 215| 216| 217| 218| 219| 220| 221| 222| 223| 224| 225| 226| 227| 228| 229| 230

199198195194194193193192189189186185185184184183181179179179178178177177177175175174173173173171170169169169168167166164164164164164162162161160160160159158158157156156156155155155153153152150149149148148148147147146146146146143143142141141140139139136136136135132131131126126126126124124124123123120120120118118116116115114114114114114114113108107107106104102102102100

9999989897979796969595939393939392898887878786868580807878777775757473727069676461585857565555545454535251505049494745424141393938383734323030292827262525242424232221201919191818151514131312111111111010

987665

TotalParticipant Pos. Cat.

Contextual coherence

Stakeholderengagement

Reliability

Clarity

Relevance

Corporate responsiblereporting policy

Results

Governance structure andmanagement approach

Strategy and policy

Pro�le

0 50 100 150 200































ONVZLegal & General


















Grontmij N.V.EBN

















OBT BVKendrion N.V.


















ABN AMROQ Park N.V.



CoMoreCorio N.V.

















PostNLMN



ING GroepBNG Bank






DSM N.V.


| 001| 002| 003| 004| 005| 006| 007| 008| 009| 010| 011| 012| 013| 014| 015| 016| 017| 018| 019| 020| 021| 022| 023| 024| 025| 026| 027| 028| 029| 030| 031| 032| 033| 034| 035| 036| 037| 038| 039| 040| 041| 042| 043| 044| 045| 046| 047| 048| 049| 050| 051| 052| 053| 054| 055| 056| 057| 058| 059| 060| 061| 062| 063| 064| 065| 066| 067| 068| 069| 070| 071| 072| 073| 074| 075| 076| 077| 078| 079| 080| 081| 082| 083| 084| 085| 086| 087| 088| 089| 090| 091| 092| 093| 094| 095| 096| 097| 098| 099| 100| 101| 102| 103| 104| 105| 106| 107| 108| 109| 110| 111| 112| 113| 114| 115| 116| 117| 118| 119| 120| 121| 122| 123| 124| 125| 126| 127| 128| 129| 130| 131| 132| 133| 134| 135| 136| 137| 138| 139| 140| 141| 142| 143| 144| 145| 146| 147| 148| 149| 150| 151| 152| 153| 154| 155| 156| 157| 158| 159| 160| 161| 162| 163| 164| 165| 166| 167| 168| 169| 170| 171| 172| 173| 174| 175| 176| 177| 178| 179| 180| 181| 182| 183| 184| 185| 186| 187| 188| 189| 190| 191| 192| 193| 194| 195| 196| 197| 198| 199| 200| 201| 202| 203| 204| 205| 206| 207| 208| 209| 210| 211| 212| 213| 214| 215| 216| 217| 218| 219| 220| 221| 222| 223| 224| 225| 226| 227| 228| 229| 230

199198195194194193193192189189186185185184184183181179179179178178177177177175175174173173173171170169169169168167166164164164164164162162161160160160159158158157156156156155155155153153152150149149148148148147147146146146146143143142141141140139139136136136135132131131126126126126124124124123123120120120118118116116115114114114114114114113108107107106104102102102100

9999989897979796969595939393939392898887878786868580807878777775757473727069676461585857565555545454535251505049494745424141393938383734323030292827262525242424232221201919191818151514131312111111111010

987665




Reliability

Clarity

Relevance


Results


Strategy and policy

Pro�le

0 50 100 150 200































ONVZLegal & General


















Grontmij N.V.EBN

















OBT BVKendrion N.V.


















ABN AMROQ Park N.V.



CoMoreCorio N.V.

















PostNLMN



ING GroepBNG Bank






DSM N.V.


| 001| 002| 003| 004| 005| 006| 007| 008| 009| 010| 011| 012| 013| 014| 015| 016| 017| 018| 019| 020| 021| 022| 023| 024| 025| 026| 027| 028| 029| 030| 031| 032| 033| 034| 035| 036| 037| 038| 039| 040| 041| 042| 043| 044| 045| 046| 047| 048| 049| 050| 051| 052| 053| 054| 055| 056| 057| 058| 059| 060| 061| 062| 063| 064| 065| 066| 067| 068| 069| 070| 071| 072| 073| 074| 075| 076| 077| 078| 079| 080| 081| 082| 083| 084| 085| 086| 087| 088| 089| 090| 091| 092| 093| 094| 095| 096| 097| 098| 099| 100| 101| 102| 103| 104| 105| 106| 107| 108| 109| 110| 111| 112| 113| 114| 115| 116| 117| 118| 119| 120| 121| 122| 123| 124| 125| 126| 127| 128| 129| 130| 131| 132| 133| 134| 135| 136| 137| 138| 139| 140| 141| 142| 143| 144| 145| 146| 147| 148| 149| 150| 151| 152| 153| 154| 155| 156| 157| 158| 159| 160| 161| 162| 163| 164| 165| 166| 167| 168| 169| 170| 171| 172| 173| 174| 175| 176| 177| 178| 179| 180| 181| 182| 183| 184| 185| 186| 187| 188| 189| 190| 191| 192| 193| 194| 195| 196| 197| 198| 199| 200| 201| 202| 203| 204| 205| 206| 207| 208| 209| 210| 211| 212| 213| 214| 215| 216| 217| 218| 219| 220| 221| 222| 223| 224| 225| 226| 227| 228| 229| 230

199198195194194193193192189189186185185184184183181179179179178178177177177175175174173173173171170169169169168167166164164164164164162162161160160160159158158157156156156155155155153153152150149149148148148147147146146146146143143142141141140139139136136136135132131131126126126126124124124123123120120120118118116116115114114114114114114113108107107106104102102102100

9999989897979796969595939393939392898887878786868580807878777775757473727069676461585857565555545454535251505049494745424141393938383734323030292827262525242424232221201919191818151514131312111111111010

987665




Reliability

Clarity

Relevance


Results


Strategy and policy

Pro�le

0 50 100 150 200































ONVZLegal & General


















Grontmij N.V.EBN

















OBT BVKendrion N.V.


















ABN AMROQ Park N.V.



CoMoreCorio N.V.

















PostNLMN



ING GroepBNG Bank






DSM N.V.


| 001| 002| 003| 004| 005| 006| 007| 008| 009| 010| 011| 012| 013| 014| 015| 016| 017| 018| 019| 020| 021| 022| 023| 024| 025| 026| 027| 028| 029| 030| 031| 032| 033| 034| 035| 036| 037| 038| 039| 040| 041| 042| 043| 044| 045| 046| 047| 048| 049| 050| 051| 052| 053| 054| 055| 056| 057| 058| 059| 060| 061| 062| 063| 064| 065| 066| 067| 068| 069| 070| 071| 072| 073| 074| 075| 076| 077| 078| 079| 080| 081| 082| 083| 084| 085| 086| 087| 088| 089| 090| 091| 092| 093| 094| 095| 096| 097| 098| 099| 100| 101| 102| 103| 104| 105| 106| 107| 108| 109| 110| 111| 112| 113| 114| 115| 116| 117| 118| 119| 120| 121| 122| 123| 124| 125| 126| 127| 128| 129| 130| 131| 132| 133| 134| 135| 136| 137| 138| 139| 140| 141| 142| 143| 144| 145| 146| 147| 148| 149| 150| 151| 152| 153| 154| 155| 156| 157| 158| 159| 160| 161| 162| 163| 164| 165| 166| 167| 168| 169| 170| 171| 172| 173| 174| 175| 176| 177| 178| 179| 180| 181| 182| 183| 184| 185| 186| 187| 188| 189| 190| 191| 192| 193| 194| 195| 196| 197| 198| 199| 200| 201| 202| 203| 204| 205| 206| 207| 208| 209| 210| 211| 212| 213| 214| 215| 216| 217| 218| 219| 220| 221| 222| 223| 224| 225| 226| 227| 228| 229| 230

199198195194194193193192189189186185185184184183181179179179178178177177177175175174173173173171170169169169168167166164164164164164162162161160160160159158158157156156156155155155153153152150149149148148148147147146146146146143143142141141140139139136136136135132131131126126126126124124124123123120120120118118116116115114114114114114114113108107107106104102102102100

9999989897979796969595939393939392898887878786868580807878777775757473727069676461585857565555545454535251505049494745424141393938383734323030292827262525242424232221201919191818151514131312111111111010

987665




Reliability

Clarity

Relevance


Results


Strategy and policy

Pro�le

0 50 100 150 200































ONVZLegal & General


















Grontmij N.V.EBN

















OBT BVKendrion N.V.


















ABN AMROQ Park N.V.



CoMoreCorio N.V.

















PostNLMN



ING GroepBNG Bank






DSM N.V.


| 001| 002| 003| 004| 005| 006| 007| 008| 009| 010| 011| 012| 013| 014| 015| 016| 017| 018| 019| 020| 021| 022| 023| 024| 025| 026| 027| 028| 029| 030| 031| 032| 033| 034| 035| 036| 037| 038| 039| 040| 041| 042| 043| 044| 045| 046| 047| 048| 049| 050| 051| 052| 053| 054| 055| 056| 057| 058| 059| 060| 061| 062| 063| 064| 065| 066| 067| 068| 069| 070| 071| 072| 073| 074| 075| 076| 077| 078| 079| 080| 081| 082| 083| 084| 085| 086| 087| 088| 089| 090| 091| 092| 093| 094| 095| 096| 097| 098| 099| 100| 101| 102| 103| 104| 105| 106| 107| 108| 109| 110| 111| 112| 113| 114| 115| 116| 117| 118| 119| 120| 121| 122| 123| 124| 125| 126| 127| 128| 129| 130| 131| 132| 133| 134| 135| 136| 137| 138| 139| 140| 141| 142| 143| 144| 145| 146| 147| 148| 149| 150| 151| 152| 153| 154| 155| 156| 157| 158| 159| 160| 161| 162| 163| 164| 165| 166| 167| 168| 169| 170| 171| 172| 173| 174| 175| 176| 177| 178| 179| 180| 181| 182| 183| 184| 185| 186| 187| 188| 189| 190| 191| 192| 193| 194| 195| 196| 197| 198| 199| 200| 201| 202| 203| 204| 205| 206| 207| 208| 209| 210| 211| 212| 213| 214| 215| 216| 217| 218| 219| 220| 221| 222| 223| 224| 225| 226| 227| 228| 229| 230

199198195194194193193192189189186185185184184183181179179179178178177177177175175174173173173171170169169169168167166164164164164164162162161160160160159158158157156156156155155155153153152150149149148148148147147146146146146143143142141141140139139136136136135132131131126126126126124124124123123120120120118118116116115114114114114114114113108107107106104102102102100

9999989897979796969595939393939392898887878786868580807878777775757473727069676461585857565555545454535251505049494745424141393938383734323030292827262525242424232221201919191818151514131312111111111010

987665




Reliability

Clarity

Relevance


Results


Strategy and policy

Pro�le


0 50 100 150 200































ONVZLegal & General


















Grontmij N.V.EBN

















OBT BVKendrion N.V.


















ABN AMROQ Park N.V.



CoMoreCorio N.V.

















PostNLMN



ING GroepBNG Bank






DSM N.V.


| 001| 002| 003| 004| 005| 006| 007| 008| 009| 010| 011| 012| 013| 014| 015| 016| 017| 018| 019| 020| 021| 022| 023| 024| 025| 026| 027| 028| 029| 030| 031| 032| 033| 034| 035| 036| 037| 038| 039| 040| 041| 042| 043| 044| 045| 046| 047| 048| 049| 050| 051| 052| 053| 054| 055| 056| 057| 058| 059| 060| 061| 062| 063| 064| 065| 066| 067| 068| 069| 070| 071| 072| 073| 074| 075| 076| 077| 078| 079| 080| 081| 082| 083| 084| 085| 086| 087| 088| 089| 090| 091| 092| 093| 094| 095| 096| 097| 098| 099| 100| 101| 102| 103| 104| 105| 106| 107| 108| 109| 110| 111| 112| 113| 114| 115| 116| 117| 118| 119| 120| 121| 122| 123| 124| 125| 126| 127| 128| 129| 130| 131| 132| 133| 134| 135| 136| 137| 138| 139| 140| 141| 142| 143| 144| 145| 146| 147| 148| 149| 150| 151| 152| 153| 154| 155| 156| 157| 158| 159| 160| 161| 162| 163| 164| 165| 166| 167| 168| 169| 170| 171| 172| 173| 174| 175| 176| 177| 178| 179| 180| 181| 182| 183| 184| 185| 186| 187| 188| 189| 190| 191| 192| 193| 194| 195| 196| 197| 198| 199| 200| 201| 202| 203| 204| 205| 206| 207| 208| 209| 210| 211| 212| 213| 214| 215| 216| 217| 218| 219| 220| 221| 222| 223| 224| 225| 226| 227| 228| 229| 230

199198195194194193193192189189186185185184184183181179179179178178177177177175175174173173173171170169169169168167166164164164164164162162161160160160159158158157156156156155155155153153152150149149148148148147147146146146146143143142141141140139139136136136135132131131126126126126124124124123123120120120118118116116115114114114114114114113108107107106104102102102100

9999989897979796969595939393939392898887878786868580807878777775757473727069676461585857565555545454535251505049494745424141393938383734323030292827262525242424232221201919191818151514131312111111111010

987665




Reliability

Clarity

Relevance


Results


Strategy and policy

Pro�le

0 50 100 150 200































ONVZLegal & General


















Grontmij N.V.EBN

















OBT BVKendrion N.V.


















ABN AMROQ Park N.V.



CoMoreCorio N.V.

















PostNLMN



ING GroepBNG Bank






DSM N.V.


| 001| 002| 003| 004| 005| 006| 007| 008| 009| 010| 011| 012| 013| 014| 015| 016| 017| 018| 019| 020| 021| 022| 023| 024| 025| 026| 027| 028| 029| 030| 031| 032| 033| 034| 035| 036| 037| 038| 039| 040| 041| 042| 043| 044| 045| 046| 047| 048| 049| 050| 051| 052| 053| 054| 055| 056| 057| 058| 059| 060| 061| 062| 063| 064| 065| 066| 067| 068| 069| 070| 071| 072| 073| 074| 075| 076| 077| 078| 079| 080| 081| 082| 083| 084| 085| 086| 087| 088| 089| 090| 091| 092| 093| 094| 095| 096| 097| 098| 099| 100| 101| 102| 103| 104| 105| 106| 107| 108| 109| 110| 111| 112| 113| 114| 115| 116| 117| 118| 119| 120| 121| 122| 123| 124| 125| 126| 127| 128| 129| 130| 131| 132| 133| 134| 135| 136| 137| 138| 139| 140| 141| 142| 143| 144| 145| 146| 147| 148| 149| 150| 151| 152| 153| 154| 155| 156| 157| 158| 159| 160| 161| 162| 163| 164| 165| 166| 167| 168| 169| 170| 171| 172| 173| 174| 175| 176| 177| 178| 179| 180| 181| 182| 183| 184| 185| 186| 187| 188| 189| 190| 191| 192| 193| 194| 195| 196| 197| 198| 199| 200| 201| 202| 203| 204| 205| 206| 207| 208| 209| 210| 211| 212| 213| 214| 215| 216| 217| 218| 219| 220| 221| 222| 223| 224| 225| 226| 227| 228| 229| 230

199198195194194193193192189189186185185184184183181179179179178178177177177175175174173173173171170169169169168167166164164164164164162162161160160160159158158157156156156155155155153153152150149149148148148147147146146146146143143142141141140139139136136136135132131131126126126126124124124123123120120120118118116116115114114114114114114113108107107106104102102102100

9999989897979796969595939393939392898887878786868580807878777775757473727069676461585857565555545454535251505049494745424141393938383734323030292827262525242424232221201919191818151514131312111111111010

987665




Reliability

Clarity

Relevance


Results


Strategy and policy

Pro�le

0 50 100 150 200































ONVZLegal & General


















Grontmij N.V.EBN

















OBT BVKendrion N.V.


















ABN AMROQ Park N.V.



CoMoreCorio N.V.

















PostNLMN



ING GroepBNG Bank






DSM N.V.


| 001| 002| 003| 004| 005| 006| 007| 008| 009| 010| 011| 012| 013| 014| 015| 016| 017| 018| 019| 020| 021| 022| 023| 024| 025| 026| 027| 028| 029| 030| 031| 032| 033| 034| 035| 036| 037| 038| 039| 040| 041| 042| 043| 044| 045| 046| 047| 048| 049| 050| 051| 052| 053| 054| 055| 056| 057| 058| 059| 060| 061| 062| 063| 064| 065| 066| 067| 068| 069| 070| 071| 072| 073| 074| 075| 076| 077| 078| 079| 080| 081| 082| 083| 084| 085| 086| 087| 088| 089| 090| 091| 092| 093| 094| 095| 096| 097| 098| 099| 100| 101| 102| 103| 104| 105| 106| 107| 108| 109| 110| 111| 112| 113| 114| 115| 116| 117| 118| 119| 120| 121| 122| 123| 124| 125| 126| 127| 128| 129| 130| 131| 132| 133| 134| 135| 136| 137| 138| 139| 140| 141| 142| 143| 144| 145| 146| 147| 148| 149| 150| 151| 152| 153| 154| 155| 156| 157| 158| 159| 160| 161| 162| 163| 164| 165| 166| 167| 168| 169| 170| 171| 172| 173| 174| 175| 176| 177| 178| 179| 180| 181| 182| 183| 184| 185| 186| 187| 188| 189| 190| 191| 192| 193| 194| 195| 196| 197| 198| 199| 200| 201| 202| 203| 204| 205| 206| 207| 208| 209| 210| 211| 212| 213| 214| 215| 216| 217| 218| 219| 220| 221| 222| 223| 224| 225| 226| 227| 228| 229| 230

199198195194194193193192189189186185185184184183181179179179178178177177177175175174173173173171170169169169168167166164164164164164162162161160160160159158158157156156156155155155153153152150149149148148148147147146146146146143143142141141140139139136136136135132131131126126126126124124124123123120120120118118116116115114114114114114114113108107107106104102102102100

9999989897979796969595939393939392898887878786868580807878777775757473727069676461585857565555545454535251505049494745424141393938383734323030292827262525242424232221201919191818151514131312111111111010

987665




Reliability

Clarity

Relevance


Results


Strategy and policy

Pro�le

0 50 100 150 200































ONVZLegal & General


















Grontmij N.V.EBN

















OBT BVKendrion N.V.


















ABN AMROQ Park N.V.



CoMoreCorio N.V.

















PostNLMN



ING GroepBNG Bank






DSM N.V.


| 001| 002| 003| 004| 005| 006| 007| 008| 009| 010| 011| 012| 013| 014| 015| 016| 017| 018| 019| 020| 021| 022| 023| 024| 025| 026| 027| 028| 029| 030| 031| 032| 033| 034| 035| 036| 037| 038| 039| 040| 041| 042| 043| 044| 045| 046| 047| 048| 049| 050| 051| 052| 053| 054| 055| 056| 057| 058| 059| 060| 061| 062| 063| 064| 065| 066| 067| 068| 069| 070| 071| 072| 073| 074| 075| 076| 077| 078| 079| 080| 081| 082| 083| 084| 085| 086| 087| 088| 089| 090| 091| 092| 093| 094| 095| 096| 097| 098| 099| 100| 101| 102| 103| 104| 105| 106| 107| 108| 109| 110| 111| 112| 113| 114| 115| 116| 117| 118| 119| 120| 121| 122| 123| 124| 125| 126| 127| 128| 129| 130| 131| 132| 133| 134| 135| 136| 137| 138| 139| 140| 141| 142| 143| 144| 145| 146| 147| 148| 149| 150| 151| 152| 153| 154| 155| 156| 157| 158| 159| 160| 161| 162| 163| 164| 165| 166| 167| 168| 169| 170| 171| 172| 173| 174| 175| 176| 177| 178| 179| 180| 181| 182| 183| 184| 185| 186| 187| 188| 189| 190| 191| 192| 193| 194| 195| 196| 197| 198| 199| 200| 201| 202| 203| 204| 205| 206| 207| 208| 209| 210| 211| 212| 213| 214| 215| 216| 217| 218| 219| 220| 221| 222| 223| 224| 225| 226| 227| 228| 229| 230

199198195194194193193192189189186185185184184183181179179179178178177177177175175174173173173171170169169169168167166164164164164164162162161160160160159158158157156156156155155155153153152150149149148148148147147146146146146143143142141141140139139136136136135132131131126126126126124124124123123120120120118118116116115114114114114114114113108107107106104102102102100

9999989897979796969595939393939392898887878786868580807878777775757473727069676461585857565555545454535251505049494745424141393938383734323030292827262525242424232221201919191818151514131312111111111010

987665




Reliability

Clarity

Relevance


Results


Strategy and policy

Pro�le

0 50 100 150 200































ONVZLegal & General


















Grontmij N.V.EBN

















OBT BVKendrion N.V.


















ABN AMROQ Park N.V.



CoMoreCorio N.V.

















PostNLMN



ING GroepBNG Bank






DSM N.V.


| 001| 002| 003| 004| 005| 006| 007| 008| 009| 010| 011| 012| 013| 014| 015| 016| 017| 018| 019| 020| 021| 022| 023| 024| 025| 026| 027| 028| 029| 030| 031| 032| 033| 034| 035| 036| 037| 038| 039| 040| 041| 042| 043| 044| 045| 046| 047| 048| 049| 050| 051| 052| 053| 054| 055| 056| 057| 058| 059| 060| 061| 062| 063| 064| 065| 066| 067| 068| 069| 070| 071| 072| 073| 074| 075| 076| 077| 078| 079| 080| 081| 082| 083| 084| 085| 086| 087| 088| 089| 090| 091| 092| 093| 094| 095| 096| 097| 098| 099| 100| 101| 102| 103| 104| 105| 106| 107| 108| 109| 110| 111| 112| 113| 114| 115| 116| 117| 118| 119| 120| 121| 122| 123| 124| 125| 126| 127| 128| 129| 130| 131| 132| 133| 134| 135| 136| 137| 138| 139| 140| 141| 142| 143| 144| 145| 146| 147| 148| 149| 150| 151| 152| 153| 154| 155| 156| 157| 158| 159| 160| 161| 162| 163| 164| 165| 166| 167| 168| 169| 170| 171| 172| 173| 174| 175| 176| 177| 178| 179| 180| 181| 182| 183| 184| 185| 186| 187| 188| 189| 190| 191| 192| 193| 194| 195| 196| 197| 198| 199| 200| 201| 202| 203| 204| 205| 206| 207| 208| 209| 210| 211| 212| 213| 214| 215| 216| 217| 218| 219| 220| 221| 222| 223| 224| 225| 226| 227| 228| 229| 230

199198195194194193193192189189186185185184184183181179179179178178177177177175175174173173173171170169169169168167166164164164164164162162161160160160159158158157156156156155155155153153152150149149148148148147147146146146146143143142141141140139139136136136135132131131126126126126124124124123123120120120118118116116115114114114114114114113108107107106104102102102100

9999989897979796969595939393939392898887878786868580807878777775757473727069676461585857565555545454535251505049494745424141393938383734323030292827262525242424232221201919191818151514131312111111111010

987665




Reliability

Clarity

Relevance


Results


Strategy and policy

Pro�le


0 50 100 150 200































ONVZLegal & General


















Grontmij N.V.EBN

















OBT BVKendrion N.V.


















ABN AMROQ Park N.V.



CoMoreCorio N.V.

















PostNLMN



ING GroepBNG Bank






DSM N.V.


| 001| 002| 003| 004| 005| 006| 007| 008| 009| 010| 011| 012| 013| 014| 015| 016| 017| 018| 019| 020| 021| 022| 023| 024| 025| 026| 027| 028| 029| 030| 031| 032| 033| 034| 035| 036| 037| 038| 039| 040| 041| 042| 043| 044| 045| 046| 047| 048| 049| 050| 051| 052| 053| 054| 055| 056| 057| 058| 059| 060| 061| 062| 063| 064| 065| 066| 067| 068| 069| 070| 071| 072| 073| 074| 075| 076| 077| 078| 079| 080| 081| 082| 083| 084| 085| 086| 087| 088| 089| 090| 091| 092| 093| 094| 095| 096| 097| 098| 099| 100| 101| 102| 103| 104| 105| 106| 107| 108| 109| 110| 111| 112| 113| 114| 115| 116| 117| 118| 119| 120| 121| 122| 123| 124| 125| 126| 127| 128| 129| 130| 131| 132| 133| 134| 135| 136| 137| 138| 139| 140| 141| 142| 143| 144| 145| 146| 147| 148| 149| 150| 151| 152| 153| 154| 155| 156| 157| 158| 159| 160| 161| 162| 163| 164| 165| 166| 167| 168| 169| 170| 171| 172| 173| 174| 175| 176| 177| 178| 179| 180| 181| 182| 183| 184| 185| 186| 187| 188| 189| 190| 191| 192| 193| 194| 195| 196| 197| 198| 199| 200| 201| 202| 203| 204| 205| 206| 207| 208| 209| 210| 211| 212| 213| 214| 215| 216| 217| 218| 219| 220| 221| 222| 223| 224| 225| 226| 227| 228| 229| 230

199198195194194193193192189189186185185184184183181179179179178178177177177175175174173173173171170169169169168167166164164164164164162162161160160160159158158157156156156155155155153153152150149149148148148147147146146146146143143142141141140139139136136136135132131131126126126126124124124123123120120120118118116116115114114114114114114113108107107106104102102102100

9999989897979796969595939393939392898887878786868580807878777775757473727069676461585857565555545454535251505049494745424141393938383734323030292827262525242424232221201919191818151514131312111111111010

987665




Reliability

Clarity

Relevance


Results


Strategy and policy

Pro�le

0 50 100 150 200































ONVZLegal & General


















Grontmij N.V.EBN

















OBT BVKendrion N.V.


















ABN AMROQ Park N.V.



CoMoreCorio N.V.

















PostNLMN



ING GroepBNG Bank






DSM N.V.


| 001| 002| 003| 004| 005| 006| 007| 008| 009| 010| 011| 012| 013| 014| 015| 016| 017| 018| 019| 020| 021| 022| 023| 024| 025| 026| 027| 028| 029| 030| 031| 032| 033| 034| 035| 036| 037| 038| 039| 040| 041| 042| 043| 044| 045| 046| 047| 048| 049| 050| 051| 052| 053| 054| 055| 056| 057| 058| 059| 060| 061| 062| 063| 064| 065| 066| 067| 068| 069| 070| 071| 072| 073| 074| 075| 076| 077| 078| 079| 080| 081| 082| 083| 084| 085| 086| 087| 088| 089| 090| 091| 092| 093| 094| 095| 096| 097| 098| 099| 100| 101| 102| 103| 104| 105| 106| 107| 108| 109| 110| 111| 112| 113| 114| 115| 116| 117| 118| 119| 120| 121| 122| 123| 124| 125| 126| 127| 128| 129| 130| 131| 132| 133| 134| 135| 136| 137| 138| 139| 140| 141| 142| 143| 144| 145| 146| 147| 148| 149| 150| 151| 152| 153| 154| 155| 156| 157| 158| 159| 160| 161| 162| 163| 164| 165| 166| 167| 168| 169| 170| 171| 172| 173| 174| 175| 176| 177| 178| 179| 180| 181| 182| 183| 184| 185| 186| 187| 188| 189| 190| 191| 192| 193| 194| 195| 196| 197| 198| 199| 200| 201| 202| 203| 204| 205| 206| 207| 208| 209| 210| 211| 212| 213| 214| 215| 216| 217| 218| 219| 220| 221| 222| 223| 224| 225| 226| 227| 228| 229| 230

199198195194194193193192189189186185185184184183181179179179178178177177177175175174173173173171170169169169168167166164164164164164162162161160160160159158158157156156156155155155153153152150149149148148148147147146146146146143143142141141140139139136136136135132131131126126126126124124124123123120120120118118116116115114114114114114114113108107107106104102102102100

9999989897979796969595939393939392898887878786868580807878777775757473727069676461585857565555545454535251505049494745424141393938383734323030292827262525242424232221201919191818151514131312111111111010

987665




Reliability

Clarity

Relevance


Results


Strategy and policy

Pro�le

0 50 100 150 200































ONVZLegal & General


















Grontmij N.V.EBN

















OBT BVKendrion N.V.


















ABN AMROQ Park N.V.



CoMoreCorio N.V.

















PostNLMN



ING GroepBNG Bank






DSM N.V.


| 001| 002| 003| 004| 005| 006| 007| 008| 009| 010| 011| 012| 013| 014| 015| 016| 017| 018| 019| 020| 021| 022| 023| 024| 025| 026| 027| 028| 029| 030| 031| 032| 033| 034| 035| 036| 037| 038| 039| 040| 041| 042| 043| 044| 045| 046| 047| 048| 049| 050| 051| 052| 053| 054| 055| 056| 057| 058| 059| 060| 061| 062| 063| 064| 065| 066| 067| 068| 069| 070| 071| 072| 073| 074| 075| 076| 077| 078| 079| 080| 081| 082| 083| 084| 085| 086| 087| 088| 089| 090| 091| 092| 093| 094| 095| 096| 097| 098| 099| 100| 101| 102| 103| 104| 105| 106| 107| 108| 109| 110| 111| 112| 113| 114| 115| 116| 117| 118| 119| 120| 121| 122| 123| 124| 125| 126| 127| 128| 129| 130| 131| 132| 133| 134| 135| 136| 137| 138| 139| 140| 141| 142| 143| 144| 145| 146| 147| 148| 149| 150| 151| 152| 153| 154| 155| 156| 157| 158| 159| 160| 161| 162| 163| 164| 165| 166| 167| 168| 169| 170| 171| 172| 173| 174| 175| 176| 177| 178| 179| 180| 181| 182| 183| 184| 185| 186| 187| 188| 189| 190| 191| 192| 193| 194| 195| 196| 197| 198| 199| 200| 201| 202| 203| 204| 205| 206| 207| 208| 209| 210| 211| 212| 213| 214| 215| 216| 217| 218| 219| 220| 221| 222| 223| 224| 225| 226| 227| 228| 229| 230

199198195194194193193192189189186185185184184183181179179179178178177177177175175174173173173171170169169169168167166164164164164164162162161160160160159158158157156156156155155155153153152150149149148148148147147146146146146143143142141141140139139136136136135132131131126126126126124124124123123120120120118118116116115114114114114114114113108107107106104102102102100

9999989897979796969595939393939392898887878786868580807878777775757473727069676461585857565555545454535251505049494745424141393938383734323030292827262525242424232221201919191818151514131312111111111010

987665




Reliability

Clarity

Relevance


Results


Strategy and policy

Pro�le

0 50 100 150 200































ONVZLegal & General


















Grontmij N.V.EBN

















OBT BVKendrion N.V.


















ABN AMROQ Park N.V.



CoMoreCorio N.V.

















PostNLMN



ING GroepBNG Bank






DSM N.V.


| 001| 002| 003| 004| 005| 006| 007| 008| 009| 010| 011| 012| 013| 014| 015| 016| 017| 018| 019| 020| 021| 022| 023| 024| 025| 026| 027| 028| 029| 030| 031| 032| 033| 034| 035| 036| 037| 038| 039| 040| 041| 042| 043| 044| 045| 046| 047| 048| 049| 050| 051| 052| 053| 054| 055| 056| 057| 058| 059| 060| 061| 062| 063| 064| 065| 066| 067| 068| 069| 070| 071| 072| 073| 074| 075| 076| 077| 078| 079| 080| 081| 082| 083| 084| 085| 086| 087| 088| 089| 090| 091| 092| 093| 094| 095| 096| 097| 098| 099| 100| 101| 102| 103| 104| 105| 106| 107| 108| 109| 110| 111| 112| 113| 114| 115| 116| 117| 118| 119| 120| 121| 122| 123| 124| 125| 126| 127| 128| 129| 130| 131| 132| 133| 134| 135| 136| 137| 138| 139| 140| 141| 142| 143| 144| 145| 146| 147| 148| 149| 150| 151| 152| 153| 154| 155| 156| 157| 158| 159| 160| 161| 162| 163| 164| 165| 166| 167| 168| 169| 170| 171| 172| 173| 174| 175| 176| 177| 178| 179| 180| 181| 182| 183| 184| 185| 186| 187| 188| 189| 190| 191| 192| 193| 194| 195| 196| 197| 198| 199| 200| 201| 202| 203| 204| 205| 206| 207| 208| 209| 210| 211| 212| 213| 214| 215| 216| 217| 218| 219| 220| 221| 222| 223| 224| 225| 226| 227| 228| 229| 230

199198195194194193193192189189186185185184184183181179179179178178177177177175175174173173173171170169169169168167166164164164164164162162161160160160159158158157156156156155155155153153152150149149148148148147147146146146146143143142141141140139139136136136135132131131126126126126124124124123123120120120118118116116115114114114114114114113108107107106104102102102100

9999989897979796969595939393939392898887878786868580807878777775757473727069676461585857565555545454535251505049494745424141393938383734323030292827262525242424232221201919191818151514131312111111111010

987665




Reliability

Clarity

Relevance


Results


Strategy and policy

Pro�le

0 50 100 150 200































ONVZLegal & General


















Grontmij N.V.EBN

















OBT BVKendrion N.V.


















ABN AMROQ Park N.V.



CoMoreCorio N.V.

















PostNLMN



ING GroepBNG Bank






DSM N.V.


| 001| 002| 003| 004| 005| 006| 007| 008| 009| 010| 011| 012| 013| 014| 015| 016| 017| 018| 019| 020| 021| 022| 023| 024| 025| 026| 027| 028| 029| 030| 031| 032| 033| 034| 035| 036| 037| 038| 039| 040| 041| 042| 043| 044| 045| 046| 047| 048| 049| 050| 051| 052| 053| 054| 055| 056| 057| 058| 059| 060| 061| 062| 063| 064| 065| 066| 067| 068| 069| 070| 071| 072| 073| 074| 075| 076| 077| 078| 079| 080| 081| 082| 083| 084| 085| 086| 087| 088| 089| 090| 091| 092| 093| 094| 095| 096| 097| 098| 099| 100| 101| 102| 103| 104| 105| 106| 107| 108| 109| 110| 111| 112| 113| 114| 115| 116| 117| 118| 119| 120| 121| 122| 123| 124| 125| 126| 127| 128| 129| 130| 131| 132| 133| 134| 135| 136| 137| 138| 139| 140| 141| 142| 143| 144| 145| 146| 147| 148| 149| 150| 151| 152| 153| 154| 155| 156| 157| 158| 159| 160| 161| 162| 163| 164| 165| 166| 167| 168| 169| 170| 171| 172| 173| 174| 175| 176| 177| 178| 179| 180| 181| 182| 183| 184| 185| 186| 187| 188| 189| 190| 191| 192| 193| 194| 195| 196| 197| 198| 199| 200| 201| 202| 203| 204| 205| 206| 207| 208| 209| 210| 211| 212| 213| 214| 215| 216| 217| 218| 219| 220| 221| 222| 223| 224| 225| 226| 227| 228| 229| 230

199198195194194193193192189189186185185184184183181179179179178178177177177175175174173173173171170169169169168167166164164164164164162162161160160160159158158157156156156155155155153153152150149149148148148147147146146146146143143142141141140139139136136136135132131131126126126126124124124123123120120120118118116116115114114114114114114113108107107106104102102102100

9999989897979796969595939393939392898887878786868580807878777775757473727069676461585857565555545454535251505049494745424141393938383734323030292827262525242424232221201919191818151514131312111111111010

987665




Reliability

Clarity

Relevance


Results


Strategy and policy

Pro�le

0 50 100 150 200































ONVZLegal & General


















Grontmij N.V.EBN

















OBT BVKendrion N.V.


















ABN AMROQ Park N.V.



CoMoreCorio N.V.

















PostNLMN



ING GroepBNG Bank






DSM N.V.


| 001| 002| 003| 004| 005| 006| 007| 008| 009| 010| 011| 012| 013| 014| 015| 016| 017| 018| 019| 020| 021| 022| 023| 024| 025| 026| 027| 028| 029| 030| 031| 032| 033| 034| 035| 036| 037| 038| 039| 040| 041| 042| 043| 044| 045| 046| 047| 048| 049| 050| 051| 052| 053| 054| 055| 056| 057| 058| 059| 060| 061| 062| 063| 064| 065| 066| 067| 068| 069| 070| 071| 072| 073| 074| 075| 076| 077| 078| 079| 080| 081| 082| 083| 084| 085| 086| 087| 088| 089| 090| 091| 092| 093| 094| 095| 096| 097| 098| 099| 100| 101| 102| 103| 104| 105| 106| 107| 108| 109| 110| 111| 112| 113| 114| 115| 116| 117| 118| 119| 120| 121| 122| 123| 124| 125| 126| 127| 128| 129| 130| 131| 132| 133| 134| 135| 136| 137| 138| 139| 140| 141| 142| 143| 144| 145| 146| 147| 148| 149| 150| 151| 152| 153| 154| 155| 156| 157| 158| 159| 160| 161| 162| 163| 164| 165| 166| 167| 168| 169| 170| 171| 172| 173| 174| 175| 176| 177| 178| 179| 180| 181| 182| 183| 184| 185| 186| 187| 188| 189| 190| 191| 192| 193| 194| 195| 196| 197| 198| 199| 200| 201| 202| 203| 204| 205| 206| 207| 208| 209| 210| 211| 212| 213| 214| 215| 216| 217| 218| 219| 220| 221| 222| 223| 224| 225| 226| 227| 228| 229| 230

199198195194194193193192189189186185185184184183181179179179178178177177177175175174173173173171170169169169168167166164164164164164162162161160160160159158158157156156156155155155153153152150149149148148148147147146146146146143143142141141140139139136136136135132131131126126126126124124124123123120120120118118116116115114114114114114114113108107107106104102102102100

9999989897979796969595939393939392898887878786868580807878777775757473727069676461585857565555545454535251505049494745424141393938383734323030292827262525242424232221201919191818151514131312111111111010

987665




Reliability

Clarity

Relevance


Results


Strategy and policy

Pro�le



0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

FrameworkStakeholder engagement

ReliabilityClarity

RelevanceQUALITY-ORIENTED CRITERIA

Corporate responsible reporting policyResults

Government structure andmanagement approach

Strategy and PolicyPro�le

CONTENT-ORIENTED CRITERIATOTAL SCORE

4 Trends4.1 Theme comparison

The criteria of the Transparency Benchmark are clas-sified into ten categories.

The graph below is an overview of the scores in each category. The graph shows that the partici-pating organisations generally score higher on the content-oriented criteria than on the quality-oriented criteria.

4.1.1 High scoring categoriesIn the categories ‘profile’, ‘strategy’, ‘results’ and ‘clarity’ on average the highest scores are achieved.

ProfileThis content-oriented category concerns the ques-tion whether the reporting provides insight into topics such as staffing levels, major products and services, the core processes of the organization and

the impact on people, the environment and society, tenure and position in the chain. These are mostly standard components in an annual report. It is therefore no surprise that the scores in this category are the highest. This year 34% of participants scored the maximum number of points while last year this was the case for 25% (previous year even 8%).

Strategy and PolicyThis category covers the content-oriented vision of the company regarding social aspects of business and how it is supported by the highest governing body. A large majority of organizations provides an explanation of both the overall business strategy and the strategy with regard to the social aspects of business. Only within the group of laggards there is a big difference between the number of comments on the overall and the CSR strategy; Only 56% of organizations provides an explanation of the CSR strategy, while 88% does so of the overall


strategy (previous year 82%). While many companies touch upon the CSR strategy, the challenge lies in connecting the overall strategy and the CSR strategy. Relatively few companies have succeeded in linking their CSR strategy to their core activities. This trans-lation is obvious for frontrunners, although even there, there is room for improvement. It should also be referred to the coupling of the strategy to the organisations’ objectives. Too often, both are separately formulated and lacking a clear strategy execution respectively embedding of the objectives.

ResultsThe Transparency Benchmark looks at whether the reporting on the economic, environmental and social results of operations is transparent. This content-oriented group of criteria required the availablity of performance indicators on enviro-mental, social and economic issues, which show how a company measures performance and what their performance actually is. Almost all organi-zations have economic performance indicators included in their report. All groups score lowest on environmental performance indicators. 68% Of the companies have environmental perfor-mance indicators in place. Last year this was at 58%

(previously 48%). Of the entire group of companies 70% reported on social performance indicators, compared to 67% last year. The number of compa-nies that provides insight into its environmental and social performance is increasing, although though there is still room for improvement.

ClarityThe category ‘clarity’ assesses whether the reporting is understandable, transparent and accessible. The information in the report must be understandable for the reader to avoid any misinterpretation. This means that the method of presentation must be adapted to the knowledge and experience of the user. Good design, a systematic classification of topics, clear language and explanations of unfa-miliar terms increase clarity.Of the participating organizations 17% score maximum points in this category.

4.1.2 Low scoring categoriesThe categories of ‘reliability’, ‘contextual coher-ence’ and ‘stakeholder involvement’ are the lowest scoring categories. These are quality-oriented criteria.

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

Laggards

Peloton

Followers

Frontrunners

Total

YesN0

Share of companies with an assurance statement for the corporate responsibility information


ReliabilityThis category is about the assessment by external parties of the adequacy and reliability of the reported information. A part of the category ‘reli-ability’ is whether the content of the report has been verified by an expert, independent party. In total, 27% of the organizations reporting externally verified (previous year 20%).

Contextual coherenceThe contextual coherence shows the extent to which performance of the organization in the field of corporate responsibility issues is presented in a broader perspective. Such criteria include informa-tion on the company strategic context, trends and developments in the sector. The question that could bring the most points in this category is: “ Does the accounting information connect corporate responsibility results with relevant internal and external developments?” 26% Of the organizations did not connect its results to relevant internal and external developments. Last year explained 58% of the organizations did not connect those dots. More and more organizations are placing the information in the report in a broader perspective.

Involvement of stakeholdersThis category is cross-cutting through all criteria, and is an important issue for the social aspects of business. The criteria for this category focus on the policy of the company with regard to stakeholder involvement and the way it is explained in the report. In general, three things are leading in this theme:

• Adequacy of information: When setting up the social reporting, was the company guided by the information needs of stakeholders. The involve-ment of stakeholders is clear from the way in which stakeholders are identified, how and when their involvement is established and how this involvement has influenced the content of the report and on the policies and activities of the company.

• Dare: The company is willing to be vulnerable in her social reporting sensitive issues by not avoiding sensitive issues, while in an open and honest way providing insight into the possible conflicting interests of these topics.

• Focus on stakeholders: With its sustainability reporting, the company contributes to the public debate on relevant issues by presenting a vision and/or creating stakeholders’ awareness of certain social effects.

Particularly with regard to daring, there is much room for improvement. In addition, many compa-nies have difficulty in translating the results of the stakeholder dialogue to the policy in the first place and the reporting in the second place. Stakeholder involvement is often discussed in isolation. Striking is the clear cut between the leaders and the followers on the one hand and the other companies on the other. Companies with a higher score have often better embedded their stakeholder dialogue.

4.2 Sector comparison

The Transparency Benchmark is divided into fourteen different sectors. Compared to last year, we included the sector real estate. The challenges and dilemmas vary per sector which makes a sector based analysis essential. The various sectors demon-strate differences in average points received. A lower average says something about the transparency of the company and not necessarily about the perfor-mance regarding CSR. The following paragraphs are classified by sector. Please note that in case an organisation obtained a low score, it still performs better than its peers that received zero points. For an overview of all organisations that received zero points, please refer to appendix C.

Like previous years, a couple of companies cannot inconclusively be classified in one of the fourteen industries. The sector ‘other’ has therefore five participants namely De Koninklijke Nederlandse


Munt N.V., Legal & General, AerCap Holdings N.V., Zesko Holding B.V. and Hyva Group B.V..

The industries transport (149), banks and insurers (133) and food and beverages (129) performed rela-tively well. Industrial goods (82), universities (73) and retail (67) all received a below average score.

4.2.1 Banks and InsurersThe 25 organisations within the banks and insurers industry accomplished an above average score with 133 points. It thus continues the rise set in during the previous years (2011: 106, 2010: 86). Especially ‘governance structure’ and ‘stakeholder engage-ment’ are sections for which this industry received an above average outcome.

Within this group we find a couple of strong climbers such as Bank Nederlandse Gemeenten (+24), Menzis Holding (+34) and NWB Bank (+48). These companies especially perform better on criteria like ‘corporate responsible reporting poli-cies’, ‘results’ and ‘stakeholder engagement’. Out of the 28 companies in this sector, there are three organisations with zero points.

4.2.2 Construction and MaritimeWith an average score of 117 points (last year 95) the sector construction and maritime (17 companies and 6 companies with zero points) is well repre-sented in the Transparency Benchmark. The industry reports overall just above average. The topic on which is performed considerably better compared to last year is ‘clarity’. ‘Governance structure’ and ‘reliability’ are sections for which most improve-ment could be realised.

The top three did not change compared to last year, although the differences in scores between the various companies is decreasing. Royal Boskalis received +50 points and holds currently the fifth place within the construction and maritime sector. Ballast Nedam rose with as much as 65 points extra. TBI Holding tops everyone with an increase of 78 points compared to last year. Beelen Group B.V. voluntarily participated for the first time in the Transparency Benchmark and is a spectacular newcomer with a score of 155 points.

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

YesNo

Share of companies with a description of the involvement of stakeholders regarding CR

Laggards

Peloton

Followers

Frontrunners

Total


4.2.3 Consumer productsThe nine companies participating in the industry consumer products achieved on average 92 points (last year 83). Between the contestants there are large deviations. Royal Philips Electronics N.V. can call itself again the number one by obtaining 195 points whilst five companies in this sector performed below the total average of 104. The top three performed above average for the sections ‘corporate responsible reporting policies’ and ‘reli-ability’ and are criteria on which other participants could improve the most.

Accell Group climbed the most particularly through an increase of transparency for criteria such as ‘rele-vance’ and ‘results’. Compared to last year, Stichting Exploitatie Nederlandse Staatsloterij earned most points through improvements on ‘reliability’. The industry consumer products is one of the largest industries within the Transparency Benchmark, however, this year 18 companies received zero points.

4.2.4 ServicesWith 58 companies, of which 17 received zero points, the service sector is the largest research group within the Transparency Benchmark. The

0 50 100 150 200

Allianz Nederland Groep N.V.

De Goudse N.V.

Coöperatie UVIT Groep

ONVZ

BinckBank N.V.

CZ Groep

Atradius N.V.

ASR Nederland N.V.

APG

Industriebank LIOF N.V.

Delta Lloyd Groep

ABN AMRO

De Nederlandsche Bank N.V.

NIBC Bank N.V.

SNS REAAL N.V.

Van Lanschot Bankiers

NWB Bank

Aegon N.V.

FMO

Rabobank

Menzis Holding B.V.

MN

ING Groep

BNG Bank

Achmea

Banks & Insurers

20122011


0 50 100 150 200

2011

2012

Janssen De Jong Groep B.V.Hurks groep B.V.

Unica Installatiegroep B.V.Van Wijnen Groep N.V.

IHC Merwede Holding B.V.Van Oord

Dura Vermeer GroepSBM O�shore

Joh. Mourik & Co. Holding B.V.TBI Holdings

Beelen Groep B.V.Ballast Nedam N.V.

Koninklijke Boskalis Westminster N.V.Heijmans

Wavin N.V.VolkerWessels

Royal BAM Group

Construction & Maritime

0 50 100 150 200

2011

2012

Hunter Douglas N.V.Apollo Vredestein B.V. (voorheen AMTEL N.V.)

Spyker Cars N.V.Forbo Flooring B.V.

TomTom N.V.Accell Group

Stichting Exploitatie Nederlandse StaatsloterijHolding Nationale Goede Doelen Loterijen N.V.

Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V.

Consumer products


0 50 100 150 200

2011

2012

Broekhuis HoldingSogeti Nederland B.V.

Royal HaskoningExact Holding N.V.

Simac Techniek N.V.Brunel International N.V.

Unit 4 N.V.Slibverwerking Noord-Brabant N.V.

Fugro N.V.Meurs & Molijn

Asito B.V.USG People N.V.

TNOOrdina N.V.

Meeuwsen Ten Hoopen Accountants BVCentric B.V.

Grontmij N.V.Facilicom Services Group

Amphia ZiekenhuisTranspaRAbility B.V.

APGKPMG N.V.


Twynstra GuddeRandstad Holding B.V.

Schu�elaar & PartnersOntwikkelingsmaatschappij Oost Nederland NV

NV NOM Investerings- en Ontwikkelings-maatschappij voor Noord-Nederland

Arcadis N.V.Deloi�e Holding B.V.

Vebego International N.V.Brab. Ontw. Maatschappij N.V.

COVRACoMore

Holland CasinoPricewaterhouseCoopers

ANWB B.V.DHV B.V.

Van Gansewinkel GroepA�ero Holding N.V.

Services


0 50 100 150 200 250

2011

2012

Core Laboratories N.V.

Core Laboratories N.V.

Argos North Sea Group

Ultra-Centrifuge Ned. N.V.

Yara Sluiskil B.V.

EBN

Delta N.V.

GasTerra B.V.

Royal Dutch Shell plc

Enexis B.V.

TenneT Holding B.V.

Essent

Eneco Holding N.V.

Nederlandse Gasunie N.V.

Nuon Energie N.V.

Alliander N.V.

Energy, oil and gas

industry is divers with financial and business service providers, HR services and a hospital. With an average of 108 points, this industry just performed above average (last year 99). Most points are lost on the criteria ‘reliability’ and ‘governance structure’, although this is not below total averages. Compared to the overall performance of this industry, the top 10 received above average points for ‘governance structure’ and ‘corporate responsible reporting policies’.

This year, five new companies signed up to partici-pate in the Transparency Benchmark that are clas-sified in the services sector namely TranspaRability, Meeuwsen Ten Hoopen Accountants BV, TNO, Meurs & Molijn and Ecurion. Ecurion doesn’t appear in the graph below, since they obtained zero points.

4.2.5 Energy, oil and gasWith an average of 110 points (last year 109), the energy, oil and gas industry performs just above the overall average of 104 points. Topics for which the 15 participating companies score above average are

‘clarity’, ‘reliability’ en ‘stakeholder engagement’. The top three was relatively most transparent on the section ‘results’. Most improvement can be achieved on the topics ‘governance structure’ and ‘relevance’. Enexis competes for the first time this year (7th place) and Delta rose significantly (+45). Within the sector energy, oil and gas, 12 companies received zero points.

4.2.6 Trading companiesThe sector trading companies is with only five participating companies the smallest sector within the Transparency Benchmark and achieved an average of 85 points (last year 90). Especially on topics such as ‘relevance’ and ‘reliability’ a below average score was obtained. Nidera Holding shows a strong increase (+61) and is particularly more trans-parent on the criteria ‘strategy and policy’, ‘govern-ance structure’ and ‘stakeholder engagement’. In total, there are 12 companies in this industry that received zero points.


4.2.7 Industrial productsWith 23 participating companies, the industrial products sector performed below average (81 points compared to 69 last year). Most improvement can be made for the category ‘governance structure’ as on average only 8 out of 25 points were obtained. For the section ‘results’ relatively most below average points were obtained (-4). ArcelorMittall is the highest new participating company and received

104 points. Furthermore, it is remarkable that both number 1 and 2 of the Transparency Benchmark are part of this industry. Besides this, the sector indus-trial products has relatively a lot of companies that received zero points (52 out of 243).

0 30 60 90 120 150

20112012

Amsterdam Commodities N.V.

Koninklijke Reesink N.V.

Nidera Holdings B.V.

Dutch Flower Group B.V.

Koninklijke Ahrend N.V.

Trading companies

0 50 100 150 200

2011

2012

Brocacef HoldingKuiken N.V.

Van Leeuwen Buizen Groep B.VGamma Holding

Eriks B.V.LyondellBasell Industries Holdings N.V.

Batenburg Beheer N.V.Terberg Group B.V.

DAF Trucks N.V.Aperam

DOW Benelux B.V.Aalberts Industries N.V.

AMG Advanced Metallurg. Gr. NVVanderlande

Koninklijke Ten Cate N.V.Nedap N.V.

Du Pont De Nemours B.V.ArcelorMi�al Netherlands B.V.

Kendrion N.V.Teijin Aramid B.V.

Crown Van Gelder N.V.AKZO Nobel N.V.

DSM N.V.

Industrial products


4.2.8 MediaThe sector media, with eight companies competing, performs with 100 points around average (last year 81). On average, most points are obtained for ‘strategy and policy’, ‘governance structure’ and ‘results. Criteria relating to ‘corporate responsible reporting policies’ and – like last year – ‘reliability’ and ‘framework’, are generally criteria for which the least points are received.

The first place is for Roto Smeets, who is “special-ized in high quality printing of efficient mass communication”. The company is part of an European printing organisation. Laggards in this sector are the publishers of newspapers and jour-nals. Nevertheless, they are still more transparent than the 10 companies that received zero points.

4.2.9 RetailThe 17 participating retail organisations received – just like last year – an average score of 67 points and is therefore the least performing sector of the Transparency Benchmark. Only six organisations perform above the total average. Topics for which the retail sector compared to the other industries particularly does not perform well are ‘results’ and ‘relevance’. In 2011, the retail sector also performed below average on these sections.

Ahold proudly holds first place for the second year in a row. A notable increase is realized by Beter Bed. This company deserves a compliment for more than doubling its score. Within the retail sector 49 enterprises are participating of which 32 received zero points.

4.2.10 TechnologyThe technology industry slightly changed compared to last year as Tele2 and ASM International are included and Kendrion N.V. from now on is classi-fied as industrial products. The technology sector performed with 103 points around the total average (last year 87) and relatively obtained least points for ‘reliability’ and ‘governance structure’. In total 25 companies participated in this sector of which 12 received zero points.

KPN is still leading in this sector, although closely followed by its competitor Vodafone. Notable is that Vodafone, being part of an international parent company, still performs well by having a Dutch report. This points out that although being a daughter of a foreign enterprise, it is possible to be transparent and to specific information towards Dutch stakeholders. Siemens achieved the largest increase in this sector (+34).

0 50 100 150 200

2011

2012

Audax B.V.

Koninklijke Wegener N.V.

TMG - Telegraaf Media Groep

UPC Nederland

OBT BV

Wolters Kluwer N.V.

Reed Elsevier N.V.

Roto Smeets Group N.V.

Media


4.2.11 TransportThe transport sector (13 participating enterprises) has with an average of 149 points (last year 105) the highest average scores on the Transparency Benchmark. This industry obtained an increase of no less than 44 points and is therefore also the sector which increased most in transparency. Categories for which the sector proportionately is most transparent are ‘results’ and ‘stakeholder engagement’. Although the transport sector performs relatively well on ‘reliability’ this is, as well as ‘governance structure’, a section that can still be improved.

Last year, Mondial Movers received a prize for most transparent SME company, this year Post-Kogeko performed quite well.Havenbedrijf Rotterdam (Port of Rotterdam) is the new number one in this sector. The number of companies performing in the top in which the government has shares (or used to) stands out. Of the 24 enterprises in this sector, 11 received zero points.

4.2.12 UniversitiesThe university sector is no longer the lowest scoring industry of the Transparency Benchmark. Out of the 14 participating universities, only the University of Maastricht received zero points due to the fact that the reporting information was not published before the deadline of participating. The 13 universi-ties have an average score of 73 points (last year 56). Although this is still quite below the overall average, this industry is compared to previous years one of the most increasingly transparent industries. University of Amsterdam illustrates that transparency is indeed relevant to this sector with an increase of 65 points. The new number 1, Wageningen UR, also shows an impressive raise (+46). Nevertheless, there is still room for improve-ment, especially for the sections ‘governance struc-ture’, ‘reliability’ and ‘stakeholder engagement’.

0 50 100 150 200

20112012

Stern Groep N.V.Blokker Holding B.V.

Euretco B.V.Intres B.V.


Maxeda Nederland B.V.C1000

Coop HoldingBeter Bed Holding N.V.Sligro Food Group N.V.

Jumbo Groep Holding B.V.Zeeman Groep B.V.

Sperwer Holding B.V.Macintosh Retail Group N.V.

MediqKoninklijke Ahold N.V.

Retail


0 50 100 150 200

20112012

VDL Groep

ASM International N.V.

Neways Electr. Int. N.V.

Tele2 Netherlands Holding N.V.

BE Semiconductor Indus. N.V.

TKH Group N.V.

Imtech

T-Mobile Nederland

ASML

Océ N.V.

Siemens Nederland

Vodafone

KPN

Technology

0 50 100 150 200

20112012

Connexxion

Post-Kogeko

Koninklijke Vopak N.V.

Vos Logistics B.V.

ProRail B.V.

Mondial Movers B.V.

TUI Nederland

TNT Express

Schiphol Group

Air France KLM (voorheen KLM)

NS

PostNL

Havenbedrijf Ro�erdam N.V.

Transport


4.2.13 Real estateThe real estate sector is a new sector in this year’s Transparency Benchmark. The seven companies participating have obtained an average of 88 points. Relatively speaking, ‘results’ and ‘reliability’ are the sections for which this industry performs least transparent. Criteria for which the sector performed average are ‘clarity’ and ‘framework’. The top three especially managed to achieved many points for these sections. Corio and Qpark increased the most regarding transparency with an raise of 31 and respectively 44 points. Nieuwe Steen Inv. partici-pated for the first time this year, thanks to its being listed at the Amsterdam AMX.

4.2.14 Food and beverageThe food and beverage sector achieved an average of 129 points (last year 112) and therefore holds the third place within the Transparency Benchmark. For the sections ‘strategy and policy’, ‘results’ and ‘framework’ above average scores were obtained. ‘Reliability’ is a topic for which only the top three and Unilever perform above the total average. Royal Wessanen N.V. tops everyone with an increase of 77 points compared to last year, followed by CSM

N.V. (+61) and Vion Holding (+53). In total, of the 49 participating companies, 29 received zero points.

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

20112012

Vrije Universiteit

Open Universiteit

Universiteit van Tilburg

Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen

Technische Universiteit Del�

Universiteit Leiden

Rijksuniversiteit Groningen

Erasmus Universiteit Ro�erdam

Universiteit Twente

Technische Universiteit Eindhoven

Universiteit van Amsterdam

Universiteit Utrecht

Wageningen UR

Universities


0 50 100 150 200

2011

2012

Vastned Retail N.V. (voorheen VastNed Management B.V.)

Eurocommercial Properties

Nieuwe Steen inv

Wereldhave Manag. Holding B.V.

Unibail Rodamco

Q Park N.V.

Corio N.V.

Real estate

0 40 80 120 160 200

2011

2012

Coöperatie AVEBE U.A.

Refresco Holding B.V.

ForFarmers Group B.V.

Koninklijke Coöperatie Cosun U.A.

Cooperative Agri�rm U.A.

Coca-Cola Ent. Nederl. B.V.

Koninklijke Grolsch N.V.

VION Holding N.V.

CSM N.V.

Unilever N.V.

The Greenery B.V.

Perfe�i v. Melle

Vitens N.V.

VanDrie Group

Deli XL B.V.

Koninklijke FrieslandCampina N.V.

Koninklijke Wessanen N.V.

Nutreco

Bavaria N.V.

Heineken N.V.

Food & Beverage


4.3 International Trends

Internationally, there are two important institu-tional reporting trends. This concerns firstly the growing authority of the International Integrated Reporting Committee. The second development is the continuous improvement of the guidelines of the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) and the increasing number of GRI-followers. We will examine both, as well as their interlinkages, in this chapter.

Many well known sustainable businesses find them-selves in the Down Jones Sustainability Index. The Netherlands has had wide representation among the highest ranking companies in the Down Jones Sustainability Indexes for some years. Since many Dutch companies consider their peers to be in the DJSI, the ministry has given them the opportunity to benchmark themselves against DJSI-listed compa-nies of their choice. This chapter provides some of the most important insights that we gained in this process.

4.3.1 Integrated reportingThe number of organizations that include financial as well as non-financial information in one report and/or in connectivity increases. It is a strong indi-cation that non-financial information is regarded as one of the priority areas and as part of the strategy is increasingly anchored in the business.

With the growing number of organizations who are dedicated to reporting corporate responsibility information, in addition to financial reporting, there is also a growing need for a transparent and unambiguous form of reporting. The International Integrated Reporting Committee (IIRC) has committed itself to create the globally accepted international integrated reporting framework that elicits from organizations material information about their strategy, governance, performance and prospects in a clear, concise and comparable format.

The IIRC has proposed five “Guiding Principles” to underpin the process of preparing an integrated report. These principles are:

1 Strategic focus: The way in which a company shapes its strategic objectives and to what extent it reports on the resources (people, planet and profit) used for the realization of these objectives.

2 Connectivity of information: An integrated report show the connections between the different parts of the business model, external factors that affect the organisation and the various resources and relationships on which the organization and its performance depend.

3 Future orientation: The way a company sees the future including uncertainties and how it prepares for that.

The need for integrated reporting according to the IIRC:“At the heart of <IR> is the growing realization that a wide range of factors determine the value of an organization – some of these are financial or tangible in nature and are easy to account for in financial statements (e.g. property, cash), while many are not (e.g. people, natural resources, intellectual capital, market and regulatory context, competition, energy security). <IR> reflects the broad and longer-term consequences of the decisions organizations make, based on a wide range of factors, in order to create and sustain value. <IR> enables an organization to communicate in a clear, articulate way how it is drawing on all the resources and relationships it utilises to create and preserve value in the short, medium and long term, helping investors to manage risks and allocate resources most efficiently.”


4 Responsiveness and stakeholder inclusiveness: The way a company confronts its stakeholders and takes account of their interests.

5 Conciseness, reliability and materiality: The extent to which the information provided by a company is material, reliable and presented a concise manner.

In the context of developments in the field of integrated reporting, it is interesting to see how the participants in the Transparency Benchmark have developed in this area. This is done by measuring the average scores of all participants in a number of categories and/or individual criteria relate to four “Guiding Principles” of the IIRC and scoring on a 10-point scale.

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

Laggards

Peloton

Followers

Forerunners

Total

Proportion of companies following GRI-guidelines in their reporting

Principle of integrated reporting 2011 2012 % rise compared to 2011

Strategic focus 5,7 6,3 11%

Future orientation 4,4 5,3 20%

Responsiveness and stakeholder inclusiveness 3,7 4,7 27%

Conciseness, reliability and materiality 4,0 4,5 13%

Scores (10-point scale) of participants in the Transparency Benchmark on four of the five “Guiding Principles” of the IIRCDeclaration on the method:

• Strategic focus:

Developments of scoring in the category ‘strategy and policy’

• Futureorientation:

Developments of scoring on criteria 18, 21 and 24 (economic,

environmental and social objectives + timetable)

• Responsivenessandstakeholderinclusiveness:

Developments of scoring in the category of ‘stakeholder

involvement’

• Conciseness,reliabilityandmateriality:

Developments of scoring in the categories of ‘relevance’,

‘clarity’ and ‘reliability’.

Please find the results in the table below.


Based on the results in the above table, one could prudently argue that participants in the Transparency Benchmark have over the last two years developed in a direction which prepares for integrated reporting.

4.3.2 Global Reporting InitiativeThe Global Reporting Initiative (one of the founders of the IIRC) has committed itself to a mission to make sustainability reporting standard practice for all organisvavtions. To this purpose, their core product is the Sustainability Reporting Framework, available for download from www.globalreporting.org. GRI is a network-based organization, which means that some 30,000 people worldwide, many of them sustainability experts, contribute to its work. GRI’s secretariat is based in Amsterdam and coordinates the activity of its network partners. GRI released its first framework in 2000. Currently, its third generation framework (G3) is in place.

Almost 5000 organisations worldwide are known to report according to GRI-guidelines. In the Netherlands, home to the GRI secretariat and many multinationals, the GRI is increasingly adhered to. The table below shows that the GRI framework is used by each of the first 50 companies on the Transparency Ladder. Last year it was only the top 20 entirely following the GRI standard.

In order to remain up-to-date with corporate, reporting and sustainability trends, a new genera-tion of guidelines (G4) is expected to be released in May 2013. The exposure draft of these new guide-lines, set the following objectives for this review:

• to offer guidance on how to link the sustain-ability reporting process to the preparation of an Integrated Report aligned with the guidance to be developed by the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC).

• to offer guidance in a user-friendly way, so that new reporters can easily understand and use the Guidelines

• to improve the technical quality of the Guidelines’ content in order to eliminate ambi-guities and differing interpretations – for the benefit of reporters and information users alike

• to harmonize as much as possible with other internationally accepted standards

• to improve guidance on identifying ‘material’ issues – from different stakeholders’ perspective – to be included in the sustainability reports

In the exposure draft, there are four proposed significant changes to the current Guidelines:

1 The Application Levels to assist organizations in communicating the degree of transparency of their sustainability reports will be discontinued. Reason for this change is that Application Levels are sometimes wrongly understood by some report users to be an opinion on the quality of the report, or even a reflection of the sustainability performance of the organization.

2 Boundaries: The process been revised to direct organizations on how to define the content and boundaries of a sustainability report in one sequence of process steps, thus to answer the question of what to report. The process begins with the mapping of a value chain(s) and the identification of relevant topics and bounda-ries, followed by the prioritization of relevant topics as material GRI Aspects, for validation. The outcomes of the process consist of (1) a map of the organization’s value chain, (2) a list of material Aspects (and where the impact occurs within the value chain(s)) and (3) related Standard Disclosures to be included in the sustainability report.

3 Management approach: The Disclosures on Management Approach are intended to provide organizations with an opportunity to explain how they are managing material economic, environ-mental, and social impacts. The G4 exposure draft outlines a generic approach for all topics and


proposes that the Disclosures on Management Approach should be provided at the Aspect level to reflect management practices.

4 G4 is proposing a number of changes to govern-ance and remuneration disclosures to strengthen the link between governance and sustainability performance, taking into account the consist-ency within existing governance frameworks and developments in that field. The proposed changes include new disclosures in the Profile section of the report on the ratio of executive compensation to median compensation, the ratio of execu-tive compensation to lowest compensation and the ratio of executive compensation increase to median compensation.

It is to be expected, that future updated Transparency Benchmark criteria will be inspired by the changes to the GRI Framework. Different elements of the new guidelines, such as the Boundaries-approach, resemble integrated reporting principles, and can already be found in reports of some of the frontrunners in the Transparency Benchmark.

4.3.3 Dow Jones Sustainability IndexThe Dow Jones Sustainability Indexes (DJSI) were launched in 1999. They are a family of indexes evalu-ating the sustainability performance of the largest 2,500 companies listed on the Dow Jones. They are a key reference point in sustainability investing for stakeholders. In contrast with the Transparency Benchmark which analyses the content and quality of reporting, the DJSI is based on an analysis of corporate economic, environmental and social performance.

As was explained in chapter 3.1.5, participants in the Transparency benchmark who performed a self-assessment have been offered a benchmark against their DJSI-peers. As the Transparency Benchmark team facilitated these benchmarks, they gained insight into the state of the art of sustainability

reporting worldwide. This brought about a number of lessons:

• In the international reports relatively more atten-tion is being paid to the selection of relevant topics to report on. In more than a few cases, subjects were plotted on a materiality matrix for relevance and impact. Based on this analysis, the strategy of the company and the relevant topics covered in the report are determined. Clearly, this development is reflected in IIRC principle of materiality as well as in the proposed amendment to the GRI guidelines.

• For foreign reports, issues such as supply chain and value chain are often pictured graphically. The accessibility of information is thereby increased, which is essential at a time when sometimes information overload threatens. Again, integrated reporting underlines the impor-tance of conciseness.

• External verification of sustainability reports (by an external auditor) is less common abroad than in the top 25 Dutch companies. Companies more often choose to invite stakeholders to express their opinion on the company’s policies and actions in the report. It remains to be seen whether the focus on reliability in integrated reporting will have an effect on the application of external verification of reports.

• Much attention is paid to the subject of stake-holder dialogue. As a rule, the stakeholder dialogues are elaborated further than is usual in Dutch reports. It is not only an account of the way in which a particular group of stakeholders was spoken, but also in detail what topics emerge from it and what impact it has on the report or the policy of the company. GRI as well as inte-grated reporting support an increased attention to stakeholder dialogue.


• Finally, as in the application of the GRI guide-lines, Dutch companies appear to be pioneers in the field of integrated reporting. Internationally, many companies, even sector leaders in the Dow Jones Sustainability Index, have a separate CSR report which shows relatively little ‘inte-grated thinking’ as yet. The global presence of participants in the intergrated reporting pilot programme comprising more than 80 mostly influential companies which was launched in October 2011 may change this impression in the next year(s). For a list of companies in the pilot programme, please refer to http://www.theiirc.org/companies-and-investors/pilot-programme-business-network/.



5 EvaluationIt is the philosophy behind the Transparency Benchmark that an organization that is transparent to its environment and shows how they deal with the theme of sustainability, as a result of this trans-parency is often stimulated to improve its perfor-mance in this area further. The information that is shared with the outside world is an excellent basis for the dialogue with stakeholders and this dialogue will lead to improvements. For companies that are less advanced in the field of sustainability, transpar-ency leads to critical self-reflection in this field and thus to improvements.

5.1 Dialogue with the participants

Such a philosophy also fits a transparent approach to the project Transparency Benchmark itself. An approach that evolves on the basis of experience and with room for dialogue with the participants. In that context we invested in a dialogue with the participating organizations, for example by organizing a CSR classroom. In addition, a special frontrunners-gathering will be held prior the awards ceremony.

The web application offered participants the opportunity to share their general comments with the ministry. Many companies have made use of this opportunity. The comments on specific criteria and their relevance are taken note of in the context of reviewing the criteria. There were also several compliments and suggestions about the web application. These are discussed with the software developer and where possible get a place in the permanent web application development program. Relevant comments on the Transparency Benchmark, in general, are listed below and have been provided with a response.


Feedback Respons

The Transparency Benchmark gives the project team the energy and motivation to drive towards more transpar-ency.

This self-assessment is fun and educational!

That’s good to hear!

The Transparency Benchmark is less useful for a university/hospital/non-listed company/service, less easy to use than for example listed manufacturing companies.

The criteria in the Transparency Benchmark are inspired by the directives of the Council for Annual Reporting, GRI and the opinions of the Economic and Social Council on supply chain responsibility. These principles are not specifically designed for a particular sector. Neverthe-less, we recognize the tension between the desire to include all participants in the same set of criteria, and the differences that exist between sectors. The proposal for new criteria takes into account these differences by the putting more value to a materiality analysis. The sector analyses in this report also offer certain sectors a more level playing field than the overall ladder does. However, there are also a number of voluntary (small) participants from suprising sectors who earn a high score despite all this, like for example last year’s SME-prize winner Mondial Movers.

The Transparency Benchmark should stick to GRI. The ministry has designed the Transparency Benchmark for the Dutch situation and specific priorities. The GRI is an international framework and therefore also includes themes with little relevance in the Dutch context. Furthermore borrow the principles of the GRI is not good for testing and awarding points. The probable disappearance of ‘application-levels’ in the upcoming GRI framework will only make this more imminent.

It is important that the criteria of the Transparency Benchmark are already available at the time of writing annual reports. Organizations can then take this into account before reports are published.

The Department strives to communicatie timely. Nevertheless the Transparency Benchmark is no standard for reporting, but only a an appreciation tool that the Department can change at will.

The Transparency Benchmark ignores foreign companies with Dutch subsidiaries.

The Transparency Benchmark focuses on transparency for the Dutch stakeholder. A report of a parent company is therefore relevant only to the extent that it is findable for that stakeholder, such as a local interest group, and as far as the Dutch activities are sufficiently recognizable in that report. Companies like Vodafone and T-Mobile therefore offer a good scoring Dutch report, although the foreign parent had extensively reported.

The Transparency Benchmark judges companies on how they write things down and not on what has been achieved. The perception of outsiders Transparency Benchmark is thus fed incorrectly.

In communicating the Transparency Benchmark it is always stressed that no opinion is given on the performance of a company, but only on the quality and content of reporting (see section 3.1.1). In the view of the Department transparency is nevertheless a prerequisite for conducting a public dialogue about the performance.


A AnnexesA.1 Thematic comparisons

NoneQuantitative

Way in which the reports communicate about economic targets, based on the scores of criterion 18

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

Total

Frontrunners

Followers

Peloton

Laggards

NonQualitativeQuantitative

Way in which the reports communicate about environmental targets, based on the scores of criterion 21

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

Total

Frontrunners

Followers

Peloton

Laggards

NonQualitativeQuantitative

Way in which the reports communicate about social targets, based on the scores of criterion 24

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

Total

Frontrunners

Followers

Peloton

Laggards


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

None

Just Strategy

Just Remuneration

Both

Communication about the involvement of the Board of Directors and/or the Supervisory Board regarding CR (Strategy and/or Remunerations). based on the scores of criteria 11.2 and 12.1

Three indicators or more

Two or less indicators

No indicators

Indicator2 in 1 category

Indicators in 2 categories


Number of reports with quantitative indicatores regarding the non-�nancial economic aspects of the management, based on the score of criterion 17.3

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

Laggards

Peloton

Followers

Frontrunners

Total

Number of reports with environmental performance indicators, based on criterion 19

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

Laggards

Peloton

Followers

Frontrunners

Total


No indicators

Indicators in 1 category



Number of reports with social performance indicators, based on criterion 22

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

Laggards

Peloton

Followers

Frontrunners

Total

YesNo

YesNo

Number of reports with a description on the general company strategy, based on criterion 5.1

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

Laggards

Peloton

Followers

Frontrunners

Total

Number of reports with a description on the CR strategy, based on criterion 6.1

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

Laggards

Peloton

Followers

Frontrunners

Total


<3 material aspects

3 material aspects

4/5 material aspects

>6 material aspects

Number of reports with (material) CR aspects, based on criterion 31

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

Laggards

Peloton

Followers

Frontrunners

Total


B Weblinks to the reportsCompany Weblink to the report(s)

Aalberts Industries N.V. http://www.aalberts.nl/nl/investor_relations/jaarresultaten

ABN AMRO http://www.abnamro.com/en/about-abn-amro/reports-and-reviews/index.htmlhttp://www.abnamro.com/en/Sustainability/reports/index.html

Accell Group http://issuu.com/accell/docs/jaarverslag_2011/1

Achmea http://www.annualreport2011achmea.net/downloads/cEN2328_Downloads.aspxhttp://www.achmea.nl/over-achmea/mvo/Paginas/MVO-jaarverslag.aspx

Aegon N.V. http://corporatereporting.aegon.com/2011/review/

AerCap Holdings N.V. http://www.aercap.com/investor-relations/financial-results

Air France KLM www.klm.com/csr

AKZO Nobel N.V. http://www.akzonobel.com/nl/beleggersinfo/jaarverslag/http://www.akzonobel.com/nl/over_ons/sociaal_jaarverslag/

Alliander N.V. http://jaarverslag.alliander.com/2011/

Allianz Nederland Groep N.V. http://www.allianz.nl/allianz/allianz/cijfers

AMG Advanced Metallurg. Gr. NV http://www.amg-nv.com/Investors/Financials/default.aspx

Amphia Ziekenhuis http://www.amphia.nl/OverAmphia/Pages/Publicaties.aspx

Amsterdam Commodities N.V. http://www.acomo.nl/uploads/downloads/annual-reports/ACOMO%20NL%2011%20def%20[27-4].pdf

ANWB B.V. http://www.anwb.nl/binaries/pdf/over-anwb/jaarverslag/2011jaarrekeninganwb2.pdfhttp://www.anwb.nl/binaries/pdf/over-anwb/jaarverslag/2011jaarverslag_mvo.pdf

Aperam http://www.aperam.com/uploads/pdf/investors/Aperam%20Annual%20Report%20-%20Final.pdfhttp://www.aperam.com/uploads/pdf/about/Aperam%20Sustainability%20Report_final%20version.pdf

APG http://www.apgverslagverantwoordbeleggen.nl/

Apollo Vredestein B.V. http://www.apollovredestein.nl/over-apollo-vredestein/mvo?Lang=nl-NL

Arcadis N.V. http://www.arcadis.com/9EB40B58-E56E-481E-8525-0F3FD4DBE58E/Final-Download/DownloadId-85B85D814F484B7A2B9D3A59A2C07C88/9EB40B58-E56E-481E-8525-0F3FD4DBE58E/Content/ArcadisGlobal/Docs/2011/JV11report-compleet-DEF_Midres.pdf

ArcelorMittal Netherlands B.V. http://www.arcelormittal.com/corp/~/media/Files/A/ArcelorMittal/investors/annual-reports/AR2011-2012-03-13-final.pdfhttp://www.arcelormittal.com/corp/news-and-media/publications-and-reports

Argos North Sea Group http://argosenergies.com/nl/corporate/company-overview/sustainability/

Asito B.V. http://www.asito.com/dbimages/jaarverslag/Asito_Jaarverslag_2011.pdfhttp://www.asitoverantwoord.nl/index.html

ASM International N.V. http://www.asm.com/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=113


Company Weblink to the report(s)

ASML http://www.asml.com/asml/show.do?lang=EN&ctx=312

ASR Nederland N.V. http://www.asrnederland.nl/media/169269/asr_jv_2011_jaarverslag_nl_2.pdf

Atradius N.V. http://global.atradius.com/images/stories/Annual%20Reports/2011/Annual_Report_2011.pdf http://global.atradius.com/images/stories/Annual%20Reports/2al_Report_2011.pdf011/Annuhttp://www.atradiusdutchstatebusiness.nl/Images/DSB_Duurzaamheid%202011%20NL_tcm1008-152677.pdf

Attero Holding N.V. http://www.muskitopages.nl/2012/attero/jaarverslag2011/

Audax B.V. http://www.audax.nl/Financien.aspx

Ballast Nedam N.V. http://www.ballast-nedam.nl/

Bank Ned. Gemeenten N.V. http://www.bng.nl/smartsite.shtml?id=68144

Batenburg Beheer N.V. http://www.batenburg-annualreport2011.nl/fileadmin/media/Batenburg_2011/PDF/Batenburg_jaarverslag_2011.pdf

Bavaria N.V. www.bavaria.com

BE Semiconductor Indus. N.V. http://www.besi.com/investor-relations/financial-reports-and-publications/financial-reports

Beelen Groep B.V. www.beelen.nl

Beter Bed Holding N.V. http://www.beterbedholding.nl/mvo/mvo+rapport/inleiding/cDU701-Inleiding.aspx

BinckBank N.V. http://www.binckbank-annualreport2011.com

Blokker Holding B.V. http://www.blokkerholding.nl/Portals/0/PDF/Jaarverslag.BlokkerHolding.NL.DEF.pdf

Brab. Ontw. Maatschappij N.V. http://www.bom.nl/over-bom/bibliotheek

Brocacef Holding http://www.brocacef.nl/wps/wcm/connect/brocacef-portal/brocacef/nav2/brocacefholding/

Broekhuis Holding http://www.broekhuisgroep.nl/jaarverslag_downloaden.html

Brunel International N.V. www.brunel.net

C1000 http://issuu.com/c1000supermarkten/docs/duurzaamheidsverslag_2011?mode=window&backgroundColor=%23222222

Capgemini N.V. http://www.nl.capgemini.com/expertise/publicaties/2011-jaarverslag/

Centric B.V. http://www.centric.eu/NL/Default/Over-Centric/Jaarverslag.aspx

Coca-Cola Ent. Nederl. B.V. http://www.cocacolanederland.nl/Home.aspx

CoMore http://www.co-more.nl/MVO.asp?id=180, http://www.co-more.nl/comore-media.asp?id=240

Connexxion http://www.connexxion.com/data/upload/CNXX_JV_2011_NL_8V.pdf

Coop Holding http://issuu.com/coopcodis/docs/jaarverslag_2011?mode=window&backgroundColor=%23222222

Coöperatie AVEBE U.A. http://www.avebe.nl/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=Dhh5Avipu0M%3D&tabid=1216&mid=2026



Coöperatie UVIT Groep http://www.cooperatievgz.nl/over-cvgz/Documents/Jaarverslag-VIT-2011-BLAD_WEBVERSIE.pdfhttp://www.cooperatievgz.nl/over-cvgz/Documents/Sociaal%20Jaarverslag-2011-WEB.pdf

Cooperative Agrifirm U.A. http://jaarverslag.agrifirm.com/http://issuu.com/agrifirm/docs/maatschappelijkjaarverslag11?mode=window&backgroundColor=%23222222

Core Laboratories N.V. https://company.info/id/300659740000

Corio N.V. http://www.corio-eu.com/tl_files/content_resources/pdf/Annual%20results%202011/Corio-Annual-report-2011.pdfhttp://www.corio-eu.com/tl_files/content_resources/pdf/Annual%20results%202011/Corio-CSR-Annual-2011.pdf

COVRA http://www.covra.nl/infocentrum

Crown Van Gelder N.V. www.cvg.nl

CSM N.V. http://www.csmannualreport2011.com/index.php?id=2958

CZ Groep http://www.cz.nl/2011/jaarverslag/integraal-maatschappelijk-verslag.pdf

DAF Trucks N.V. http://www.daf.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/Environment/Milieujaarver-slag_2011_NL.pdfhttp://www.daf.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/Environment/DAF-milieu-bro-chure-nl.pdf

De Goudse N.V. http://www.goudse.nl/jaarverslag.html

De Kon. Nederlandse Munt N.V. www.knm.nl

De Nederlandsche Bank N.V. www.jaarverslagdnb.nl

Deli XL B.V. http://www.delixlduurzaamheidsverslag2011.nl/

Deloitte Holding B.V. http://deloitteannualreport.nl/

Delta Lloyd Groep http://verslag.deltalloydgroep.com/nl/

Delta N.V. http://epub01.publitas.com/delta_nv/jaarverslag2011/http://www.delta.nl/over_DELTA/MVO/MVO_verslag/

DHV B.V. http://www.dhv.nl/Over-ons/Duurzaam-Ondernemen

DOW Benelux B.V. http://www.dow.com/benelux/sustainability/report/index.htm

DSM N.V. http://annualreport2011.dsm.com/pages/EN/Homepage.html en pdf daar ook te downloaden

Du Pont De Nemours B.V. http://www2.dupont.com/Dordrecht_Plant_Site/en_NL/index.html

Dura Vermeer Groep http://www.duravermeer.nl/over_ons/726/publicaties-filmshttp://www.duravermeer.nl/nieuws/artikel/953/publicatie_duurzaamheids-_en_mvo-verslag

Dutch Flower Group B.V. http://www.dutchflowergroup.nl/nl/460_sociaal-jaarverslag.html

EBN http://www.ebn.nl/Financieel/Documents/EBN_jaarverslag_2011.pdf

Eneco Holding N.V. http://jaarverslag2011.eneco.nl/

Enexis B.V. http://www.muskitopages.nl/2012/enexis/jaarverslag_2011/#/1/of: www.enexis.nl/jaarverslag



Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam http://www.eur.nl/eur/corporate_publicaties/jaarverslagen/2011/http://www.eur.nl/eur/corporate_publicaties/jaarverslagen/2011/sociaal_jaarver-slag/

Eriks B.V. http://eriks.nl/nl/documentatie/algemeen/

Essent www.essent.nl/mvoverslag

Euretco B.V. www.essent.nl/mvoverslag

Eurocommercial Properties http://www.eurocommercialproperties.com/index.php/eurocom/financial_reports_en.html

Exact Holding N.V. http://ar2011.exact.com/http://flipbook.exact.com/csr/2011/

Facilicom Services Group www.facilicom.com

FMO http://annualreport2011.fmo.nl/media/55394/fmo_ar_2011-_full_report.pdf

Forbo Flooring B.V. http://epub00.publitas.com/326/338/#/spreadview/0/

ForFarmers Group B.V. http://www.forfarmersgroup.eu/nl/?page_id=1283&title=handelsplatform-jaarverslagen

Fugro N.V. http://www.fugro.com/society/intro.asp

Gamma Holding http://www.gammaholding.nl/nl?cm=79%2C549%2C592%2C652

GasTerra B.V. www.gasterra.nlwww.gasterraverslag.nl

Grontmij N.V. http://www.grontmij.com/MediaCenter/Documents/2011/Annual-Report-Gront-mij 2011.pdfhttp://2011.annualreportgrontmij.com/http://2011.crreportgrontmij.com/

Havenbedrijf Rotterdam N.V. http://jaarverslag.portofrotterdam.com/

Heijmans http://www.heijmans.nl/MVO

Heineken N.V. http://www.annualreport.heineken.com/http://www.sustainabilityreport.heineken.com/

Holding Nationale Goede Doelen Loterijen N.V.

http://www.duurzameloterijen.nl/goededoelenloterijen_mvo-rapportage_2011.pdf

Holland Casino http://www.hollandcasino.nl/NR/rdonlyres/9F6F533B-4D2C-4139-878E-6FF530369A88/49306/120501Jaarverslag2011.pdf

Hunter Douglas N.V. http://investor.hunterdouglasgroup.com/annuals.cfm

Hurks groep B.V. http://www.hurks.nl/show/nl/pagina/4,Jaarverslagen.html

Hyva Group B.V. http://www.hyva.com/co/en/Default.aspx?PageID=1514&LinkID=2273

IHC Merwede Holding B.V. http://www.ihcmerwede.com/about-ihc-merwede/financial-and-social-data/

Imtech http://annualreport2011.imtech.eu/

Industriebank LIOF N.V. http://www.liof.nl/nl/algemeen/jaarverslag-2011.aspx

ING Groep www.ingforsomethingbetter.com/reporting

Intres B.V. http://www.intres.nl/overintres/Documents/Jaarverslagen/Intres%20jaarver-slag%202011.pdf

Janssen De Jong Groep B.V. http://www.jajo.com/content/jaarverslagen-0



Joh. Mourik & Co. Holding B.V. http://www.mourik.com/jaarbeeld2011/magazine.html

Jumbo Groep Holding B.V. http://www.jaarverslagenjumbosupermarkten.nl/jaarverslag-2011/cDU7_Jaarver-slag-2011.aspx

Kendrion N.V. www.kendrion.comhttp://www.kendrion.com/CSR.jsf

Koninklijke Ahold N.V. https://www.ahold.com/#!/Financial-information/Annual-reports.htmhttps://www.ahold.com/#!/Corporate-responsibility/CR-Reports.htm

Koninklijke Ahrend N.V. http://www.ahrend.com/smartsite.dws?language=NL&ch=COM&id=98165

Koninklijke Boskalis Westminster N.V.

http://www.boskalis-annualreports.com

Koninklijke Coöperatie Cosun U.A. www.cosun-jaarverslag.nl

Koninklijke FrieslandCampina N.V. http://www.frieslandcampina.com/nederlands/about-us/financial/reports.aspxhttp://www.frieslandcampina.com/nederlands/responsibility/responsibility-reports.aspx

Koninklijke Grolsch N.V. http://www.koninklijkegrolsch.nl/duurzaam-verantwoord

Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. www.annualreport2011.philips.com

Koninklijke Reesink N.V. http://www.royalreesink.com/investor-relations/jaarverslagen/

Koninklijke Ten Cate N.V. http://www.tencate.com/1896/TenCate/Corporate/nl/Home/Home-Investor-relations/Jaarverslag

Koninklijke Vopak N.V. www.vopak.com/files/pdf/Vopak_Annual_Report_2011.pdfwww.vopak.com/sustainability/sustainability.html

Koninklijke Wegener N.V. http://www.wegener.nl/overons/jaarverslag.htm

Koninklijke Wessanen N.V. http://www.wessanen.com/en/investor-center/annual-report/http://www.wessanen.com/en/about-wessanen/sustainability/performance-factsheet-gri/

Koops Furness N.V. http://www.koops-furness.nl/index.cfm/fuseaction/main.teksten_show/id/115/mni/1/slt/2/

KPMG N.V. http://www.kpmg.com/NL/nl/Documents/Verslagen_KPMG/Insights-into-KPMG-2010-2011-TR.pdf

KPN http://www.kpn.com/corporate/overkpn/Bedrijfsprofiel/Jaarverslag.htmhttp://www.kpn.com/corporate/overkpn/Bedrijfsprofiel/Jaarverslag.htm

Kuiken N.V. http://www.kuiken.nl/nieuws/jaarverslag.html

LeasePlan Corporation N.V. http://www.leaseplan.com/annualreport2011

Legal & General http://www.landg.nl/binaries/content/assets/downloads/Brochures/Jaarver-slag+2011.pdf

LyondellBasell Industries Holdings N.V.

http://annualreport2011-lyb.com/

Macintosh Retail Group N.V. http://www.macintosh.nl/data/files/downloads/jv_2011_nl_interactief.pdf

Maxeda Nederland B.V. http://www.maxedadiygroup.com/NL/Upload/pdf/pers/Maxeda%20DIY%20Group%20Jaarverslag%202011-2012%20NL.pdf

Mediq http://annualreport2011.mediq.com/

Meeuwsen Ten Hoopen Accountants BV

www.mth.nl/kennisgroepen/mvo



Menzis Holding B.V. www.menzis.nl/jaarverslag/

Meurs & Molijn http://meursenmolijn.nl/sites/default/files/Maatschappelijk%20jaarverslag%202011.pdf

MN http://www.mn.nl/jaarverslag/chapter4.html

Mondial Movers B.V. http://www.mondial-movers.nl/content/verslagen.html

Nedap N.V. http://www.nedap.com/nl/over-nedap/downloads/nedap-jaarverslag-2011pdf/

Nederlandse Gasunie N.V. http://www.gasunie.nl/bibliotheek/jaarverslag-2011http://www.gasunie.nl/bibliotheek/mvo-jaarverslag-2011

Neways Electr. Int. N.V. http://www.neways.nl/Content.aspx?sid=1&cid=196&mid=0&ctl=&mnu=565

NIBC Bank N.V. http://annualreport2011.nibc.com/

Nidera Holdings B.V. www.nidera.com

Nieuwe Steen inv http://www.nsi.nl/page/view/name/13-financiele-rapporten

NS www.ns.nl/jaarverslag

Nuon Energie N.V. www.nuon.nl

Nutreco http://www.nutreco.com/images/stories/NutrecoPublications/Annual_Reports/PDF/2011/20nut2008_final_layout_at_nut_160212.pdfhttp://www.nutreco.com/images/stories/NutrecoPublications/CSR/2011/20nut2009_lay-out_at_nut_13h40_140212.pdf

NV NOM Investerings- en Ontwikkelingsmaatschappij voor Noord-Nederland

http://www.nom.nl/contact

NWB Bank https://www.nwbbank.com/nwb-bank/publicaties/jaarverslagen/

OBT BV www.obt.eu

Océ N.V. http://investor.oce.com/reports/reports/annual-report/default.aspxhttp://global.oce.com/oce-sustainability/downloads/sustainability-report/default.aspx

Ontwikkelingsmaatschappij Oost Nederland NV

www.oostnv.nl

ONVZ http://www.onvz.nl/zorg.htm?ch=def&id=financieel-jaarbericht-2011

Open Universiteit http://www.ou.nl/web/over-ons/jaarverslag

Oracle Nederland B.V. http://www.oracle.com/us/industries/financial-services/annual-report-2011-2012-1713441.pdf

Ordina N.V. http://jaarverslag2011.ordina.nl/jaarverslag/

Perfetti v. Melle http://www.perfettivanmelle.nl/mvo

Pon Holdings B.V. http://www.pon.com/werken-bij-pon/sociaal-jaarverslag-2011.4573.lynkx?utm_source=Welkom bij Pon&utm_medium=searchbox&utm_term=sociaal jaarverslag

Post-Kogeko www.post-kogeko.nl

PostNL http://annualreport2011.postnl.com/

PricewaterhouseCoopers http://www.pwc.nl/nl/onze-organisatie/jaarbericht-pwc-nederland-2010-2011.jhtml

ProRail B.V. http://www.prorailjaarverslag.nl/



Q Park N.V. http://www.q-park.com/DesktopModules/ITOmni.EFolder/Folders/FlashFolder/RenderFolder.aspx?IDS=7620|6330|0|200

Rabobank http://www.jaarverslagenrabobank.nl/FbContent.ashx/downloads/Jaarver-slag_2011_Rabobank_Groep_(integraal).pdfhttp://www.jaarverslagenrabobank.nl/FbContent.ashx/downloads/Maatschap-pelijk_Verantwoord_Ondernemen_2011_Rabobank_groep_(integraal).pdf

Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen http://www.ru.nl/over_de_universiteit/feiten_cijfers/vm/jaarverslag_en/

Randstad Holding B.V. http://www.randstadannualreport.com/

Reed Elsevier N.V. http://www.reedelsevier.com/Pages/Home.aspx

Refresco Holding B.V. www.refresco.com

Rijksuniversiteit Groningen http://www.rug.nl/Corporate/universiteit/feitenEnCijfers/jaarverslagen/index

Roto Smeets Group N.V. http://www.rotosmeetsgroup.com/alg/Downloadenofaanvragen.asphttp://www.rotosmeetsgroup.com/alg/SocialReport.asp

Royal BAM Group http://www.bam.nl/sites/bamnl/files/03._2011_jaarrapport.pdfhttp://www.bam.nl/sites/bamnl/files/bam_duurzaam_nl_18_april_.pdf

Royal Dutch Shell plc http://www.shell.com/home/content/environment_society/reporting/s_reports/

Royal Haskoning http://www.royalhaskoning.com/nl-NL/OverOns/Pages/default.aspx

SBM Offshore http://www.sbmoffshore.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/SBM-Report-on-selected-Key-Sustainability-Indicators-2011.pdf

Schiphol Group www.jaarverslagschiphol.nl

Schuttelaar & Partners http://magazine2012.schuttelaar.nl/2012/cover

Siemens Nederland http://www.corporate.siemens.nl/nl/duurzaamheid/index.htm

Simac Techniek N.V. http://www.simac.com/nl/techniek/holding-nieuws/DU4492_Jaarverslag-2011-beschikbaar.aspx

Slibverwerking Noord-Brabant N.V.

http://www.snb.nl/publicaties/jaarverslagen/176

Sligro Food Group N.V. http://www.sligrofoodgroup.nl/INVESTORRELATIONS/FINANCIELEPUBLICATIES/JAARVERSLAGEN/Pages/jaarverslagen.aspx

SNS REAAL N.V. http://www.snsreaaljaarverslag.nl/2011/docs/default/downloads/jv_2011_nl.pdf

Sogeti Nederland B.V. http://www.sogeti.nl/search/results?k=jaarverslag

Sperwer Holding B.V. http://www.plus.nl/over-plus/sperwer/sperwer-jaarrekeningen

Spyker Cars N.V. http://www.spykernv.com/?mid=1&smid=4

Stern Groep N.V. http://www.stern.nl/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=109&Itemid=127

Stichting Exploitatie Nederlandse Staatsloterij

www.nederlandsestaatsloterij.nl

TBI Holdings http://www.tbi.nl/uploads/tbi/files/61669_jvslg_tbi_nl.pdfhttp://www.tbi.nl/uploads/tbi/files/62396_tbi_duurzaamheid_2011_web.pdf

TU Delft http://home.tudelft.nl/over-tu-delft/feiten-en-cijfers/jaarverslagen/

TU Eindhoven http://www.tue.nl/uploads/media/TUE_jaarverslag_2011_01.pdf

Teijin Aramid B.V. 2011.sustainabilityreport.teijinaramid.com



Tele2 Netherlands Holding N.V. http://newsroom.tele2.nl/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Tele2-Jaarverslag-2011.pdf

TenneT Holding B.V. http://www.tennet.org/english/tennet/publications/annual_report/Annual-Report-2011.aspxhttp://www.tennet.org/images/DTP_TenneT_CSR-verslag_2011_ENG_07052012_tcm41-20667.pdf

Terberg Group B.V. geen link

The Greenery B.V. http://www.jaarverslag.thegreenery.com/dl/jaarverslag-thegreenery-2011.pdfhttp://www.thegreenery.com/media/273646/duurzaamheidsverslag-11-nl.pdf

TKH Group N.V. www.tkhgroup.com

Telegraaf Media Groep http://www.tmg.nl/Investors/annual-reports/?language=nl&size=11px

T-Mobile Nederland http://www.annualreport.telekom.com/site0411/en/index.php?tcfs=896235c5d73770c6e4cc4a32cdda4d86http://www.t-mobile.nl/corporate/mvo, http://www.cr-report.telekom.com/site12/about-report

TNO http://www.tno.nl/content.cfm?context=overtno&content=overtnosub&laag1=36&item_id=47

TNT Express http://www.tnt.com/content/dam/corporate/pdfs/Archive/Quarterly%20reports/2012/AR2011/tnt-express-annual-report-2011.pdf

TomTom N.V. http://corporate.tomtom.com/index.cfm

TranspaRAbility B.V. http://www.transparability.nl

TUI Nederland TUI NL - http://www.tui.nl/binaries/tuinl/duurzaam-toerisme/dt-jaarverslag-2011/duurzaam-toerisme-jaarverslag-2011-lr.pdf en TUI Travel PLC (TTP) - http://ara2011.tuitravelplc.com/uploads/annualreport/TUI_ara11.pdf

Twynstra Gudde www.tg.nl

Ultra-Centrifuge Ned. N.V. per e-mail beschikbaar

Unibail Rodamco http://www.unibail-rodamco.com/W/do/centre/annual-reports

Unica Installatiegroep B.V. www.unica.nl

Unilever N.V. http://www.unilever.com/images/Unilever_AR11_tcm13-282960.pdfhttp://www.unilever.com/sustainable-living/and specifically http://www.unilever.com/images/uslpUnilever_Sustainable_Living_Plan_Progress_Report_2011_tcm13-284779.pdf

Unit 4 N.V. http://www.unit4.nl/over-unit4/investor-informatie

Universiteit Leiden http://media.leidenuniv.nl/legacy/jaarboek2011-nl.pdf

Universiteit Twente www.utwente.nl/jaarverslag/

Universiteit Utrecht http://www.uu.nl/SiteCollectionDocuments/corp/Lustrum/UU%20Jaarverslag%202011%20web.pdf

Universiteit van Amsterdam http://www.uva.nl/over_de_uva/publicaties/jaarverslagen.cfm/C5AE2EC9-2F8B-4F03-88FBEE6D23C769D7

Universiteit van Tilburg http://www.tilburguniversity.edu/nl/jaarverslag2011.pdf

UPC Nederland http://overupc.upc.nl/nieuws/publicaties/jaarverslag/

USG People N.V. http://jaarverslag.usgpeople.com/



Van Gansewinkel Groep www.jaarverslagvangansewinkelgroep.nl

Van Lanschot Bankiers http://www.vanlanschot.nl/vanlanschot/over-van-lanschot/mvo/externe-commu-nicatie.html

Van Leeuwen Buizen Groep B.V http://www.vanleeuwenbuizen.eu/nl/profiel/publicaties

Van Oord http://www.vanoord.com/about-us

Van Wijnen Groep N.V. http://www.vanwijnen.nl/over_van_wijnen/financieel/jaarverslag/

Vanderlande www.vanderlande.com/corporateresponsibility

VanDrie Group http://www.vandriegroup.nl/mvo/

Vastned Retail N.V. http://www.vastned.nl/pers___publicaties/jaarverslagen/

VDL Groep http://www.vdlgroep.com/data/uploads/vdl%20groep/VDL%20Groep/VDL_JV%202011%20NL_screen.pdf

Vebego International N.V. http://static.vebego.com/pages/Jaarverslag_2011_NL/http://static.vebego.com/pages/Duurzaamheidsverslag_2010_NL/http://static.vebego.com/pages/OlijfgroenBoekje_2011_NL/index.html#/47/zoomed

VION Holding N.V. www.vionfoodgroup.com

Vitens N.V. http://www.vitensjaarverslag.nl/

Vodafone http://over.vodafone.nl/duurzaam/visie-en-strategie/rapportages

VolkerWessels www.volkerwessels.comhttp://www.volkerwessels.com/nl/corporate-responsibility/duurzaamheidsver-slag-2011

Vos Logistics B.V. http://voslogistics.nl/reports/sustainability/2011/

Vrije Universiteit http://www.vu.nl/nl/over-de-vu/profiel-en-missie/cijfers-en-naslagwerken/naslag-werken/index.asp

Wageningen UR http://documents.plant.wur.nl/wur/Duurzaamheidsverslag_WageningenUR_2011.pdf

Wavin N.V. http://www.wavin.com/com/CSR_Reporting.html

Wereldhave Management Holding B.V.

www.wereldhave.com

Wolters Kluwer N.V. http://reports.wolterskluwer.com/2011/ar/servicepages/welcome.htmlhttp://reports.wolterskluwer.com/2011/sr/annexes/disclosureofmanagementap-proachgri.html

Yara Sluiskil B.V. http://www.yara.nl/doc/39761_2011_Duurzaamheidsverslag.pdf

Zeeman Groep B.V. http://www.jambooty.be/nl/api/embed?doc=1003467&token=70a56fbad8db6b44f6acf0fb29a3a1f3&sidebar=true&bgcolor=&skin=2&language=dutch&slider=false&pageinput=false&pageindex=true&print=true&download=true&search=false&flpage=true&menu=true&langnl=false&langfr=

Zesko Holding B.V. https://www.ziggo.com/nl/investors/financiele-publicaties/


C Companies with zero points awarded

In the benchmark this year a total of 242 compa-nies received a zero score. Some of these compa-nies are known to have a parent company who publishes a financial and/or sustainability report. These companies are marked with an asterisk (*). Sometimes the parent has a comprehensive sustain-ability report available that unfortunately does not meet the requirements of the Participant Protocol. The Transparency Benchmark gives no opinion on this possible parent report, because that reporting is not inadmissible. The Transparency Benchmark Participant Protocol determines which reports are eligible to be included in the assessment. It includes the following four requirements:

1 Public accounting information: The information to be assessed has to have the status of public accountability information. This means that report is available on the website or at least it is costs free accessible. Reports which are only with fee accessible at the Chamber of Commerce, receive a zero score.

2 Periodic accounting information: The informa-tion to be assessed has to have the status of periodic accounting information. This means that the report covers a certain period and this period is mentioned (e.g. on financial year 2011). Only accounting information that has been published before 1 July 2012 is eligible to answer the questions.

3 Accountability information on websites: Possible Website information is eligible to answer the questions, provided in the periodic accounting information explicitly and specifically references

to this info. Explicit and detailed reference means: a specific web link which leads directly to the exact information on the website. An arbitrary webpage about CSR, which is not mentioned at all within the periodic accounting information, is not eligible for responding the questions. If the accounting information is entirety digitally avail-able (web-based reporting) then it should satisfy point 2 “periodic accounting information”, which clearly delineates it from other information on the website. Information on web pages which cannot be related to the periodic accounting information concerned is invalid. The link to the web-based report should be completed during the self-assessment, or to be communicated with the first review. No information/web links can be added in a later stage (e.g. fair hearing and objections). Speeches, reports of meetings with stakeholders, press releases, brochures, internal magazines or special reports on for example charities are as a rule not eligible for meeting the criteria. These items usually lack the status of (periodic) accounting information.

4 Non-Dutch accounting information: Non-Dutch accounting information (e.g. an annual report of a foreign parent) is eligible for answering the questions, provided that:

a this information makes it is possible to determine which activities are related to The Netherlands, in terms of turnover and number of employees;

b the international report, sustainability report/integrated report, offers a clear picture of the


extent to which published data and informa-tion (also) involve Dutch activities related to the profile, strategy and policy, management approach, results and reporting. The rela-tionship and possible differences in activity between corporate and The Netherlands should be described and explained;

c International report which are not written in or translated into Dutch, should be written or translated into French, German or English (following BW 2:403, paragraph 1, sub d);

d the Dutch accounting information report should include specific reference to the inter-national (aggregate/corporate) annual report.

Company name

A. Hakpark B.V.

ABB B.V.*

Accenture B.V.*

Adecco Nederland Holding B.V.*

Advanced Travel Partners Nederland B.V.

Albron Nederland B.V.

Alliance Boots B.V.*

Amega Holding B.V.

American Express Services Europe Limited*

Amtrada Holding B.V.

Ardagh Group Netherlands B.V.*

Asics Europe B.V.*

AstraZeneca B.V.*

Astrum Automotive B.V.

Atos Origin Nederland B.V.*

AutoBinck Beheer N.V.

A-Ware Food Group B.V. (voorheen Anker Food Group)

Bakkersland Groep B.V.

Ball Pack. Europe Holding B.V.*

BASF Nederland B.V.*

BCD Holdings N.V.*

Company name

Beleggingsmij. Braverassa B.V.

Bluewater Energy Services B.V.

BMW Nederland B.V.*

Bosal Nederland B.V.

Boston Scientific Int. B.V.*

BP Nederland Holdings B.V.*

British American Tobacco International (Holdings) B.V.*

BT Nederland N.V.*

Burg Industries B.V.*

C. den Braven Beheer B.V.

Caldic B.V.

Canon Europa N.V.

Cargill B.V.*

Cementbouw B.V.*

Center Parcs Europe N.V.*

CEVA Logistics Holdings B.V.*

CFS Holdings B.V.*

Charden International B.V.

Chartis Europe S.A.*

Citadel Enterprises B.V.

Coöp. Inkoopver. Superunie BA


Company name

Coöp. Kon. Fruitmast. Grp. UA

Coöper. Kon. Cebeco Groep UA

Copaco Nederland B.V.

Cornelder Holding B.V.

Da Holding B.V.

Damen Shipyards Group N.V.

Danone Baby & Med. Nutr. B.V.*

De Groot Verschuur Hold. B.V.*

De Hoop Terneuzen B.V.

de Persgroep Nederland B.V.

De Rijke Continental B.V.

De Stiho Groep B.V.

De Vierschaar B.V.

Deka Exploit.maatsch. B.V.*

Delek Nederland B.V.

Denkavit Internationaal B.V.

Denso Int. Europe B.V.*

Dexcom Holdings N.V.

Dirk van den Broek Supermarkten B.V.

DOC Kaas

Draka Holding N.V.*

Dyckerhoff Basal Nederl. B.V.*

E.ON Benelux N.V.*

Econosto N.V.*

Ecurion

Electrolux Holding B.V.*

Elopak B.V.*

Endemol Group N.V.

Envema B.V.

Equens SE

Ericsson Holding Int. B.V.*

Esso Benelux B.V.*

Eur. Container Terminals B.V.*

Euro-Scrap Alliance B.V.

Eurospecialities Foods B.V.

Company name

Ewals Holdings B.V.

Fabory Nederland B.V.

Falcon Holding B.V.

Farm Frites Beheer B.V.

Flowserve*

Foot Locker Europe B.V.*

Free Record Shop Holding B.V.

FUJIFILM Europe B.V.*

GDF SUEZ Global Gas Hold. B.V.*

General Motors Nederland B.V.*

Generali Verz.groep N.V.

Genzyme Europe B.V.*

GlaxoSmithKline*

Glencore Grain Rotterdam B.V.*

G-Star Raw C.V. (voorheen Jill Holding B.V.)

Gulf Holding B.V.

GVB Amsterdam

Hagemeyer N.V.

Heiploeg Group

Hertel Holding B.V.*

Hitachi Machinery N.V.*

Homel Holding B.V.*

Honeywell Netherl. Hold. B.V.*

Hoogvliet B.V.

Hoogwegt Groep B.V.

Hoya Holdings (Asia) B.V.(voorheen Hoya Holdings N.V.)

Hyster

IBM Nederland BV*

IKEA Nederland B.V.*

Imation Europe B.V.*

IMCD Holding B.V.

Inalfa Roof Systems Hold. N.V.

INEOS NOVA Eur. Holding B.V.

Ingram Micro*

Int. Flavors & Fragrances B.V.*


Company name

Interface Europe B.V.*

Interfood Holding

Intergamma B.V.

InterGen N.V.*

ISS Holding Nederland B.V.*

Janssen-cilag

Jetix Europe N.V. (Disney XD)*

Jurriens Exploitatiemij. B.V.

Kamstra Export BV

Kawasaki Motors Europe N.V.*

Keppel Verolme B.V.

Koninklijke Distill. Dirkzwager B.V.*

Koninklijke Smilde B.V.

Koninklijke Wagenborg

Koninklijke Zeelandia Groep B.V.

Koop Holding

Kramp Groep B.V.

Kruidenier Groep B.V.

Kuehne + Nagel N.V.*

Kuwait Petroleum B.V.

Kyocera Mita Europe B.V.*

Leaf International B.V.*

LEDlicht Nederland B.V

Loders Croklaan Group B.V.*

Logica Nederland B.V.

Lohomij B.V.

Loyens & Loeff N.V.

Manpower Nederland B.V.*

Markeur

Mars Nederland B.V.*

Maxxium Worldwide B.V.*

MCB International B.V.

Meatpoint B.V.

Medtronic B.V.*

Mexx Europe Holding B.V.

Company name

MHI Equipment Europe B.V.*

Michelin Nederland N.V.*

Mijwo Beheer B.V.

Miss Etam B.V.

Mitsubishi Caterp. Forkl. B.V.*

Mitsubishi Electric Eur. B.V.*

Mitsubishi Motors Europe B.V.*

Momentive Specialty Chemicals BV

Nedcar

Nedfast Holding B.V.

Nedri Spanstaal B.V.

Nefit B.V.*

Nestlé Nederland B.V.*

New Skies Investm. Hold. B.V.*

Nike Eur. Operat. Neth. B.V.*

Norfolk Holdings B.V.*

Norit International B.V.

NXP Semiconductors Neth. B.V.*

OAD Groep

ODS B.V.

Omron Europe B.V.*

Optiver Holding B.V.

Oracle Nederland B.V.*

Otra N.V.

Oxbow Coal B.V.

Oxxio B.V.*

P.L. v. Merksteijn Hold. B.V.

Peugeot Nederland*

PGA Nederland N.V.*

Philip Morris Int. Hold. B.V.*

Poiesz Beheer B.V.

Postkantoren B.V.*

Pouw Beheer B.V.

PPG Coatings Nederland B.V.*

ProLogis Eur. Develop. B.V.*


Company name

R.E.T. Advies en Handel B.V.

Raben Group B.V.

Remeha Group B.V.*

RFS Holland Holding B.V.

Ricoh Nederland B.V.

Rockwell Automation B.V.*

Rockwool Benelux Holding

Rouppe Van der Voort B.V.

RTL Nederland B.V.*

Ruvabo B.V.

SABIC Holding Europe B.V.*

Samsung Electronics Benelux BV*

Sanoma Media B.V.*

Sara Lee International B.V.*

SBS Broadcasting B.V.

Scheuten Glass Holding B.V.

Seatrade Holding B.V.

Sensata Technol. Holding N.V.*

SHV Holdings N.V.

SIHI Group B.V. (voorheen Sterling Fluid)

Sime Darby Unimills B.V.*

SITA Netherlands

Sodexo Nederland B.V.

SPAR Holding B.V.*

Stage Entertainment B.V.

Stahl Group B.V.

Stork

Storteboom Group B.V.

Sulzer Netherlands Holding

Sundio Group B.V.

Swets & Zeitlinger Hold. N.V.

Synbra Holding B.V.

Tata Steel

Thales Nederland*

The Nielsen Company B.V.*

Company name

Theobroma B.V.

Thermphos International B.V.

Thomas Cook Nederland B.V.

Thyssenkrupp Mat. Nederl. B.V.*

Toshiba Medical Systems Europe B.V.*

Total Nederland NV*

Toza B.V.

TP Haluco Holding B.V.*

Trebbe Groep B.V.

Treofan Film Int. B.V.

TRIADE Holding B.V.*

Universiteit Maastricht

Utility Support Group B.V.*

Van den Ban Autobanden B.V.

Van Mossel

Vitol Holding B.V.

Voestalpine Polynorm B.V.*

Vreugdenhil Groep B.V.

Vroegop Ruhe & Co. B.V.

Vroon Group B.V.

Wärtsilä Nederland*

Watts Industries Europe B.V.*

Wim Bosman Groep B.V.*

Wintershall Nederland B.V.*

Yokogawa Europe B.V.*


D Transparency Benchmark criteria of 2012

Content-oriented criteria (100 points)The section “Content-oriented criteria” relates to contents of the information provided. Based on these criteria, the transparency of the reporting is examined on aspects such as profile, strategy, governance, an organization’s corporate responsibility (CR) results and corporate responsibility reporting policy.

Profile (15 points)This category discusses whether reporting provides insight on topics such as staff size, main products and services, core processes of the organization and the influence on people, environment and society, ownership - and the position within the value chain.

■ Question 1Does the accounting information include a description of the nature and size of the organiza-tion, including a explanation of possible subsidi-aries and associates of the organization?

◽ No (-1 point)

◽ Yes, the accounting information includes the descrip-

tion of all five points. (0 points)

◽Mark the appropriate points and indicate where these items are disclosed in the accounting information.

◽ Legal structure of the organization, including possible

group structure.

◽ Countries in which the organization operates.

◽ Company’s activities by country or region, by division

or by production process.

◽ Categories of customers and suppliers.

◽ Products and/or services the organization provides,

including in case relevant various company brands.

■ Question 2.1Does the accountability information include a description of the core processes and activities of the organization?

◽ No (0 points)

◽ Yes (including an explanation of resources when appli-

cable) (2 points)

■ Question 2.2Does the accounting information include a description of the impact of business performance on people, environment and society?Remarks: impact refers to the explanation of major

impacts (effects on e.g. stakeholders) of core pr ocesses

and activities of the organization relating to sustain-

able development (e.g. CO2 emissions, occupational

accidents, waste disposal, etc).

◽ No (0 points)

◽ Yes (2 points)


■ Question 2.3Does the description of the impact of business performance on people, environment and society deal with at least two aspects relevant to the sector in which it operates?Note: You should use the comment box below the ques-

tion to describe which sector-specific issues are disclosed

in the accounting information.

◽ No (0 points)

◽ Yes (+3 points)

◽ ■ Question 3

Does the accounting information contain a summary of the organizational profile with quan-titative information about the size of the organiza-tion’s activities?Remarks: a summary is defined as a concise, targeted

overview which offers insight in the topic. Referring to

various phrases as fractions of text in the accounting

information is inadequate.

◽ No (0 points)

◽ Yes, the accounting information includes a summary

of quantitative information on at least four of the

following points. (2 points)

◽Mark the appropriate points and indicate where in the accounting information these points are disclosed.

◽ Number of employees

◽ Quantity of products and/or services delivered

◽ Sales or revenue data

◽ Scope of the organization’s assets

◽ Operational cost development

■ Question 4.1Does the accounting information include an over-view of the (international) supply chain in which the organization operates?Explanation: this can include information on both

‘Upstream’ (suppliers) as well as “Downstream”

(customers) activities along the supply chain.

◽ No (0 points)

◽ Yes, the accounting information includes a descrip-

tion of the supply chain based on at least three of the

following points. (2 points).

Mark the appropriate points and indicate where in the accounting information these points are disclosed.

◽ Sources of raw materials and (semi-) finished prod-

ucts, specified by country or region.

◽ Main categories of suppliers.

◽ Main markets and customer groups.

◽ Main subcontractors.

◽ The (international) trade-, financing- and property

relations of the organization.

■ Question 4.2Which of the following points regarding the supply chain are described in the accounting information?

◽ The impact of the supply chain on people, environ-

ment and society. (+2 points)

◽ To which extent social aspects relevant in the supply

chain in which the organization operates can be influ-

enced by the organization (+1 point)

The degree of (international) collaboration within the supply chain in which the organization oper-ates. (+1 point)None of the points above. (0 points)


Strategy and Policy (20 points)This category examines the vision of the organiza-tion with respect to corporate responsibility and how support is provided by highest management. This includes supply chain responsibility for which the organization amongst others should include examples of interventions/policy.

■ Question 5.1Does the accounting information contain an expla-nation of the overall strategy of the organization?

◽ No (0 points)

◽ Yes (1 point)

■ Question 5.2Does the description of the strategy offer in-depth information on strategic priorities, including a timeline for these priorities for instance for the next 3 to 5 years?

◽ No (0 points)

◽ Yes (+1 point)

■ Question 6.1Does the accounting information include an expla-nation of the organization’s vision and strategy regarding CR?

◽ No (0 points)

◽ Yes (2 points)

■ Question 6.2Does the explanation of the CR vision and strategy identify which specific codes of conduct are followed, and/or to which (international) conven-tions and guidelines the organization conforms?Please note: This question only refers to external codes

of conduct.

◽ No (0 points)

◽ Yes (+2 points)

■ Question 6.3Are the strategic priorities appointed within the explanation of the CR vision and strategy?

◽ No (0 points)

◽ Yes (+3 points)

■ Question 6.4Does the accounting information include a state-ment of the Executive Board or Board of Directors (possibly as a foreword or separate chapter) in which at least four of the following elements are described explicitly?Explanation: Only a separate chapter/section which

explicitly shows the content is provided by the execu-

tive board or board of directors. The entire report (if

it is signed by the Board) is not eligible to answer this

question.


◽ Relevance of CR for the company.

◽ Most relevant developments during the last reporting

period.

◽ Most relevant measures and objectives of the organi-

zation regarding corporate social responsibility for

instance for the next 3 to 5 years.

◽ Outlook of key objectives and priorities regarding

financial-economic, environmental and social results

of the organization.

◽ Collaboration with stakeholders regarding corporate

responsibility.

◽ No (0 points)

◽ Yes (+3 points)


■ Question 7.1Does the accounting information include an expla-nation of risks and/or opportunities of CR in the development of business strategy?

◽ No (0 points)

◽ Yes (2 points)

■ Question 7.2Does the accounting information specifically address how the organization intends to handle risks and/or opportunities of CR?

◽ No (0 points)

◽ Yes (+1 point)

■ Question 8.1Does the accounting information includes an explanation of the organization’s policy with respect to responsibility in the supply chain?

◽ No (0 points)

◽ Yes, a general explanation including a policy state-

ment with respect to suppliers (and/or customers and

clients). (1 point)

◽ Yes, a specific explanation including environmental

and social challenges related to responsible supply

chain management. (2 points)

■ Question 8.2Which of the following areas are included in the explanation of the policy with respect to respon-sible supply chain management?


◽ Human rights and the related principles and goals the

organization employs. (+1 point)

◽ Bribery and corruption and related principles and goals

the organization employs. (+1 point)

◽ Scope of policy with respect to suppliers by clearly

stating to what extent requirements are laid upon

indirect suppliers. (+1 point)

◽ The explanation does not address the above

mentioned issues. (0 points)


Governance structure and management approach (25 points)This category examines whether reporting provides an insight into the governance structure and management system of CR. Also part of this section is the distribution and nature of tasks and responsibilities including the structure of rewarding systems in relation to CR performance.

■ Question 9Does the accounting information contain a description of the Board of Directors (and of the Supervisory Board if applicable), including an explanation on their background and governing tasks?

◽ No (-1 point)

◽ Yes, names of board members (and supervisory board

if applicable) are mentioned without any further

details. (-1 point)

◽ Yes, names of board members (and supervisory board

if applicable) are mentioned including an explanation

of all four of the following points. (0 points)


◽ Duties and responsibilities of directors

◽ Governance deadlines

◽ Background of directors

◽ Other governance duties of directors

■ Question 10.1Does the accounting information contain a description of the organizational structure on the level of decentralized units (divisions, business units or countries)?

◽ No (-1 point)

◽ Yes (0 points)

■ Question 10.2Does the accounting information contain a schematic representation of the organizational structure (organizational chart)?

◽ No (0 points)

◽ Yes (+1 point)

■ Question 11.1Does the accounting information include an description of the internal tasks and responsibili-ties with respect to CR?

◽ No (0 points)

◽ Yes (1 point)

■ Question 11.2Which of the following paragraphs with respect to CR management structure are included?

◽ The responsibility and commitment of highest

management with respect to strategy and results of

the organization on CR. (+1 point)

◽ The responsibility and commitment of supervisors

(e.g. the Supervisory Board or a special committee)

with respect to strategy and results of the organization

on CR. (+1 point)

◽ The description does not addressed above points. (0

points)

■ Question 12.1Does the accounting information provide insight of how CR results influence the remuneration of the board of management?

◽ No (0 points)

◽ Yes (2 points)


■ Question 12.2Does the explanation clarify in quantitative terms which proportion of total remuneration depends on CR results?

◽ No (0 points)

◽ Yes (+2 point)

■ Question 13.1Does the accounting information include an expla-nation of how the dialogue with stakeholders is structurally organized?

◽ No (0 points)

◽ Yes (2 points)

■ Question 13.2Does the accounting information also include comments of stakeholders?

◽ No (0 points)

◽ Yes (+2 points)

■ Question 14.1Does the accounting information include a description of the management system with regard to CR?

◽ No (0 points)

◽ Yes (1 point)

■ Question 14.2Which of the following aspects are included in the description of the management system with respect to CR?

Mark the appropriate points and indicate where in the accounting information these points are disclosed (in case four aspects or more are appli-cable, points are awarded). (+2 points)

◽ Process of strategy development

◽ Information about risk management

◽ Information on the analysis of economic, environ-

mental, and social aspects of operations

◽ Compliance with laws and regulations

◽ Establishment of a management system

◽ Implementation of (internal) audits and other moni-

toring activities (including for example certification of

the management systems)

◽ Review and reward systems

◽ Feedback and evaluation systems (including policy

evaluations)

◽ None of the above aspects (0 points)

■ Question 14.3Does the accounting information explicitly describe how external stakeholders can communi-cate their complaints and which methods exist in order to handle complaints?

◽ No (0 points)

◽ Yes (+2 points)

■ Question 15.1Does the accounting information include a description of the activities and management system of the organization with respect to respon-sible supply chain management?

◽ No (0 points)

◽ Yes, including an explanation on embedding CR issues

within the procurement process and/or client accept-

ance. (1 point)


■ Question 15.2Which of the following aspects are included within the description on the activities of the organiza-tion with respect to responsible supply chain management?

Mark the appropriate points and indicate where in the accounting information these points are disclosed (in case three aspects or more are appli-cable, points are awarded). (+3 points)

◽ Information on the process to identify individual

suppliers with a high risk profile

◽ Information on the analysis of economic, environ-

mental and social aspects within the supply chain

◽ Monitoring and compliance of internal and external

regulations

◽ Stimulating the development of standards for

management systems within the supply chain

◽ Conducting audits and other monitoring activities

within the supply chain

◽ Dealing with complaints


■ Question 15.3Does the accounting information include an explicit description of how the organization deals with suppliers who do not comply with internal or external codes, and in which circumstances would the organization end its relationship with the supplier?

◽ No (0 points)

◽ Yes (+2 points)

■ Question 15.4Does the accounting information include an explanation of how the organization participates in industry collaborations which are focused on responsible supply chain management?

◽ No (0 points)

◽ Yes (+1 point)

■ Question 15.5Does the accounting information include an expla-nation of how the organization is involved in the development of external control on responsible supply chain management (e.g. participation in initiatives focused on labeling)?

◽ No (0 points)

◽ Yes (+1 point)


Results (30 points)This category examines to what extent reporting is transparent about economic, environmental and social results of the operations.

■ Question 16.1Does the accounting information include an expla-nation on the accomplished CR results?

◽ No (0 points)

◽ Yes (1 point)

■ Question 16.2How many CR results relevant for the organization and/or sector in which the organization operates are disclosed in the accounting information?

◽ Less than two CR results (0 points)

◽ At least two CR results (+2 points)

◽ At least four CR results (+4 points)

◽ At least four CR results. In addition, these results are

explained in context of previously stated objec-

tives and resulting measurements of management.

(+5 points)

■ Question 17.1Does the accounting information provide an insight into the (the financial and non-financial) economic results of the organization?

◽ No (0 points)

◽ Yes (1 point)

■ Question 17.2Does the accounting information provide insight in (financial and non-financial) economic aspects of the organization?


(In case three aspects or more are applicable, points are awarded) (+1 point).

◽ Innovation (including partnerships)

◽ Housing policy (including impact on employment)

◽ Effects on the labor market (local sourcing)

◽ Prevention of bribery and corruption

◽ Fair competition and pricing

◽ Dissemination of knowledge through research and

development

◽ Socio-economic aspects of investment, products and

services

◽ Effects of investments and divestments including

acquisitions and close down of business units



■ Question 17.3Does the accounting information include quantita-tive indicators with respect to the following non- financial economic aspects of business?

Mark the appropriate points and indicate where in the accounting information these points are disclosed. (In case three aspects or more are appli-cable, points are awarded). (+2 points)

◽ Innovation (including partnerships)

◽ Housing policy (including impact on employment)

◽ Effects on the labor market (local sourcing)

◽ Prevention of bribery and corruption

◽ Fair competition and pricing

◽ Dissemination of knowledge through research and

development

◽ Socio-economic aspects of investment, products and

services

◽ Effects of investments and divestments including

acquisitions and close down of business units


■ Question 18Does the accounting information include manage-rial economic objectives for the future?

◽ No (0 points)

◽ Yes, at least one financial and one non-financial quan-

titative performance objectives, including a concrete

timeframe. (1 point)

■ Question 19Does the accounting information include quantita-tive performance indicators with respect to the environmental aspects of the business?

◽ No (0 points)

◽ Yes, at least two quantitative environmental indicators

of at least one of the below mentioned categories. (2

points)

◽ Yes, at least four quantitative environmental indica-

tors of at least two of the below mentioned categories.

(3 points)

◽ Yes, at least six quantitative environmental indicators

of at least three of the below mentioned categories.

(4 points)

Mark the appropriate categories and indicate where in the accounting information these items are disclosed:

◽ Use of energy, material and water

◽ Discharges, including accidents and spillages

◽ Emissions, in particular with regard to greenhouse

gases and ozone depleting gases

◽ Waste and information on reuse and recycling

■ Question 20Does the accounting information include an explanation of the environmental policy of the organization?

◽ No (0 points)

◽ Yes (2 points)

■ Question 21Does the accounting information offer an expla-nation on the environmental objectives of the organization?

◽ No (0 points)

◽ Yes, at least two environmental objectives. (1 point)

◽ Yes, at least two quantitative environmental objec-

tives, including a specific timetable. (2 points)


■ Question 22Does the accounting information include quan-titative performance indicators related to social aspects of the business?

◽ No (0 points)

◽ Yes, at least two quantitative social indicators of

at least one of the below mentioned categories. (2

points)

◽ Yes, at least four quantitative social indicators of

at least two of the below mentioned categories. (3

points)

◽ Yes, at least six quantitative social indicators of at least

three of the below mentioned below. (4 points)


◽ Benefits, including employment, social security, remu-

neration and emoluments

◽ Working conditions, including aspects such as health

and safety, injuries and occupational diseases, educa-

tion and training, diversity and career development

◽ Safeguarding of human rights, fundamental principles

and rights at the work place, respect for local commu-

nities and indigenous peoples

◽ Product responsibility, including aspects such as safety,

fair trade, animal welfare, food safety and genetic

modification

■ Question 23Does the accounting information include an expla-nation of the social policies of the organization?

◽ No (0 points)

◽ Yes (2 points)

■ Question 24Does the accounting information offer insight in the social objectives of the organization?

◽ No (0 points)

◽ Yes, at least two social objectives. (1 point)

◽ Yes, at least two quantitative social objectives,

including a specific timetable. (2 points)

■ Question 25Does the accounting information offer an insight of the organization’s activities regarding commu-nity involvement?

◽ No (0 points)

◽ Yes, via concrete examples/case studies. (1 point)

◽ Yes, via quantitative support. (2 points)

■ Question 26Which of the below aspects relating to the policy of social involvement are disclosed in the accounting information?

Mark the appropriate categories and indicate where in the accounting information these items are disclosed (in case two aspects or more are applicable, points are awarded). (1 point)

◽ Volunteer work

◽ Pro bono services or the provision of free products

◽ Specific community projects focusing on education,

culture, technology, wealth, health etc. which the

organization is committed to for a longer period

◽ Sponsoring



Corporate responsible reporting policy (10 points)This category examines whether the reporting provides insights in the reporting policy, reporting process, scope and focus with respect to reporting itself.

■ Question 27Which of the following aspects regarding the underlying reporting policy and process of CR reporting are explained in the accounting information?


(In case three aspects or more are applicable, points are awarded). (3-5 aspects = 2 points; 6-9 aspects = 3 points)

◽ Target audience of the report

◽ Accounting standards or guidelines (e.g. GRI and RJ

400)

◽ Selection of key performance indicators

◽ Used definitions

◽ Methods of measuring, estimating and calculating

◽ Inherent limitations due to the methods of measuring,

estimating and calculating

◽ Impact of changes in definitions and measurement

methods

◽ The reporting process, including method of consoli-

dating data

◽ Underlying assumptions of the information


■ Question 28.1Does the explanation of the reporting policy include a description of the reporting scope indi-cating which parts of the organization are included in the report?Explanation: A reference to the accounting policy is

inadequate. In addition, a reference to a footnote at a

specific section (e.g. a figure or indicator) to clarify the

scope is insufficient.

◽ No (0 points)

◽ Yes (2 points)

■ Question 28.2Does the description of the reporting scope include specific information on the choices made by the organization in its reporting policy with respect to its subsidiaries, investments, mergers, acquisitions, sales of business units, outsourcing, etcetera?

◽ No (0 points)

◽ Yes (+1 point)

■ Question 29.1Does the explanation of the accounting policy clearly state the period of the accounting information?Explanation: A reference to the accounting policy is

inadequate. In addition, a reference to a footnote at a

specific section (e.g. a figure or indicator) to clarify the

scope is insufficient.

◽ No (-1 point)

◽ Yes (0 points)

■ Question 29.2Does the explanation of the reporting policy clearly state which choices are made regarding supply chain information?

◽ No (0 points)

◽ Yes (2 points)


■ Question 29.3Does the explanation explicitly clarify which choices the organization made in its reporting policy with respect to reporting on subcontractors, suppliers and/or other indirect effects?

◽ No (0 points)

◽ Yes (+1 point)

■ Question 30Does the explanation of the reporting policy include information about whether or not to verify the CR report or information by an independent and competent party?Note: This question relates to the explanation of the

reporting policy of the organization itself, a reference to

the declaration of an independent expert on the reli-

ability of the presented information is therefore not an

eligible answer to this question.

◽ No (0 points)

◽ Yes, the notes on the reporting policy includes infor-

mation about at least one of the items below. (1 point)


◽ Reasons for whether or not to opt for independent

verification.

◽ The choice of an independent and competent party.

◽ The scope and depth of the independent verification

process.

Quality-oriented criteria (maximum 100 points)This section “quality-oriented criteria”, assessed reporting based on relevance, clarity, stakeholder involvement and contextual coherence.

Relevance (20 points)The category “Relevance” addresses the ques-tion of whether the reporting on CR-issues and dilemmas, are actually considered as being relevant by the stakeholders. In other words does the report meets expectations of the users?

■ Question 31How many organization- and/or sector-specific aspects related to CR are explained in the accounting information?Note: You should describe, in the comment box

below the question, which sector-specific aspects are

mentioned in the accounting information.

◽ Less than three aspects (0 points)

◽ At least three aspects (4 points)

◽ At least four aspects (5 points)

◽ At least six aspects (6 points)

■ Question 32.1To what extent is the corporate responsibility information communicated in time?

◽ The corporate responsibility information is publicly

available no earlier than six months after end of the

reporting period. (-2 points)


available between three and six months after the end

of the reporting period. (0 points)


available no later than three months after the end of

the reporting period. (+2 points)


■ Question 32.2The CR information is simultaneously (or inte-grated) published with the financial reporting.Explanation: A report is integrated when the annual

report includes corporate responsibility information in

addition to financial information (instead of publicizing

a separate CR report). The inclusion of just a single

paragraph or section in which general remarks are made

regarding the vision of the organization with respect

to CR does not meet the qualification of “integrated

reporting’.

◽ No (0 points)

◽ Yes (+2 points)

■ Question 33Does the corporate responsibility information includes data from previous reporting periods to enable users to compare the organization’s posi-tion, progress and performance over time?

◽ No (0 points)

◽ Yes, comparative figures of least four indicators from

one or more reporting periods. (3 points)

■ Question 34.1Does the accounting information include prac-tical examples (cases) of corporate responsibility dilemmas faced by the organization, which outline the vision of the organization with respect to these dilemmas?Explanation: corporate responsibility dilemma’s may

include adverse effects of operations on humans or the

environment (externalities), which the organization seeks

to combat.

◽ No (0 points)

◽ Yes (3 points)

■ Question 34.2Do the practical examples explain contradictory stakeholder interests which play a role in these corporate responsibility dilemmas?

◽ No (0 points)

◽ Yes (+2 points)

■ Question 34.3Do the practical examples illustrate stakeholder involvement in determining how to deal with the corporate responsibility dilemmas?

◽ No (0 points)

◽ Yes (+2 points)


Clarity (20 points)This category examines the comprehensiveness, transparency and accessibility of the (corporate responsible) report. The information in the report should be understandable for its users in order to avoid erroneous interpretation. This means the format should be aligned with the knowledge and experience of users. A good design, system-atic classification of subjects, clear language use and an explaining unfamiliar terms increase comprehension.

■ Question 35Does the accounting information include refer-ences to clarify relationships between various reports or elements of the external reporting?Note: if there is an integrated report, this question

should be answered with “Yes”. A report is integrated

when the annual report includes corporate responsibility

information in addition to financial information (instead

of publicizing a separate CR report). The inclusion of just

a single paragraph or section in which general remarks

are made regarding the vision of the organization with

respect to CR does not meet the qualification of “inte-

grated reporting’.

◽ No (0 points)

◽ Yes (4 points)

■ Question 36.1Does the accounting information include a summary of the main results on economic, envi-ronmental and social aspects achieved during the reporting period?Remarks: a summary is defined as a concise, targeted

overview which offers a glance of the topic. Referring

to various phrases as fractions of text in the report are

inadequate.

◽ No (0 points)

◽ Yes (4 points)

■ Question 36.2Does the summary include an overview with key figures from both economic, environmental and social aspects of business operations?

◽ No (0 points)

◽ Yes (+2 points)

■ Question 37.1Does the report include a glossary and/or an index (e.g. GRI index) with respect to corporate responsi-bility information?

◽ No (0 points)

Multiple answers are possible:

◽ Yes, a glossary (+1 point)

◽ Yes, an index (e.g. GRI) (+1 point)

■ Question 37.2Does the glossary include definitions of the most relevant corporate responsibility indicators?

◽ No (0 points)

◽ Yes (+2 points)

■ Question 37.3Does the index include page or chapter references per relevant corporate responsibility theme or indicator?

◽ No (0 points)

◽ Yes (+2 points)

■ Question 38How many mouse clicks is the corporate responsi-bility information away from the home page of the organization?

◽ The social responsibility information is not accessible

online. (0 points)

◽ More than three mouse clicks (0 points)

◽ Less than three mouse clicks (4 points)


Reliability (20 points)This category covers “Reliability.” Reporting is reliable when it is accurate, complete and offers a balanced picture of the actual situation. This category examines the way the report and content are verified by an independent external party. Verifications can be conducted by subject matter experts such as accountants, civil society organiza-tions, industry experts and stakeholder panels.

■ Question 39Does the report include an opinion of experts or stakeholders related the content of the policy and/or performance of the organization in terms of people, environment and society?Please note: an assurance report is not eligible to answer

this question (please refer to question 40).

◽ No (0 points)

◽ Yes (4 points)

■ Question 40.1Does the report include a declaration of an inde-pendent, competent party (e.g. an accountant) who has verified the corporate responsibility information?Please note: a statement of an auditor relating only to

the financial information is inadequate.

◽ No (0 points)

◽ Yes (4 points)

■ Question 40.2Does the statement of the independent, compe-tent party offer an insight into all of the following aspects?

◽ Topic of the independent verification

◽ Scope of the verification process

◽ Objective of the independent verification

◽ Used assessment criteria (e.g. GRI, RJ400)

◽ Applied standard(s) (e.g. COS3410N, AA1000AS,

ISAE3000)

◽ Nature of work carried out

◽ Main conclusions

◽ No (0 points)

◽ Yes (+2 points)

■ Question 40.3Does the statement apply to the entire corporate responsibility report?Please note that for integrated report, the statement

should cover all corporate responsibility information

within the annual report. In case the declaration partially

applies to the corporate responsibility information or

only to some KPIs, the answer is ‘no’.

◽ No (0 points)

◽ Yes (+3 points)


■ Question 41What kind of statement is issued by the inde-pendent, competent party for the corporate responsibility information?

◽ No statement is included in the corporate responsi-

bility report or it is not clear what level of assurance is

provided by the statement. (0 points)

◽ The statement included in the corporate responsi-

bility report provides limited assurance on part of the

corporate responsibility information. (1 point)

◽ The statement included in the corporate responsibility

report provides limited assurance on all corporate

responsibility information. (2 points)

◽ The statement provides limited assurance on part of

the corporate responsibility information and reason-

able assurance on the other part of the corporate

responsibility information. (4 points)

◽ The statement provides reasonable assurance on the

entire report (all corporate responsibility information).

(7 points)

Stakeholder engagement (20 points)The category “Stakeholder engagement” exam-ines the policy of the organization with respect to stakeholder engagement and how it is explained in the report. Questions relate amongst others to how stakeholders are identified, how dialogue is held and what kind of influence the dialogue had.

■ Question 42Does the accounting information specify which parties are considered as stakeholders?

◽ No (0 points)

◽ Yes, at least three organizations or groups are explic-

itly mentioned as stakeholder. (1 point)

■ Question 43Does the accounting information include an expla-nation of how the organization ensures stake-holders’ engagement?

◽ No (0 points)


◽ Yes, the accounting information includes an explana-

tion of how stakeholders are identified and selected.

(+2 points)


tion of how a dialogue is conducted with stakeholders.

(+2 points)


tion of the outcome of the dialogue with stakeholders.

(+2 points)


tion of how the organization uses the results of the

stakeholder dialogue and what effect it had on policies

and activities of the organization.(+2 points)


■ Question 44.1Does the accounting information include an expla-nation of how the determination of the content and establishment of the corporate responsibility report deals with information requirements of stakeholders?

◽ No (0 points)

◽ Yes, a general explanation. (3 points)

◽ Yes, a specific explanation in which is mentioned

which issues are relevant for which stakeholders,

including how this influences the content of the report.

(4 points)

■ Question 44.2Does the report provide an explanation of how choices in the design of the corporate responsi-bility report reflect information needs of stake-holders with respect to at least two of below points?


◽ Scope of the (corporate responsibility) report

◽ Focus of the (corporate responsibility) report

◽ Selection of material issues

◽ Suitability of indicators and targets

◽ Application of independent verification

◽ No (0 points)

◽ Yes (+2 points)

■ Question 45Does the accounting information reflect stake-holders engagement for specific corporate respon-sibility aspects of the organization?

◽ No (0 points)


◽ Yes, the accounting information refers to a dialogue

with stakeholders on corporate responsibility issues

relevant to the organization. (+1 point)

◽ Yes, the accounting information refers to a dialogue

with stakeholders on the role of the organization

within the supply chain. (+1 point)

Yes, the accounting information refers to a dialogue with stakeholders on at least three organization specific or industry specific issues. (+1 point)

■ Question 46Does the organization carry out a vision in the corporate responsibility report on creating awareness amongst stakeholders with respect to relevant corporate responsibility issues?

◽ No (0 points)

◽ Yes (1 point)

■ Question 47.1Does the report contain contact information?

◽ No (-1 point)

◽ Yes (0 points)

Question 47.2Is the reader invited to react and are concrete possibilities offered to place a response?

◽ No (0 points)

◽ Yes (+1 point)


■ Question 47.2Is the reader invited to react and are concrete possibilities offered to place a response?

No (0 points)Yes (+1 point)

Framework (20 points)The category “framework” examines to what extent results of the organization with respect to corporate responsibility are placed in a broader perspective. Questions relate among others to business strategic context, trends and develop-ments in the sector, and geographical context.

■ Question 48Does the accounting information include a descrip-tion of the organization’s policy regarding CR in a broader context of sustainable development?

◽ No (0 points)


◽ Yes, the report contains an explanation of the effect

of economic conditions on the formulated corporate

responsibility policy. (+2 points)

◽ Yes, the report contains an explanation of the impact

of developments within the sector on the formulated

corporate responsibility policy. (+2 points)

◽ Yes, the report contains an explanation of the impact

of developments in the supply chain on the formu-

lated corporate responsibility policy. (+2 points)


■ Question 49Does the accounting information include a description on the relationship between the overall strategy of the organization and the strategic priorities and objectives with respect to CR?

◽ No. (0 points)

◽ Yes, a general explanation. (+2 points)

◽ Yes, a specific explanation in the context of at least

two of below aspects. (+4 points)


◽ Expectations regarding the organization itself

◽ Developments within the sector

◽ Developments within the supply chain the organiza-

tion operates

■ Question 50Does the accounting information connect corpo-rate responsibility results with relevant internal and external developments?

◽ No (0 points)


◽ Yes, the report contains an explanation of the effect of

changes in the organization, production processes and/

or products and services on the corporate responsibility

outcomes achieved. (+2 points)

◽ Yes, the report contains an explanation of the improve-

ment/deterioration of economic performance in the past

reporting period, compared with developments at

global, regional or local level. (+2 points)


ment/deterioration in environmental performance in the

past reporting period, compared with developments

at global, regional or local level. (+2 points)


ment/deterioration in social performance the past

reporting period, compared with developments at

global, regional or local level. (+2 points)

◽ Yes, in the report, corporate responsibility results

achieved are placed in the context of external information

(Including ratings, benchmarking, trend analysis, best

practices). (+2 points)


CRITERIA FOR THE ASSESSMENT BY A PANEL OF EXPERTS

Relevance (± 15%)• Materiality: The sustainability reporting offers

information about all the subjects which are relevant for the business, its industry and the chain in which it operates. The company pays attention to current relevant social issues.

• Design: The informative nature of the reporting dominates the promotional function. Photos, interviews, frames, etc. do not dominate the text and add value.

• Alignment between the scope of information and the needs of users: The company has made right choices regarding the selection of topics, such that the sustainability reporting is relevant for users, but does not lead to information overload.

• Alignment between the delimitations and the information needs of users: The company has made right choices regarding the delimitation in the chain, such that accounting information reports on the activities within the chain which are relevant to the users.

• Comparability: The sustainability reporting is designed in a way which enables the users to compare the development and performance of the company over time and with other companies.

Clarity (± 15%)• Understandability: The information and the

presentation are tailored to the knowledge and experience of the intended users.

• Understandability: The company reports in a clear way by choosing a good design, a limited size, clear language and explaining unfamiliar terms.

• Transparency: The information in the sustain-ability reporting is transparently displayed and it is presented in a correct context. For graphical presentation of social information a clear and insightful style is used, and the findings from the chart are always explained.

• Accessibility: The data and information in the sustainability reporting are reasonably accessible

to all relevant stakeholders including those with special requirements, such as people with disabilities or who speak a different language.

Reliability (± 15%)• Accuracy: The information in the sustainability

reporting is error free and it is presented in the correct context.

• Completeness: All the relevant informa-tion necessary for a good image is included, taking into account the cost of acquiring that information.

• Balanced: The information provided is balanced between positive and negative events.

• Suitability: The picture sketched within the social reporting is representative for the actual situation within the company. The reported indicators are well-suited to represent the situation in reality.

• Impartiality: The information in the sustainability reporting is neutral, free of prejudices.

• Caution: Within the preparation of sustainability reports the statements of uncertainties are made with caution, in such a way that information about economic, environmental and social care and management, and the achieved economic, environmental and social results do not appear to be rosy.

Stakeholder involvement (± 15%)• Adequacy of information: When setting up

the social reporting, the company has been guided by the information requirements of the stakeholders. The involvement of stakeholders becomes obvious through the way they are identi-fied, the way their involvement was achieved and how their engagement has influenced the content of the report, and the policies and activi-ties of the company.

• Dare: The company is willing to take a vulner-able position and mention sensitive issues in the sustainability report, describing the possible conflicts of interest within these topics.


• Focus on stakeholders: With its sustainability reporting, the company contributes to the public debate on relevant issues, and/or makes the stakeholders aware of certain social effects.

Contextual coherence (± 15%)• The information within the social reporting is

presented in the broader context of sustainable development at local, regional or global level.

• The sustainability reporting describes how the chosen strategy regarding social aspects of the business relates to the business strategy.

• The description of company’s performance includes insights into trends and developments in the sector and within the chain where the company operates.


E Panel of Experts Transparency Benchmark and Jury of The Kristal prize 2012

Panel of Experts 2012Ms. Nancy Kamp-Roelands (chair)Ms. Gemma CrijnsMs. Marleen Janssen GroesbeekMr. André NijhofMs. Teresa FogelbergMr. Maurits GroenMr. Willem LagewegMr. Ernst van WeperenMs. Linda van BeekMr. Gijs Dröge

Jury of the Kristal prize 2012Ms. mr. Bibi de Vries (chair)H.R.H. Prins Carlos de Bourbon de ParmeProfessor dr. Leen Paape RA RO CIA

