Transparency Benchmark 2014
The Crystal 2014
In cooperation with the Netherlands Institute of Chartered Accountants (NBA)
Transparency Benchmark 2014
The Crystal 2014
In cooperation with the Netherlands Institute of Chartered Accountants (NBA)
Transparency Benchmark 2014 The Crystal 2014
1
1 The Transparency Benchmark Ladder
The Transparency benchmark Ladder provides an overview of the total scores of the organisations, including the sub scores concerning 8 different
criteria categories. The organisations that are included in the Transparency Benchmark are ranked in different groups; Frontrunners, Followers,
Peloton, Laggards and organisations with zero points awarded.
2
Category
Ranking positions
Leaders
1 - 20
Followers
21 - 71
Peloton
72 - 214
Laggards
215 - 244
Organisations with zero points awarded
245 - 409
Transparency Benchmark 2014 The Crystal 2014
Transparency Benchmark Ladder
Participants RankCat.
Total
NS
AKZO Nobel N.V.
KPN
Koninklijke BAM Groep
Unilever N.V.
Koninklijke Philips N.V.
Heineken N.V.
LEADERS
FOLLOWERS
Beelen Groep B.V.
Bank Ned. Gemeenten N.V.
Van Lanschot Bankiers
ANWB B.V.
Vodafone
Schiphol Group
Alliander N.V.
DSM N.V.
VolkerWessels
ING Groep
Q Park N.V.
Aegon N.V.
Achmea
Air France - KLM
Koninklijke Ahold N.V.
Menzis Holding B.V.
MN
PostNL
Rabobank
Nederlandse Waterschapsbank NV
Ernst & Young Nederland
TenneT Holding B.V.
Bavaria N.V.
NV NOM Investerings- en Ontwikkelingsmaatschappij voor Noord-Nederland
Wavin N.V.
Siemens Nederland
Koninklijke FrieslandCampina N.V.
E.ON Benelux N.V.
Holding Nationale Goede Doelen Loterijen N.V.
Koninklijke Ten Cate N.V.
Koninklijke Wessanen N.V.
Nederlandse Gasunie N.V.
CZ groep
Kendrion N.V.
Vitens N.V.
Koninklijke Boskalis Westminster N.V.
Rockwool Benelux Holding
Brab. Ontw. Maatschappij N.V.
Heijmans
ABN Amro Group N.V.
GasTerra B.V.
Imtech
USG People N.V.
Wageningen UR
EBN
PwC
SNS REAAL N.V.
Unibail Rodamco
De Nederlandsche Bank N.V.
Eneco Holding N.V.
NIBC Bank N.V.
ASML
0 50 100150200
Ordina N.V.
Ontwikkelingsmaatschappij Oost Nederland NV
Randstad Holding nv
Roto Smeets Group N.V.
TUI Nederland
Transparency Benchmark 2014 The Crystal 2014
Reed Elsevier N.V.
The difference between the number 2 and 3 concerns a difference in points (after the comma), after
careful assessment by the Panel of Experts.
Nutreco
TBI Holdings
Nederlandse Financierings-Maatschappij voor Ontwikkelingslanden NV
■ 1 - Company Profile and Business Model
■ 2 - Policy and Results
■ 3 - Management Approach
■ 4 - Relevance
■ 5 - Clarity
■ 6 - Reliability
■ 7 - Responsiveness
■ 8 - Coherence
FOLLOWERS
3
ABN Amro Group N.V.
GasTerra B.V.
Imtech
USG People N.V.
Wageningen UR
EBN
PwC
SNS REAAL N.V.
Unibail Rodamco
De Nederlandsche Bank N.V.
Participants
Eneco
Holding N.V.RankCat.
NIBC Bank N.V.
ASML
Ordina N.V.
Ontwikkelingsmaatschappij Oost Nederland NV
Randstad Holding nv
Roto Smeets Group N.V.
TUI Nederland
Reed Elsevier N.V.
Nutreco
TBI Holdings
Nederlandse Financierings-Maatschappij voor Ontwikkelingslanden NV
Total
FOLLOWERS
Royal HaskoningDHV
COVRA
Crown Van Gelder N.V.
Royal Dutch Shell
ProRail B.V.
Corio N.V.
Accell Group
Arla Foods B.V.
Ballast Nedam N.V.
TMG - Telegraaf Media Groep
TNO
Vos Logistics Beheer B.V.
Delta Lloyd Groep
KPMG N.V.
Facilicom Services Group
Nidera B.V.
Zeeman Groep B.V.
Joh. Mourik & Co. Holding B.V.
Stichting Exploitatie Nederlandse Staatsloterij
Vebego International N.V.
Universiteit Twente
Beter Bed Holding N.V.
Universiteit Utrecht
Waterweg Wonen
Wereldhave Manag. Holding B.V.
BE Semiconductor Indus. N.V.
Corbion N.V.
Koninklijke Vopak N.V.
Dutch Flower Group B.V.
Fugro N.V.
N.V. HVC
European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company EADS
Atradius N.V.
PGGM
DOW Benelux B.V.
4
IKEA Nederland B.V.
Macintosh Retail Group N.V.
Universiteit Leiden
Coop Holding
IHC Merwede Holding B.V.
PELOTON
Industriebank LIOF N.V.
Dura Vermeer Groep
Jumbo Groep Holding B.V.
Enexis B.V.
SITA Netherlands
TKH Group N.V.
Vreugdenhil Groep B.V.
Van Gansewinkel Groep
Sligro Food Group N.V.
Universiteit van Amsterdam
Vanderlande
VanDrie Group
Bidvest Deli XL
TNT Express
Universiteit Maastricht
Rijksuniversiteit Groningen
Wolters Kluwer N.V.
UPC Nederland
0 50 100150200
Transparency Benchmark 2014 The Crystal 2014
■ 1 - Company Profile and Business Model
■ 2 - Policy and Results
■ 3 - Management Approach
■ 4 - Relevance
■ 5 - Clarity
■ 6 - Reliability
■ 7 - Responsiveness
■ 8 - Coherence
Universiteit Twente
Beter Bed Holding N.V.
Universiteit Utrecht
Waterweg Wonen
Wereldhave Manag. Holding B.V.
BE Semiconductor Indus. N.V.
Corbion N.V.
Koninklijke Vopak N.V.
Dutch Flower Group B.V.
Fugro N.V. RankCat.
Participants
N.V. HVC
European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company EADS
Atradius N.V.
PGGM
DOW Benelux B.V.
Total
IKEA Nederland B.V.
GVB Amsterdam
Unica Groep B.V.
Technische Universiteit Eindhoven
LeasePlan Corporation N.V.
Ziggo N.V.
Batenburg Techniek N.V.
Holland Casino
O.W.M. DSW Zorgverzekeraar UA
Yarden Holding B.V.
Westland Infra
Aalberts Industries N.V.
HEMA
Albron Nederland B.V.
Grontmij N.V.
Binckbank
Coöperatie AVEBE U.A.
Coöperatie Koninklijke Cosun U.A.
Monuta
Louis Dreyfus
Nyenrode
ForFarmers Group B.V.
Hurks groep
Pon Holdings B.V.
Teijin Aramid B.V.
Coöperatie Univé U.A.
Dela Uitvaartverzorging B.V.
Stichting Espria
Vastned Retail N.V.
Centric B.V.
Universiteit van Tilburg
Janssen De Jong Groep B.V.
Forbo Flooring B.V.
NSI N.V.
Core Laboratories N.V.
Stichting Kwadrantgroep
VUmc
Allianz Nederland Groep N.V.
De Goudse N.V.
Vistaprint
Legal & General Nederland
Brunel International N.V.
Refresco B.V.
PELOTON
Macintosh Retail Group N.V.
Universiteit Leiden
Coop Holding
IHC Merwede Holding B.V.
Aperam
Gemalto N.V.
Van Oord
Nedap N.V.
PLUS Retail B.V.
Radboudumc
Eurocommercial Properties
Arcadis N.V.
Tele2 Netherlands Holding N.V.
Delta N.V.
Onvz Ziektenk.Verz. N.V.
Stern Groep N.V.
APG
Coöperatie VGZ U.A.
Antea Group
AMG Advanced Metallurg. Gr. NV
Broekhuis Holding
CoMore
ASR Nederland N.V.
0 50 100150200
Transparency Benchmark 2014 The Crystal 2014
■ 1 - Company Profile and Business Model
■ 2 - Policy and Results
■ 3 - Management Approach
■ 4 - Relevance
■ 5 - Clarity
■ 6 - Reliability
■ 7 - Responsiveness
■ 8 - Coherence
5
Nyenrode
ForFarmers Group B.V.
Hurks groep
Pon Holdings B.V.
Teijin Aramid B.V.
Coöperatie Univé U.A.
Dela Uitvaartverzorging B.V.
Stichting Espria
Vastned Retail N.V.
Participants
Centric B.V.RankCat.
Universiteit van Tilburg
Janssen De Jong Groep B.V.
Forbo Flooring B.V.
NSI N.V.
Core Laboratories N.V.
Stichting Kwadrantgroep
VUmc
Allianz Nederland Groep N.V.
De Goudse N.V.
Vistaprint
Legal & General Nederland
Brunel International N.V.
Refresco B.V.
Vrije Universiteit
A. Hakpark B.V.
Credit Europe Bank N.V.
Arseus
OCI Nitrogen
Open Universiteit
Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen
ASM International N.V.
Amega Holding B.V.
Koninklijke Brill N.V.
Neways Electronics International N.V.
Twynstra Gudde
Cryo
Kardan N.V.
Pharming
Amsterdam Commodities N.V.
DOCDATA N.V.
Van Leeuwen Buizen Groep B.V
Unit 4 N.V.
Hunter Douglas N.V.
Blokker Holding B.V.
de Persgroep Nederland B.V.
The Greenery B.V.
CZAV
DAF Trucks N.V.
Stork
TomTom N.V.
Catom Enterprises B.V.
RoodMicroTec N.V.
Ultra-Centrifuge Ned. N.V.
ICT Automatisering
DOC Kaas
KasBank
SHV Holdings N.V.
VION Holding N.V.
Hertel Holding B.V.
Exact Holding N.V.
Brocacef Holding
AerCap Holdings N.V.
Euretco B.V.
NXP Semiconductors Netherlands B.V.
VDL Groep
Value8
AND International
Maxeda DIY Group B.V.
Farm Frites Beheer B.V.
IMC Trading
Kramp Groep B.V.
Connexxion
Meatpoint B.V.
Total
PELOTON
LAGGARDS
0 50
100150200
50
100
150
200
0
6
Transparency Benchmark 2014 The Crystal 2014
■ 1 - Company Profile and Business Model
■ 2 - Policy and Results
■ 3 - Management Approach
■ 4 - Relevance
■ 5 - Clarity
■ 6 - Reliability
■ 7 - Responsiveness
■ 8 - Coherence
Content
1
The Transparency Benchmark Ladder
2Introduction
2.1Preface
2.2 About this report
3
The winners of this year
4
What stands out?
4.1
Criteria category comparison
4.2 Sector comparison
4.2.1 Banks and insurers
4.2.2 Construction and Maritime
4.2.3 Consumer products
4.2.4Services
4.2.5 Energy, oil and gas
4.2.6 Trading companies
4.2.7 Industrial products
4.2.8Media
4.2.9 Pharmaceutical Industry
4.2.10Retail
4.2.11Technology
4.2.12Transport
4.2.13 Universities and University Medical Centers
4.2.14 Real Estate
4.2.15 Food and Beverages
4.2.16Other
4.3 Corporate Resonsiblity reporting in practice
2
8
8
9
10
11
11
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
5
5.1 In-depth theme: OECD guidelines
Detailed analysis Top 20
38
42
6
Explanation of the Transparency Benchmark
6.1Goal
6.2 Differences to previous year
6.3 Boundaries to publicly available accounting information
6.4Methodology
6.5Criteria
6.6 Jury Report
6.7 Organisations that with zero points awarded
48
48
48
50
50
51
52
56
7Appendices
7.1
New participating organisations
7.2 Dutch organisations with an international group report
7.3
Companies with zero points awarded
7.4 Panel of Experts of the Transparency Benchmark
7.5
Jury of the Crystal Prize 2014
57
57
58
59
63
63
Transparency Benchmark 2014 The Crystal 2014
7
2 Introduction
2.1 Preface
This booklet contains the results of the Transparency Benchmark 2014, about the reporting year 2013. The Transparency Benchmark provides insight into
the degree of transparency from a corporate responsibility perspective at the 409 largest organisations in the Netherlands.
The Transparency Benchmark celebrates its 10 year anniversary this year. The Transparency Benchmark is a yearly conducted research concerning the
content and quality of corporate responsibility reporting at Dutch organisations. The main reason for conducting the Transparency Benchmark is that
the stakeholders (such as shareholders, interest groups and governments) expect that the organisation is transparent about its considerations and
performance towards society. Being open and clear, makes the company vulnerable and responsive to its stakeholders. Transparency drives dialogues.
The dialogue could then lead to changes in the strategy and policies of an organisation.
The Crystal is awarded to the organisation that is most transparent in its corporate responsibility reporting and which as a result ended the highest on
the Transparency Benchmark ranking (ladder). The Crystal is the most prestigious prize for corporate responsibility reporting and is developed in 2010 by
the Ministry of Economic Affairs and the Netherlands Institute of Chartered Accountants (NBA). For this specific award, both the criteria and the method
of the Transparency Benchmark and the ACC Award (best corporate responsibility report) have been combined. Next to the Crystal, additional prizes are
awarded to the organisation that climbed the most places on the Transparency Benchmark ladder and the organisation that addresses transparency in
corporate responsibility reporting in the most creative and innovative manner.
All the 409 participating organisations of the Transparency Benchmark have been invited to display the quality of their report through an online-self
assessment. Filling in the online self-assessment will provide a clear overview of the strong points of the report and of the points which can be improved.
The submitted answers of the self-assessment will additionally be checked on accuracy by a team of researchers from EY (previously Ernst & Young). On
top of that, an independent panel of experts has assessed the top 20 based on their own criteria. The jury, consisting of Mrs. Bibi de Vries (chair), HRH
Prince Carlos de Bourbon de Parme and professor Leen Paape RA RO CIA, has picked the winner of the top three. It should be noted that when analysing
the data of the Transparency Benchmark the organisations with zero points awareded were not included in the overviews within this booklet.
Based on the results of an evaluation of the Transparency Benchmark 2013 (conducted by an independent research organisation B&A), the Ministry
of Economic Affairs decided to change the approach of the Benchmark concerning three distinctive points. First of all, in 2014 more attention will be
8
Transparency Benchmark 2014 The Crystal 2014
paid to materiality, meaning that companies will have to focus more on the sustainability issues that are most relevant for them. By incorporating the
concept of materiality the new criteria are more aligned with the reporting guidelines of the GRI and Integrated Reporting, and as a result the bar for
organisations has been raised. This adjustment based on materiality has however led to lower end-scores of organisations. Secondly, the group of small
and medium sized enterprises has been excluded from the Transparency Benchmark. Based on the evaluation it became clear that inclusion of small and
medium sized enterprises had not been effective: few small and medium sized enterprises publish an annual report and the criteria of the Transparency
Benchmark are targeting big enterprises. Thirdly, for the coming years a new executor of the Transparency Benchmark has been appointed: EY. EY will
focus amongst other things on supporting and motivating organisations during the self-assessment and the subsequent assessment procedure. This will
reduce the administrative burden for organisations and will in addition result in a further lowering of the costs. EY will in addition focus on reducing
the amount of organisations with zero points awarded by creating awareness and providing them with intensive support. Lastly, the structure of the
underlying report has been adjusted on one particular item. This year a separate chapter will be devoted to the OECD Guidelines: the international
norms concerning corporate responsibility. Multinational Enterprises have the responsibility to implement the OECD Guidelines. It mainly concerns
researching, preventing and reducing bad labour conditions, child labour, environmental damage, corruption and violations of human rights in their
supply chains: the so-called principle of due diligence.
The participant protocol (see www.transparantiebenchmark.nl) describes which organisations have been included in the research group and which
accounting information can be used for obtaining points on the Transparency Benchmark Ladder. The website in addition provides information
concerning the adjusted criteria and the scores.
In order to gain a proper understanding of the Transparency Benchmark it is important to emphasise that the benchmark is purely aimed at transparency
in reporting. The Ministry gives no substantive judgement about the performance of organisations in the field of corporate responsibility. The
Transparency Benchmark is more than just about establishing scores of companies. Trends in scores, movements in sectors, how many companies
integrate their financial and non-financial reporting, are also interesting. In this booklet you will find more information about these matters, besides the
results of the reporting year 2013.
2.2 About this report
This booklet contains the results of the Transparency Benchmark 2014. All the relevant information concerning the Benchmark has been
included, such as the context, sector analyses and the changes with regard to last year. The report starts with providing an overview of the entire
Transparency Benchmark ladder. It has been attempted to construct the report as concise and focused as possible, with an emphasize on the
results and the main striking features of the Transparency Benchmark. Additional information, such as the completed set of criteria can be found
on the website of the Transparency Benchmark. www.transparantiebenchmark.nl
Transparency Benchmark 2014 The Crystal 2014
9
3 The winners of this year
The Jury has the task to determine the winners. The winners of 2014 are:
Fastest climber on the ladder of the Transparency Benchmark
E.ON has climbed this year from position 171 to position 36. An increase of a staggering 135 positions.
Most innovative report
The honour for the most innovative report this year is for Unilever.
The Crystal Prize, First prize of the Transparency Benchmark
The third position is for KPN, right behind number two, AkzoNobel. The winner of the Crystal Prize 2014 with 195 points is NS.
The complete report with the considerations of the Jury can be found in paragraph 6.6.
10
Transparency Benchmark 2014 The Crystal 2014
4 What stands out?
This chapter will focus on the results of the Transparency Benchmark. The results concerning the criteria have been based on the analyses of the
organisations that obtained a score on the Transparency Benchmark (these are 244 organisations). Organisations with zero points awarded have
not been included in the analysis. Since the criteria have been adjusted and introduced for the first time this year, it is not possible to compare
this year’s results with the results of last year in a reliable way.
4.1 Criteria category comparison
The criteria of the Transparency Benchmark have been divided into 8 categories. The figure below provides an overview of the scores per different
category.
In general it can be stated that organisations obtain
as much points concerning both the content related
criteria (50%) and the criteria focused on quality (49%).
Total score
Content criteria
Company profile and business model
In total a maximum of 49,6% has been obtained,
which correspond to an average score of 99 points.
Policy and results
Management approach
Qualitative criteria
Relevance
Clarity
Reliability
Responsiveness
Coherence
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Transparency Benchmark 2014 The Crystal 2014
11
12
Top 3 best scoring categories:
Top 3 least performing categories:
1. Clearness (60% of maximum attainable score)
1.Reliability (28% of maximum attainable amount of points)
2. Relevance (57% of maximum attainable score)
2.Policy and Results (44% of maximum attainable amount of points)
3. O
rganisation and Business Model
(56% of maximum attainable amount of points)
3.Responsiveness (49% of maximum attainable amount of points)
Top 3 highest scoring criteria
Top 3 lowest scoring criteria
Score & Criteria
Explanation criteria
Score & Criteria
Explanation criteria
84% of the organisations
achieved the maximum score
concerning criterion 13
Complete understanding of the
organisational structure
69% of the organisations obtained
the minimum score concerning
criterion 30
No inclusion of a signed statement of
an independent third party, who has
verified the corporate responsibility
information
76% of the organisations
achieved the maximum score on
criterion 1
General information about the
organisation, a quantitative summary
of the organisation’s profile (amount
of employees, amount of supplied
goods/ services, etc.)
60% of the organisations has
obtained the minimum score
concerning criterion 40
The achieved corporate responsibility
results are not published externally:
via listings, benchmark information,
trend analyses and best practices
70% of the organisations
achieved the maximum score on
criterion 35
Propagating a vision on relevant
corporate responsibility themes and
creating awareness / understanding
with stakeholders on these specific
themes
49% of the organisations has
obtained the minimum score
concerning criterion 31
Subject matter experts or stakeholders have not been allowed to express
their opinion in the report
Transparency Benchmark 2014 The Crystal 2014
The next pages will provide an overview of the most relevant and remarkable results of the Transparency Benchmark
2014. It should be noted that many of these results are related to the new criteria.
73% of organisations report on
the value chain in which it operates.
There is room for improvement since only 16% of the organisations
achieve the maximum score on this topic. This improvement can for
example be realized by providing additional insights concerning the
corporate responsibility aspects of the value chain and by adding a
graphic illustration of the value chain.
Category: Organisation and Business Model
Materiality
Yes
79%
Total
21%
Leaders
100%
Followers
100%
84%
Peloton
Laggards 7%
0
No
Value chain
Yes
73%
Total
27%
95%
Leaders
5%
98%
Followers
2%
73%
Peloton
27%
17%
Laggards
0
No
83%
20
40
60
80
100
Almost 80% of the organisations provide additional insights concerning their material
themes which are of relevance in their value chain.
27% of organisations provide a broad insight regarding materiality
(including the relative importance of identified material themes and a
graphic representation of this)
16%
Categorie: Organisation and business model
93%
20
40
60
80
100
Almost 90% of the organisations provide a general
explanation concerning its organisation strategy.
As much as half of the organisations obtained the maximum score
concerning this criterion by providing a specific explanation of
the corporate strategy. The organisations present a coherent set of
strategic themes, campaigns and targets. Additionally, the strategy is
connected to other parts of the reporting process.
Category: Organisation and Business model
Business Strategy
Yes
88%
Total
Leaders
100%
Followers
100%
12%
94%
Peloton
30%
Laggards
0
20
Transparency Benchmark 2014 The Crystal 2014
No
6%
70%
40
60
80
100
13
Monetary value
A large number of organisations describe the impact their products/services have on society. Quantifying and monetizing the generated
impact is getting more popular. The monetary value of environmental or social impact is the value (in Euros or other monetary value) of
the effect on the environment or society. It should be noted that there is a substantial difference between the monetary value of a saving for
the organisation (or the supply chain) and the monetary value of an effect (impact) for society. An investment in charity or an energy-saving
program expressed in Euros is not similar to the monetary value of a social or environmental effect. Monetizing the impact of training and
education on employees, (future) employers and society is an example of such monetary value.
Almost 75% of organisations report on the
environmental aspects of business and 63% of
organisations provide a quantitative explanation.
Almost no organisation obtained the maximum amount of points;
in order to receive the maximum amount of points it is required to
express the environmental results in a monetary value (see box about
monetary value)
Category: Policy and results
Social aspects
Yes
84%
Total
2%
88%
Peloton
10%
Laggards
0
14
16%
98%
Followers
12%
40
60
74%
Totaal
80
No
25%
100%
Leaders
98%
Followers
2%
75%
Peloton
27%
Laggards
0
25%
73%
20
40
60
80
100
85% of the organisations provide insights into the reporting of social
results. 60% of these organisations provide a quantitative explanation
of the social results.
Next to this, it is worth noting that five organisations
have expressed the social results in a monetary value
(see box about monetary value)
90%
20
Yes
No
100%
Leaders
Environmental aspects
100 Category: Policy and results
Transparency Benchmark 2014 The Crystal 2014
Objectives
Yes
73%
Total
100%
Followers
100%
71%
17%
Laggards
0
Almost 75% of the organisations have formulated specific
targets concerning corporate responsibility.
27%
Leaders
Peloton
No
One of four organisations has achieved the maximum score
concerning this subject. These organisations provide quantitative
targets and link this with the material aspects.
Categorie: Policy and results
29%
83%
20
40
60
80
100
Thirdy-party Assurance
30% of organisations have a statement of an
independent third party included in the corporate
responsibility report.
Less than 4% of the organisations has obtained the maximum score
concerning this subject.
Category: Reliability
30%
Total
Yes
76%
Total
100%
63%
Followers
100%
Followers
100%
77%
Peloton
17%
Laggards
0
15%
Peloton
40
23%
60
80
85%
100%
Laggards
20
40
60
80
100
76% of organisations indicate how they engage their
stakeholders in the strategy, policy and activities of the
organisation.
83%
20
37%
No
24%
Leaders
No
70%
Leaders
0
Stakeholder Engagement
Yes
100
There is room for improvement since only 16% of the organisations
achieve the maximum score. These organisations report on the
outcomes of the stakeholder dialogue and the involvement of the
highest governance body during the dialogue.
Category: Responsiveness
Transparency Benchmark 2014 The Crystal 2014
15
Challenges and Dilemmas
38% of the organisations clearly report on the challenges
and dilemma’s faced with regard to their business. The
Management Team of these organisations additionally
provide an explanation of the faced challenges and
dilemma’s.
Category: Responsiveness
38%
Total
65%
Total
100%
Followers
100%
59%
100%
63%
Followers
90%
20
40
60
80
37%
27%
Peloton
73%
Laggards 3%
97%
20
40
60
80
100
65% of organisations clearly report how their strategy,
activities and results with regard to corporate
responsibility correspond to the organisation’s
strategy.
It additionally becomes clear from the reporting process that half of
the organisations use their set of strategic priorities as a guidance for
an explanation about corporate responsibility.
Categorie: Coherence
41%
Laggards 10%
0
No
35%
Leaders
Peloton
16
Yes
No
62%
Leaders
0
Link between CR and
Strategic Aspects
Yes
100
Transparency Benchmark 2014 The Crystal 2014
4.2Sector comparison
The participating organisations of the Transparency Benchmark have been divided into 16 different sectors. The organisations that could not be
included in a specific sector form the sector ‘other’, a total of 19 organisations.
The dynamics and challenges vary per sector which makes a sector based analysis essential and valuable. The various sectors demonstrate
differences in average points received. A lower average says something about the transparency of the sector and not necessarily about the
performance regarding corporate responsibility in the sector.
Rank
2014
Sector
Average
score 2014
Rank 2013
1
Transport
126
1
2
Energy, oil and gas
124
3
3
Construction and maritime
121
5
4
Banking and insurers
116
2
5
Real estate
107
8
6
Consumer products
98
6
7
Food and beverage
97
4
8
Media and communications
96
9
9
Services
94
7
There are substantial differences between
the scores of sectors. An illustrative
example of this can be found in the Banks
and Insurers sector with an average score
of 116 points and only 9% of organisations
being categorized with a 0-score. The
sector Consumer Products on the other
hand scored on average of 98 points and
69% of the organisations had a 0-score.
This year, the ranking of sectors has a
new number 2 (Energy, Oil and Gas) and
number 3 (Construction and Maritime).
10
Technology
92
11
11
Industrial products
89
10
12
Universities and Medical Centres
85
12 (Universities) /16 (Medical Centres)
13
Retail
84
13
14
Trading
73
14
15
Other
53
15
16
Pharmaceuticals
35
17
The sector Real Estate climbed three
places, whereas the sector Food and
Beverages dropped three places. Note:
the average score of organisations is 99
points.
Transparency Benchmark 2014 The Crystal 2014
17
4.2.1 Banks and Insurers
Bank Ned. Gemeenten N.V.
Van Lanschot Bankiers
ING Groep
Aegon N.V.
Achmea
Menzis Holding B.V.
184
183
172
170
169
168
168
168
167
160
155
152
150
149
143
133
MN
Rabobank
Nederlandse Waterschapsbank NV
CZ groep
ABN Amro Group N.V.
SNS REAAL N.V.
De Nederlandsche Bank N.V.
NIBC Bank N.V.
Nederlandse Financierings-Maatschappij voor Ontwikkelingslanden NV
Delta Lloyd Groep
Atradius N.V.
PGGM
Onvz Ziektenk.Verz. N.V.
Coöperatie VGZ U.A.
ASR Nederland N.V.
O.W.M. DSW Zorgverzekeraar UA
Binckbank
Monuta
Coöperatie Univé U.A.
Allianz Nederland Groep N.V.
De Goudse N.V.
Legal & General Nederland
Credit Europe Bank N.V.
KasBank
Grondexploitatiemaatschappij Meerstad BV
RFS Holland Holding B.V.
The Royal Bank of Scotland
0
18
Number of organisations
33
Number of organisations
with zero points awarded
3
Number of organisations
with a score
30
Average score
(excl. organisations with
zero points awarded)
116
Percentage of organisations
with zero points awarded
9%
Number of new participants
Top 3 scoring topics
6
Management approach,
company profile and
business model, relevance
100
100
81
78
74
70
60
60
55
46
45
44
39
The sector Banks and Insurers
obtained on average 116 points
and as a result performed
significantly better than other
sectors.
The sector only has about 9% of
organisations with zero points
awarded.
23
50
100
150
200
Transparency Benchmark 2014 The Crystal 2014
4.2.2 Construction and Maritime
192
Koninklijke BAM Groep
Beelen Groep B.V.
186
VolkerWessels
173
Wavin N.V.
164
Koninklijke Boskalis Westminster N.V.
157
Heijmans
156
TBI Holdings
Number of organisations
24
Number of organisations with zero points awarded
7
Number of organisations with a score
17
Average score (excl. organisations with zero points awarded)
121
Percentage of organisations with zero points awarded
29%
Number of new participants
0
Top 3 scoring topics
Clarity, relevance,
responsiveness
144
Ballast Nedam N.V.
134
Joh. Mourik & Co. Holding B.V.
129
Dura Vermeer Groep
126
SBM Offshore
The sector construction and maritime scores with
an average of 121 points significantly better than
the other sectors.
97
IHC Merwede Holding B.V.
92
Van Oord
88
Unica Groep B.V.
74
Hurks groep
57
Janssen De Jong Groep B.V.
53
A. Hakpark B.V.
40
Aan de Stegge Holding B.V.
Bluewater Energy Services B.V.
CRH Nederland B.V.
Damen Shipyards Group N.V.
Dockwise Ltd.
Koninklijke Wagenborg
Van Wijnen Groep N.V.
0
50
100
150
200
Transparency Benchmark 2014 The Crystal 2014
19
4.2.3 Consumer products
189
Koninklijke Philips N.V.
Holding Nationale Goede Doelen Loterijen N.V.
162
Accell Group
136
Stichting Exploitatie Nederlandse Staatsloterij
128
65
HEMA
65
Forbo Flooring B.V.
Number of organisations
22
Number of organisations with zero points awarded
14
Number of organisations with a score
8
Average score (excl. organisations with zero points awarded)
98
Percentage of organisations with zero points awarded
64%
Number of new participants
0
Top 3 scoring topics
Coherence,
relevance, company
profile and business
model
51
Hunter Douglas N.V.
30
TomTom N.V.
26
This sector contains 22 participating
organisations. It should be noted that 14 of these
organisations (64%) have a 0-score. This
percentage is the highest of all sectors (together
with the sector trading companies). Furthermore,
there are big differences in score between
organisations within this sector.
Action Service & Distributie“
Bose Products
Cabot Norit Activated Carbon
Canon Europa N.V.
De MandemakersGroep Holding B.V.
FUJIFILM Europe B.V.
Honeywell Netherl. Hold. B.V.
Kyocera Mita Europe B.V.
Lekkerland Beheer
Philip Morris Holland B.V.
Remeha Group B.V.
Tommy Hilfiger Europe
Van den Ban Autobanden B.V.
WE Europe B.V.
0
20
50
100
150
200
Transparency Benchmark 2014 The Crystal 2014
4.2.4 Services
ANWB B.V.
Ernst & Young Nederland
NOM Investerings- en Ontw.maatschappij voor N-Nederland
Brab. Ontw. Maatschappij N.V.
USG People N.V.
PwC
Ordina N.V.
Ontwikkelingsmaatschappij Oost Nederland NV
Randstad Holding nv
Royal HaskoningDHV
COVRA
TNO
KPMG N.V.
Facilicom Services Group
Vebego International N.V.
Industriebank LIOF N.V.
SITA Netherlands
Van Gansewinkel Groep
Deloitte Holding B.V.
Fugro N.V.
N.V. HVC
Gemalto N.V.
Arcadis N.V.
APG
Antea Group
Broekhuis Holding
CoMore
Batenburg Techniek N.V.
Holland Casino
Yarden Holding B.V.
Grontmij N.V.
Dela Uitvaartverzorging B.V.
Stichting Espria
Centric B.V.
NSI N.V.
Stichting Kwadrantgroep
Brunel International N.V.
Twynstra Gudde
Unit 4 N.V.
ICT Automatisering
Exact Holding N.V.
Value8
AND International
IMC Trading
Equens SE
Accenture B.V.
Adecco Nederland Holding B.V.
ADG dienstengroep B.V.
Amlin Corporate Insurance
Atos Origin Nederland B.V.
BCD Travel Holding
Booking.com B.V.
Ecurion
ISS Holding Nederland B.V.
Loyens & Loeff N.V.
Manpower Nederland B.V.
Omron Europe B.V.
Sogeti Nederland B.V.
61
55
55
54
51
49
43
36
32
24
20
12
11
10
88
83
78
77
76
76
71
70
70
103
103
166
164
156
154
152
147
146
146
143
142
134
133
131
128
127
126
122
116
180
50
100
58
Number of organisations with zero
points awarded
14
Number of organisations with a score
44
Average score (excl. organisations with 94
zero points awarded)
Percentage of organisations with zero
points awarded
24%
Number of new participants
8
Top 3 scoring topics
Clarity,
company
profile and
business
model,
relevance
The Services sector has the highest
amount of participating
organisations and 24% of the
organisations have a 0-score. The
sector consists of almost half of the
participating organisations.
Transparency Benchmark 2014 The Crystal 2014
0
Number of organisations
150
200
21
4.2.5 Energy, oil and gas
177
Alliander N.V.
166
TenneT Holding B.V.
E.ON Benelux N.V.
162
Nederlandse Gasunie N.V.
161
GasTerra B.V.
154
EBN
152
Eneco Holding N.V.
149
19
Number of organisations with zero
points awarded
6
Number of organisations with a score
13
Average score (excl. organisations with 124
zero points awarded)
Percentage of organisations with zero
points awarded
32%
Number of new participants
0
Top 3 scoring topics
Clarity,
management
approach,
responsiveness
141
Royal Dutch Shell
Enexis B.V.
With an average score of 124
points, the Energy, Oil and Gas
sector can be identified as being
the second best performing
sector.
126
81
Delta N.V.
Westland Infra
69
49
Core Laboratories N.V.
25
Ultra-Centrifuge Ned. N.V.
Argos Group Holding B.V.
Delek Nederland B.V.
Heerema Marine Contractors Holding Nederland B.V.
Kuwait Petroleum B.V.
New World Resources
Yara Sluiskil B.V.
0
22
Number of organisations
50
100
150
200
Transparency Benchmark 2014 The Crystal 2014
4.2.6 Trading companies
130
Nidera B.V.
106
Dutch Flower Group B.V.
33
Amsterdam Commodities N.V.
Number of organisations
11
Number of organisations with zero points awarded
7
Number of organisations with a score
4
Average score (excl. organisations with zero points awarded)
73
Percentage of organisations with zero points awarded
64%
Number of new participants
0
Top 3 scoring topics
Relevance, responsiveness, clarity
23
SHV Holdings N.V.
Copaco Nederland B.V.
Interfood Holding
MCB International B.V.
N.V. Deli Maatschappij
Oxbow Coal B.V.
Roba
Toshiba Medical Systems Europe B.V.
0
30
60
90
120
150
Transparency Benchmark 2014 The Crystal 2014
23
4.2.7 Industrial products
AKZO Nobel N.V.
DSM N.V.
Koninklijke Ten Cate N.V.
Kendrion N.V.
Rockwool Benelux Holding
Crown Van Gelder N.V.
Vanderlande
Corbion N.V.
DOW Benelux B.V.
Aperam
Nedap N.V.
AMG Advanced Metallurg. Gr. NV
LeasePlan Corporation N.V.
Aalberts Industries N.V.
Teijin Aramid B.V.
Van Leeuwen Buizen Groep B.V
DAF Trucks N.V.
Stork
Hertel Holding B.V.
Brocacef Holding
Kramp Groep B.V.
Denso Int. Europe B.V.
Momentive Specialty Chemicals BV
ABB B.V.
ArcelorMittal Netherlands B.V.
Ardagh Group Netherlands B.V.
BASF Nederland B.V.
Bosal Nederland B.V.
C. den Braven Beheer B.V.
Caldic B.V.
Citadel Enterprises B.V.
De Hoop Terneuzen B.V.
De Stiho Groep B.V.
Denkavit Internationaal B.V.
Enviem Holding B.V.
Flowserve
Hitachi Machinery N.V.
Inalfa Roof Systems Group B.V.
Kuehne + Nagel N.V.
MHI Equipment Europe B.V.
Nedschroef Nederland B.V.
Otra N.V.
P.L. v. Merksteijn Hold. B.V.
Rockwell Automation B.V.
Scania Europe
Scheuten Glass Holding B.V.
SIHI Group B.V.
Sulzer Netherlands Holding
Synbra Holding B.V.
Tata Steel
Terberg Group B.V.
Transm. and Engineer. Services Netherl.
Xeikon
Xerox Investments Europe
Yanmar Europe
24
6
0
56
33
26
26
21
18
50
76
72
65
99
90
87
100
110
120
141
175
162
158
157
193
Number of organisations
55
Number of organisations with zero points awarded
34
Number of organisations with a score
21
Average score (excl. organisations with zero points awarded)
89
Percentage of organisations with zero points awarded
62%
Number of new participants
0
Top 3 scoring topics
Clarity, relevance, company
profile and business model
150
200
Transparency Benchmark 2014 The Crystal 2014
4.2.8 Media
146
Roto Smeets Group N.V.
145
Reed Elsevier N.V.
134
TMG - Telegraaf Media Groep
UPC Nederland
117
Wolters Kluwer N.V.
117
Number of organisations
15
Number of organisations with zero points awarded
7
Number of organisations with a score
8
Average score (excl. organisations with zero points awarded)
96
Percentage of organisations with zero points awarded
47%
Number of new participants
0
Top 3 scoring topics
Relevance, management
approach, clarity
45
Vistaprint
36
Koninklijke Brill N.V.
27
de Persgroep Nederland B.V.
Audax B.V.
Endemol B.V.
Koninklijke Wegener N.V.
RTL Nederland B.V.
Sanoma Magazines B.V.
Stage Entertainment B.V.
Swets & Zeitlinger Hold. N.V.
0
50
100
150
200
Transparency Benchmark 2014 The Crystal 2014
25
4.2.9 Pharmaceutical industry
Arseus
38
Cryo
34
34
Pharming
Number of organisations
5
Number of organisations with zero points awarded
2
Number of organisations with a score
3
Average score (excl. organisations with zero points awarded)
35
Percentage of organisations with zero points awarded
40%
Number of new participants
0
Top 3 scoring topics
Company profile and business
model, relevance, clarity
Astellas B.V.
Intervet International / MSD
0
26
50
100
150
200
The pharmaceutical sector has the
lowest number of participating
organisations. Furthermore, the
sector score average is the lowest.
Transparency Benchmark 2014 The Crystal 2014
4.2.10 Retail
Koninklijke Ahold N.V.
Zeeman Groep B.V.
Jumbo Groep Holding B.V.
Sligro Food Group N.V.
Beter Bed Holding N.V.
IKEA Nederland B.V.
Macintosh Retail Group N.V.
Coop Holding
PLUS Retail B.V.
Stern Groep N.V.
Pon Holdings B.V.
Amega Holding B.V.
Blokker Holding B.V.
Euretco B.V.
Maxeda DIY Group B.V.
Da Holding B.V.
Dirk van den Broek/Dekamarkt
Foot Locker Europe B.V.
Hanos (Apeldoorn B.V.)
Hoogvliet B.V.
Intergamma B.V.
Intres B.V.
Koops Furness N.V.
Lohomij B.V.
Markeur
Mediq
Metro Distributie Nederland/Mediamarkt
Mexx Europe Holding B.V.
Miss Etam B.V.
Mitsubishi Motors Europe B.V.
PGA Nederland N.V.
SPAR Holding B.V.
St. Clair/ De Bijenkorf
V&D Group
Inter-Sprint Banden
Poiesz Beheer B.V.
0
168
36
27
17
11
50
57
96
95
92
87
81
100
130
126
120
115
150
Number of organisations
36
Number of organisations with zero points awarded
21
Number of organisations with a score
15
Average score (excl. organisations with zero points awarded)
84
Percentage of organisations with zero points awarded
58%
Number of new participants
0
Top 3 scoring topics
Clarity, relevance, policy and
results
200
Transparency Benchmark 2014 The Crystal 2014
27
4.2.11 Technology
193
KPN
179
Vodafone
163
Siemens Nederland
154
Imtech
147
ASML
125
TKH Group N.V.
Number of organisations
22
Number of organisations with zero points awarded
7
Number of organisations with a score
15
Average score (excl. organisations with zero points awarded)
92
Percentage of organisations with zero points awarded
32%
Number of new participants
1
Top 3 scoring topics
Relevance, clarity, company
profile and business model
110
BE Semiconductor Indus. N.V.
82
Tele2 Netherlands Holding N.V.
72
Ziggo N.V.
ASM International N.V.
37
Neways Electronics International N.V.
36
33
DOCDATA N.V.
25
RoodMicroTec N.V.
NXP Semiconductors Netherlands B.V.
16
VDL Groep
13
Acer Europe B.V.
Boston Scientific Int. B.V.
Cisco Systems International B.V.
Epson Europe B.V.
Ingram Micro
Sensata Technol. Holding N.V.
Specialist Computer Holdings Nederland B.V.
0
28
50
100
150
200
Transparency Benchmark 2014 The Crystal 2014
4.2.12 Transport
195
NS
186
Havenbedrijf Rotterdam N.V.
178
Schiphol Group
Air France - KLM
168
PostNL
168
146
TUI Nederland
ProRail B.V.
Number of organisations
25
Number of organisations with zero points awarded
12
Number of organisations with a score
13
Average score (excl. organisations with zero points awarded)
126
Percentage of organisations with zero points awarded
48%
Number of new participants
0
Top 3 scoring topics
Clarity, management approach,
coherence
140
Vos Logistics Beheer B.V.
134
The Transport sector has the highest
average score of the Transparency
Benchmark, with an average of 126
points.
118
TNT Express
110
Koninklijke Vopak N.V.
74
GVB Amsterdam
25
Catom Enterprises B.V.
2
Connexxion
Almost half of the organisations active in
the Transport sector can be categorized
as organisations with zero points
awarded. However, it should be noted
that most organisations have performed
above average.
De Rijke Continental B.V.
EEA Helicopter Operations B.V.
Ewals Holdings B.V.
Handelsveem Beheer
Luchthaven Maastricht
Post-Kogeko Logistics B.V.
Raben Group B.V.
Samskip
Stolt Tankers
Sundio Group B.V.
Universal Cargo Logistics
Vroon Group B.V.
0
50
100
150
200
Transparency Benchmark 2014 The Crystal 2014
29
4.2.13 Universities and University Medical Centres
Wageningen UR
153
120
Universiteit van Amsterdam
Universiteit Maastricht
118
Rijksuniversiteit Groningen
117
Universiteit Twente
116
Universiteit Utrecht
113
Technische Universiteit Delft
96
Universiteit Leiden
95
Radboudumc
74
Technische Universiteit Eindhoven
73
Nyenrode
0
Number of organisations with a score
16
Average score (excl. organisations with zero points awarded)
85
Percentage of organisations with zero points awarded
0%
Number of new participants
0
Top 3 scoring topics
Coherence, company profile and
business model, clarity
59
Universiteit van Tilburg
54
48
VUmc
42
Vrije Universiteit
Open Universiteit
38
Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen
38
0
30
17
Number of organisations with zero points awarded
Concerning the sector universities and
University Medical Centres it can be
said that no organisations have a
0-score. Overall, the sector scores
below average.
86
Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam
Number of organisations
50
100
150
200
Transparency Benchmark 2014 The Crystal 2014
4.2.14 Real Estate
Q Park N.V.
172
151
Unibail Rodamco
137
Corio N.V.
Waterweg Wonen
112
Wereldhave Manag. Holding B.V.
111
Number of organisations
8
Number of organisations with zero points awarded
0
Number of organisations with a score
8
Average score (excl. organisations with zero points awarded)
107
Percentage of organisations with zero points awarded
0%
Number of new participants
0
Top 3 scoring topics
Management approach,
relvance, company profile and
business model
85
Eurocommercial Properties
Vastned Retail N.V.
55
Kardan N.V.
34
0
50
100
150
200
The Real Estate sector scores above
average and none of the participating
organisations in the sector fall in the
category of organisations with zero
points awarded.
Transparency Benchmark 2014 The Crystal 2014
31
4.2.15 Food and Beverages
Unilever N.V.
Heineken N.V.
Bavaria N.V.
Koninklijke FrieslandCampina N.V.
Koninklijke Wessanen N.V.
Vitens N.V.
Nutreco
Perfetti Van Melle
Arla Foods B.V.
Cooperative Agrifirm U.A.
Vreugdenhil Groep B.V.
VanDrie Group
Bidvest Deli XL
Albron Nederland B.V.
61
Coöperatie AVEBE U.A.
60
60
Coöperatie Koninklijke Cosun U.A.
58
ForFarmers Group B.V.
42
Refresco B.V.
The Greenery B.V.
27
CZAV
26
23
DOC Kaas
23
VION Holding N.V.
Farm Frites Beheer B.V. 10
Meatpoint B.V. 2
DE Masterblenders 1753
A-Ware Food Group B.V.
Bakkersland Groep B.V.
British American Tobacco International (Holdings) B.V.
Cargill B.V.
Danone Baby and Medical Nutrition B.V.
Glencore Grain Rotterdam B.V.
Hoogwegt Groep B.V.
IMCD Holding B.V.
Koninklijke De Heus B.V.
Koninklijke Zeelandia Groep B.V.
Mars Nederland B.V.
Nestlé Nederland B.V.
Plukon Food Group
Storteboom Group B.V.
Theobroma B.V.
0
32
50
164
163
161
158
144
143
136
127
125
120
118
191
186
Number of organisations
40
Number of organisations with zero
points awarded
20
Number of organisations with a score
24
Average score (excl. organisations with 97
zero points awarded)
Percentage of organisations with zero
points awarded
45%
Number of new participants
0
Top 3 scoring topics
Clarity,
coherence,
company
profile and
business model
The Food and Beverages sector
is the second largest sector (in
terms of participating
organisations) after the Services
sector.
100
150
200
Transparency Benchmark 2014 The Crystal 2014
4.2.16 Other
101
European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company EADS
59
Louis Dreyfus
38
OCI Nitrogen
19
Number of organisations with zero
points awarded
15
Number of organisations with a score
4
Average score (excl. organisations with 53
zero points awarded)
Percentage of organisations with zero 79%
points awarded
1
Number of new participants
17
AerCap Holdings N.V.
Number of organisations
Horedo/Rensa
Advanced Travel Partners Nederland B.V.
Top 3 scoring topics
Beleggingsmij. Braverassa B.V.
Center Parcs Europe N.V.
Clondalkin Industries B.V.
De Kon. Nederlandse Munt N.V.
Relevance,
Company
profile and
business
model, clarity
Within the sector ‘Other’ only
21% of the organisations
obtained a score; this sector
consists of the most
organisations with a 0-score.
The participating organisations
that are included in the sector
‘Other’ perform below average.
Elopak B.V.
Hyva Group B.V.
Koepon
Koninklijke Distill. Dirkzwager B.V.
Mosadex
NetApp & Manufacturing
Office Depot International
Optiver Holding B.V.
Vroegop Ruhe & Co. B.V.
0
50
100
150
200
Transparency Benchmark 2014 The Crystal 2014
33
4.3 Corporate responsibility reporting in practice
The participating organisations that filled in the self-assessment were asked to (voluntarily) answer some additional questions about reporting
and the process of developing a report. The following conclusions can be drawn from the answers of the participating organisations.
Report Presentation
26%
22%
7%
1%
14%
30%
34
Financial Report
Integrated Reporting - IIRC
Integrated Reporting - Other
None
Further Relevant Information
Separate CR Report
(Analysis based on 244 respondents)
37% of the respondents indicated to have a form of
integrated reporting. Additionally it can be stated that 7%
of these organisations use the IIRC Framework as input
for their report.
26% of the respondents publish a separate sustainability
report, and 22% publish a financial report only.
14% of the respondents has indicated not to use any form
of reporting.
Transparency Benchmark 2014 The Crystal 2014
GRI Used
GRI Version Used
11%
48%
52%
Yes
No
17%
G3.0
G3.1
G4 Core
G4 Comprehensive
20%
(Analysis based on 244 respondents)
(Analysis based on 244 respondents)
52%
More than half of the respondents (52%) uses the GRI reporting guidelines in developing the report.
With regard to the organisations that use GRI it can be said that the majority uses GRI G3.1 (52%). Next to this, a third of
the organisations moved to using GRI G4 (core) and 11% uses GRI G4 (comprehensive). The oldest version of GRI (G3.0)
is still being used by approximately 17% of the organisations.
(Analysis based on 244 respondents)
Transparency Benchmark 2014 The Crystal 2014
35
Use of Internationally Recognized Frameworks
(Analysis based on 90 respondents)
35%
30%
31%
30%
25%
24%
23%
20%
20%
15%
10%
4%
5%
0%
0%
International
Integrated
Reporting
Council (IIRC)
framework
Carbon
Disclosure
Project
EMAS
Sustainability
Accounting
Standards Board
ISO 2600
No use of
framework
for reporting
Other
Another additional question relates to the use of internationally recognized frameworks in the reporting process.
In addition to the usage of the GRI Guidelines (see above), 30% of organisations indicate that they make use of
the framework for integrated reporting by the IIRC. Additionally, 30% of organisations make use of a different
international framework. Next to this, it is noteworthy that almost 25% of the organisations do not use an
international framework to construct its report.
36
Transparency Benchmark 2014 The Crystal 2014
Most important challenges in the process of CR reporting
(Analysis based on 137 respondents)
60%
50%
48%
45%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
34%
20%
18%
9%
Data collection
The elaboration
Lack of appropriate Other
Difficulties with
The report is not
within the
the intepretation considered a key of the report is more knowledge/expertise
organisation of external guidelines
timeconsuming than in the elaboration
priority
is complex
initially expected
of a CR report
Most of the respondents indicate that the biggest challenge during the process of reporting can be found inside their
own organisation. Challenges like datacollection (48%), time spending (45%), a lack of priority (18%) and the right
expertise (9%).
A third of the organisations indicates that the biggest obstacle in the reporting process can be found in the
interpretation of external guidelines.
Transparency Benchmark 2014 The Crystal 2014
37
5 In-depth theme: OECD guidelines
The OECD guidelines have been developed in 1976 by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). These guidelines
are endorsed by 46 (OECD) countries and based on international treaties like the International Labour Organisation (ILO) conventions. The
OECD guidelines have been altered in 2000 and 2011 based on the latest developments in international corporate responsibility and supply chain
responsibility, such as the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. One of the most important additions of 2011 can be found
in the concept of ‘due diligence’. Due diligence means that it is expected from organisations that they provide insights into the risks of their
business activities (for example in the area of human rights, environment, within their own organisation, but also in the supply chain) and that
the organisations deal with and report about the taken measures.
The OECD guidelines clearly indicate what the Dutch Government expects with regard to corporate responsibility in business (international).
The guidelines offer practical approaches concerning supply chain responsibility, human rights, child labour or the environment. The OECD
guidelines are the only endorsed Framework in the field of international corporate responsibility. Next to this it can be said that the OECD
guidelines are the only broad Corporate Responsibility framework with an independent dispute settlement in the form of the National Contact
Point (NCP) .
The OECD guidelines is the only endorsed Corporate Responsibility framework
for international businesses
The OECD Guidelines offer:
•A link to international developments and initiatives
•Points of support to realize positive impact and mitigate negative impact (‘do good’ en ‘do no harm’)
•A framework to comply with social expectations concerning human rights, labour norms, environment, corruption and reporting
•A link to ISO 26000 and the GRI guidelines
In The Netherlands, complying with the OECD guidelines is a condition for obtaining financial government support with international trade and
investment activities.
38
Transparency Benchmark 2014 The Crystal 2014
The criteria of the Transparency Benchmark have been developed in accordance with recognized international guidelines such as the IIRC, GRI
and the OECD Guidelines. This can be illustrated by the fact that the Transparency Benchmark criteria focus on labour conditions, human rights,
supply chain management and due diligence. This chapter will provide an overview of results that are closely linked to the OECD guidelines. By
doing so, insights can be provided concerning the manner in which Dutch organisations follow to the OECD guidelines.
Since the scope and boundary of the corporate responsibility report are determined when constructing the report, it cannot be demonstrated
whether the results are related to organisation’s activities or on the entire supply chain. An analysis of the Transparency Benchmark related
data illustrates that organisations tend to report mainly about their own activities rather than the entire supply chain. It should be noted that
the results of the next pages are based on participating organisations of the Transparency Benchmark that achieved a score (244 organisations).
Organisations with a 0-score have not been included in this analysis.
Almost half of the organisations indicate
that they are aware of the OECD guidelines,
however these organisations do not use it
in their reporting.
Use of OECD Guidelines
12%
10%
32%
46%
Fully implemented OECD guidelines
Familiar with OECD guidelines, but not implemented
Used OECD guidelines as a startingpoint in
the elaboration of the code of conduct and
corporate governance
Not familiar with the OECD guidelines
(Analysis based on 108 respondents)
A third of the organisations use the OECD
guidelines as reference points when
constructing their ethical and corporate
governance codes of conduct.
10% of organisations indicate that they
have fully implemented the OECD
guidelines. Next to this it should be noted
that 12% of the organisations was not
familiar with the OECD guidelines at all.
58% of the participating organisations indicate in its report which specific codes and (international) conventions and guidelines have been used,
such as the OECD guidelines for International Enterprises and the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.
Transparency Benchmark 2014 The Crystal 2014
39
More than 75% of the organisations provide in its report a
specific explanation concerning the implemented policies with
regard to labour conditions (this includes safety and health of
employees and others) .
More than half of the organisations describe the policies in
place with regard to the protection of human rights and the
fundamental principles concerning the right to work.
Number of organizations describing policies with
respect to OECD-related topics
80%
77%
60%
51%
40%
20%
0%
Labour conditions
(safety, health, etc.)
Number of organizations describing managementsystems
with respect to OECD-related topics
80%
60%
Preventive measures against
human rights violations
(fundamental work principles
and rights, etc.)
Only 12% of organisations describe the process of management
and control concerning due diligence within their organisations.
Additionally, 30% of organisations describe the processes in
place concerning the execution of audits and other monitoring
activities in the supply chain.
40%
30%
20%
0%
Due diligence
40
Next to this, 42% of organisations indicate how they deal with
suppliers that violate internal or external codes.
12%
Execution of audits and other
monitoring activities along the value chain
Transparency Benchmark 2014 The Crystal 2014
48% of organisations provide an explanation concerning the management, control and cooperation within the entire
supply chain, such as identifying the suppliers with a heightened risk profile, policies concerning procurement
and tenders, cooperation focused on responsible supply chain management and the stimulation of social and
environmental standards in the supply chain.
More than 90% of participating organisations provide insight concerning the social aspects of corporate responsibility.
It should be noted that many of the reported aspects are in line with the OECD guidelines.
The figure below indicates which social aspects are being described by organisations; divided by general and quantitative results. Most of the
organisations (80%) report on labour conditions, including safety and health, training and education and diversity. Next to labour conditions,
40% of the organisations provide insight with regard to product responsibility ( such as honest trade, animal welfare and food security). In
addition, 23% of the organisations describe the results concerning the protection of human rights, such as the fundamental right to work and
respect for local communities. It is worth noting that only a small part of the organisations (14%) report on consumer interests, such as privacy
and protection of consumer related information. This can however be partly explained because this particular aspect is not of relevance for every
organisation due to the nature of their business activities, sector or their clients.
Number of organizations describing results of the company's social aspects
80%
Labour conditions
59%
40%
Product responsibility
32%
28%
23%
Protection of human rights
Quantitative
14%
10%
Consumer needs
0
10
20
Total
30
40
50
60
70
80
Transparency Benchmark 2014 The Crystal 2014
41
5.1 Detailed analysis Top 20
This part will focus on the leaders
of the Transparency Benchmark and
will provide a detailed analysis of
the reports of the leaders (top 20)
concerning transparency on OECD
related subjects. One of the main
reasons for this analysis is to anticipate
on the forthcoming EU legislation on
non-financial information in reporting.
Use of OECD guidelines in the top 20
11%
33%
22%
33%
■ Fully implemented OECD guidelines
■ Familiar with OECD guidelines, but not implemented
■ Used OECD guidelines as a startingpoint in the
elaboration of the code of conduct and corporate governance
■ Not familiar with the OECD guidelines
In de e-tool one of the additional
questions was how organisations that
operate internationally make use of the OECD guidelines.
Nine organisations of the top 20 have answered this question. Three out of nine organisations of the top 20 indicated
to have fully implemented the OECD guidelines.
One organisation out of the top 20 stated that it was not familiar with the OECD Guidelines. Three organisations are
familiar with the OECD Guidelines but do not use them.
(Analysis of 9 respondents within the top 20)
42
Transparency Benchmark 2014 The Crystal 2014
Number of organizations describing management
systems with respect to OECD-related topics
80%
60%
65%
40%
20%
35%
0%
Due diligence
Execution of audits and other
monitoring activities along the value chain
35% of the top 20 of the Transparency Benchmark describe the
process of management systems concerning Due diligence. Next
to this it can be stated that 65% of the organisations describe the
process of execution of audits and other monitoring activities
in the supply chain. As a result the performance of the top 20 is
significantly better than the performance of the total amount
of organisations of the Transparency Benchmark. It should
be noted that only 12% of organisations participating in the
Transparency Benchmark describe the process of management
systems concerning Due diligence. Additionally 30% of all
the organisations describes the execution of audits and other
monitoring activities in the supply chain in their reporting.
EU Directive non-financial information reporting
The plenary of the European Parliament adopted on 15 April 2014 the directive on disclosure of non-financial and diversity information by
certain large companies and groups. The Directive1 proposes to oblige organisations of public interest with over 500 employees to report on
four non-financial themes: environment, social and employee-related aspects, respect for human rights and anti-corruption and bribery issues.
Furthermore, organisations should provide disclosure on diversity in their board of directors. The Dutch Government supports this directive to
a certain extent. It stresses the importance of flexibility of organisations in reporting, given the nature and scope of the activities of different
organisations. In addition the Dutch Government wishes to keep the administrative burden for organisations to a minimum. Finally the Dutch
Government does not support the notion that organisations should report on the diversity in their board of directors, this is mainly due to the
fact that the relation between a transparent diversity policy and the internal European market remains largely unclear.
OECD and EU Directive
In order to meet the requirements of the new EU Directive, organisations will have have to report information concerning policy, the results of
the respective policy, the control of related risks and the KPI’s concerning the four non-financial subjects. If the organisation does not have any
policy with regard to these specific subjects, the principle of comply or explain will be used. In order to gain an understanding of these subjects
it is advised to consult international frameworks for corporate responsiblity such as the OECD Guidelines. In addition other relevant frameworks
include ISO 26000, UN Global Compact, ILO tripartite declaration concerning multinational enterprises and social policy, or the guidelines of
the Global Reporting Initiative.
1
Council Directives 78/660/EEC and 83/349/EEC
Transparency Benchmark 2014 The Crystal 2014
43
Transparency top 20 according to the EU
The EU Directive will apply to PIE (Public Interest Entity) organisations with more than 500 employees. 11 organisations of the top 20 can be
characterized as PIE’s
An analysis has been conducted based on the top 20 and to what extent these organisations report on the non-financial subjects of the EU
Directive:
• Environment
• Social and employee-related aspects
• Human rights
• Anti-corruption and bribery
For each topic it was examined whether the organisation reported on:
• The policy
• The results of the policy
• The (control) related risks
• Key Performance Indicators (KPI)
This research in addition focused on the extent of transparency of diversity policy of the Board of directors at the organisations of the top 20. This
research has been carried out even though the Government does not support this part of the EU Directive by the European Commission.
44
Transparency Benchmark 2014 The Crystal 2014
100
90
80
70
Key performance indicators
Risk management
Results
Policy
60
50
100% 100%
100% 100%
85%
85%
40
75%
65%
65%
60% 65%
30
40%
20
30%
10
15%
15%
25%
0
Environmental aspects
Social and employee
related aspects
Human rights
Anti-corruption and bribery
All the organisations of the top 20 describe and present both the policy and the results with regard to the social and environmental topics.
It can be stated that 65% of the organisations is transparent about the control of its environmental related risks. Next to this 75% of the
organisations is transparent about its social and employee-related affairs. Additionally 85% of the organisations of the top 20 use KPI’s
concerning both environmental and social and employee-related affairs.
Transparency Benchmark 2014 The Crystal 2014
45
The majority of the organisations has policies in place with regard to human rights and anti-corruption and bribery. Only 40% of organisations
however, also report on the actual results with regard to the above mentioned topics. 15% of organisations describe risk management and the
use of KPI’s concerning human rights.
65% of the organisations of the top 20 are transparent about results with regard to anti-corruption and bribery. Additionally it can be stated that
35% of organisations of the top 20 report on risk management and KPI’s with regard to this topic.
60% of the top 20 organisations has a policy with regard to
diversity in the Board of Directors. Only a quarter is however
transparent about the specific implementation of this policy.
Next to this it can be said that about 70% of the organisations
report about the gender ratio of their board of directors. 65% of
the organisations of the top 20 has in addition provided a target
with regard to diversity in the board of directors.
Diversity top 20
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Policy
Male/Female
ratio
Policy
implementation
Objectives
Materiality according to GRI
All the organisations of the top 20 report according to the guidelines of Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). 50% of these organisations use the GRI
G3.1 option, 15% use the G3 option and 35% use the latest version, G4. The top 20 of organisations are divided between in total ten sectors. For
five out of ten sectors, so-called sector supplements (G3.1) or sector disclosures (G4) are available.
The analysis shows that the sector supplements are relevant for 11 organisations. From these companies, 6 have actually used the sector
supplements. Next to this one organisation reports that the sector supplement is not applicable. Four organisations do not use the sector
supplement, where they could have used it. These organisations have determined their material topics in a different way, these topics partly
overlap with some of the topics of the sector supplements.
46
Transparency Benchmark 2014 The Crystal 2014
Conclusion
The analysis shows that many organisations report on the policy and results with regard to the environment, social and employee related affairs.
Transparency about risk management and the display of KPI’s can be significantly improved. The top 20 organisations lags behind with regard to
transparency about topics such as human rights and anti-corruption and bribery. This is true with regard to policy and results, but especially with
regard to risk management and KPI’s. With regard to the last topics there appears to be a need for further support and stimulation. Slightly more
than half of the top 20 has a policy in place with regard to diversity for the Board of Directors, leaving also room for improvement.
Transparency Benchmark 2014 The Crystal 2014
47
6 Explanation of the Transparency
Benchmark
6.1 Goal
The 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 40 criteria related to corporate responsibility
aspects of the organisations and their operations. The Transparency Benchmark explicitly does not give an opinion on the actual performance of
organisations.
6.2Differences to previous year
Compared to the previous year the following parts of the Transparency Benchmark have been changed:
1. The criteria
The criteria of the Transparency Benchmark have this year been changed and adjusted to new international developments, such as:
• The new guidelines of the GRI (G4)
• The framework for integrated reporting of the Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC)
• The OECD guidelines of multinational enterprises
• The EU directive concerning reporting of non-financial information and diversity for PIE’s (Public Interest Entity) with more than 500
employees.
• The new criteria focus more on materiality, stakeholder engagement, value creation and impact.
In order to provide insight concerning the most important changes of the Transparency Benchmark with regard to the criteria an overview has
been provided. This overview provides information with regard to the new criteria and criteria that have been changed (a content related change,
48
Transparency Benchmark 2014 The Crystal 2014
or a different amount of points that can be obtained). The overview can be downloaded by using the website of the Transparency Benchmark
(www.transparantiebenchmark.nl).
It can be said that this new criteria have had a significant influence this year. The new criteria have raised the bar for corporate responsibility
reporting. As a result the way in which organisations have interpreted the criteria differed. Next to this, the average score achieved by
organisations was lower. In 2013 the average score was 104 points (not including organisations with a 0-score). This year, the average score is 99
points.
By adopting the new criteria, the bar for corporate responsibility reporting of organisations
has been raised
2. The participant protocol and the participating organisations
The research group is developed by incorporating the following different categories:
• Public Interest Entities (PIE’s) with more than 500 employees
• Organisations with a stock listing in Amsterdam
• Organisations with substantial activities in the Netherlands related to revenue and/or amount of employees
• State participations
• Universities and University Medical Centres (UMC)
• Large organisations (more than 250 employees) who have been included in the research group on a voluntary basis in the past.
Based on the above mentioned criteria, 17 new participating organisations have been included, these can be found in the Appendix.
There have been three changes in the participant protocol that resulted in a smaller research group (460 participating organisations in 2013, 409
participating organisations in 2014). Next to this the research group is smaller due to a few companies that went bankrupt.
• Small and medium sized enterprises: Dutch organisations with a minimum of 20 employees in permanent contracts could apply on a
voluntary basis for participating in the Transparency Benchmark. From an evaluation of the Transparency Benchmark (2013) it became clear
that the process of the Transparency Benchmark did not fit with this target group. For this reason, the group of small and medium sized
companies has not been included in this year’s Transparency Benchmark.
• Dutch organisations with an international group report: an organisation can be relieved from inclusion in the Transparency Benchmark
when it can be characterized as being a subsidiary of a parent organisation that reports in line with the new proposed criteria of the EU
directive concerning non-financial information. This means that the information in the report of the parent organisation should include
Transparency Benchmark 2014 The Crystal 2014
49
the following themes: environment, social and labour related aspects, human rights, anti-corruption and bribery and board diversity. An
additional overview (without a benchmark) has been provided concerning the organisations that have been included in this category. These
organisations will not get a score. An organisation that qualifies for this category, but also publishes a report, can choose to voluntarily
participate in the Transparency Benchmark. An overview of the included organisations can be found in the Appendix.
• Hospitals: The Minister of Public Health, Wellbeing and Sport (VWS) decided to grant hospitals an extended period for submitting their
financial statements of 2013 (can be submitted until December 2014). Because of this development it is decided to exempt hospitals for
Transparency Benchmark participation. The hospitals are therefore not included in the Transparency Benchmark this year. Hospitals that
wished to participate in the Benchmark were included in the sector Universities/University Medical Centres.
The entire participant protocol can be downloaded from the website of the Transparency Benchmark (www. Transparantiebenchmark.nl).
6.3 Boundary of publicly available accounting information
The basis for the scores on the Transparency Benchmark is formed by publicly available reports over the reporting year 2013. Different types
of report qualify such as annual reports, financial reports and corporate responsibly reports. The main condition is that reports are publicly
available. This implies that the report (the information) of the participant should be available without any additional charges, or should be
available for downloading from the corporate website. Reports that are only available at the Chamber of Commerce do not qualify and can
therefore not be used as available accounting information (no points will be received). Next to this it is important that the report is periodically
published and concentrated on accounting information of the reporting year 2013 (ended in 2013). It should be noted that only reporting
information published before the 1st of July 2014 has been included the Transparency Benchmark.
6.4Methodology
This was the first year that participating organisations could use the e-tool; a web based application. The overall process consists of the following
steps:
• The self-assessment: organisations can assess their own accounting information based on the criteria of the Transparency Benchmark. This
year 172 organisations have filled in the self-assessment.
• Assessment self-assessment and/or integrated assessment: in order to secure the quality of provisional scores and remedy interpretation
differences of participants, all self-assessment have been assessed by a team of assessors and reviewers. Accounting information of
participants that did not fill in the self-assessment has been additionally reviewed.
50
Transparency Benchmark 2014 The Crystal 2014
• Commentary period: Participants that did not agree with the determined score were given the opportunity to submit their comments
concerning the criteria by using the e-tool. The comments of the participants have been reviewed and a reaction was formulated by the
executor of the Transparency Benchmark. After this process the final scores of the Transparency Benchmark have been determined and
communicated to the different participants.
• Communication with the Panel of Experts: Disagreement concerning the final score of a participant is a possibility. It should be noted that
this disagreement tends to originate mainly in a different interpretation of a criterion between the executor of the Transparency Benchmark
and the participant. Interaction with the Panel of experts was at hand when disagreement about the final score occurred between the executor
of the Transparency Benchmark and the participant. The panel of Experts assessed in these cases the final score. In total, 11 organisations have
had communication with the panel of Experts. As a result the comments of 2 organisations (3 criteria) upheld. The final scores have been set
after the period of communication with the Panel of Experts. The composition of the Panel of Experts can be found in the Appendix.
• Panel Assessment: The 20 highest scoring participants have been handed over to the Panel of Experts. The reports of these organisations
have additionally been assessed based on so-called ‘panel criteria’ (these criteria can be found in the appendix of the criteria 2014, to be
downloaded from the website of the Transparency Benchmark: www.transparantiebenchmark.nl ).
• Winner of the Crystal Prize’: The jury has the final say in determining wich organisation will be the winner of the ‘Crystal Prize’. The
composition of the Jury can be found in the Appendix. An overview of the jury criteria of 2014 can be found on the following website: www.
kristalprijs.nl. Next to the Crystal Prize, the Jury additionally awards a Jury prize; for the organisation that addresses transparency in corporate
responsibility reporting in the most creative and innovative manner.
The Jury determines who will be the winner of the ‘Crystal’.
Next to this, the jury awards the jury prize
6.5Criteria
The Transparency Benchmark is based on 40 new criteria. An overview of the criteria can be downloaded from the website of the Transparency
Benchmark (www.transparantiebenchmark.nl) . The criteria have been divided based on content (three criteria categories) and quality (five
criteria categories). In total 200 points can be scored; 100 points concerning both on content and quality. The total score can be calculated by
adding the total score on both content and quality. The maximum amount of points varies per criteria category (see figure).
Transparency Benchmark 2014 The Crystal 2014
51
Transparantiebenchmark (www.transparantiebenchmark.nl). De criteria zijn onderverdeeld in een inhoudsgericht normenkader (verdeeld over
drie categorieën) en kwaliteitsgericht normenkader (verdeeld over vijf categorieën). In totaal kunnen 200 punten behaald worden; 100 punten
voor beide normenkaders. De totaalscore komt tot stand door het optellen van de totale inhoudsgerichte en kwaliteitsgerichte score. Het maximaal aantal te behalen punten per categorie varieert (zie figuur).
Inhoudsgericht normenkader
1.
Onderneming en bedrijfsprofiel
100
33
2. Beleid en resultaten
1A. Profiel en waardeketen
10
2A. Beleid en (zelf opgelegde) verplichtingen
1B. Proces van waardecreatie
10
1C. Omgevingsanalyse
(incl. risico’s en kansen)
1D. Strategische conext
8 2C. Economische aspecten van
ondernemen
5
8 2D. Milieu-aspecten van
ondernemen
8 2E. Sociale aspecten
van ondernemen
34 3. Management aanpak
33
5 3A. Governance en
remuneratie
5 3B. Sturing en beheersing
10
8 3C. Toekomstverwachting
5
3D. Verslaggevingscriteria
10
Kwaliteitsgericht normenkader
8
100
4. Relevantie
20 5. Duidelijkheid
Materialiteit
8 Begrijpelijkheid
6 Juistheid, volledigheid
Reikwijdte en afbakening
6 Beknoptheid
4 Voorzichtigheid
Tijdigheid
6 Inzichtelijkheid
7
Toegangkelijkheid
20 6. Betrouwbaarheid
20 Responsiviteit
20 Samenhang
17 Gerichtheid op
belanghebbenden
3 Bijdrage aan
maatschappelijk
debat
Durf
13 Strategische focus
3
20
5
2 Contextuele samenhang
6
5 Integratie
6
Vergelijkbaarheid
3
Deskundigenweging
Relevantie
Duidelijkheid
Betrouwbaarheid
Responsiviteit
Samenhang
Materialiteit (relevantie van de gekozen
onderwerpen)
Reikwijdte en afbakening
Begrijpelijkheid
Juistheid
Strategische focus
Beknoptheid
Volledigheid
Tijdigheid
Inzichtelijkheid
Evenwichtigheid
Gerichtheid op
belanghebbenden
Bijdrage aan
maatschappelijk debat
Durf
Informatieve vormgeving
Toegankelijkheid
Geschiktheid
Contextuele samenhang
Integratie
Vergelijkbaarheid
Onpartijdigheid
Voorzichtigheid
6.6Jury Report
Transparantiebenchmark 2014 De Kristal 2014
The Crystal prize will be awarded for the fifth time this year. Much has changed in the reporting landscape of organisations the last couple of
years. Organisations focus more on transparency. Additionally, the criteria of the Transparency Benchmark developed further.
The Criteria
The criteria of the Transparency Benchmark have been adjusted for 2014 to incorporate the latest developments in corporate responsibility
reporting. One of these developments is the launch of the Framework for Integrated Reporting by the International Integrated Reporting
52
Transparency Benchmark 2014 The Crystal 2014
45
Council (IIRC) in December 2013. Next to the introduction of integrated reporting, The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) introduced a new set of
reporting guidelines for corporate responsibility reporting in 2014, referred to as G4. Another development that should be taken into account is
the introduction of an EU Directive focusing on corporate reporting of non-financial information. More specifically, this EU Directive includes
requirements for public interest organisations with more than 500 employees. By incorporating the new criteria, the Transparency Benchmark
follows up on the heightened societal expectations about corporate reporting. The main changes are: a stronger focus on materiality (most
relevant subjects), stakeholder engagement, value creation and impact.
A good report shows who you are as an organisation. The Jury is convinced that being transparent about who you are as an organisation,
contributes to the organisation’s success in the long term. Especially in a time where the speed and abundance of information is constantly
increasing. Be brave and transparent, even when the organisation is facing tough times. It shows real character when an organisation provides
relevant information for stakeholders, even when the message is negative. Stakeholders really appreciate it when an organisation becomes clean
about is negative affairs, even more so when the organisation clearly indicates how it will respond to these challenges. It is time for change. Let
us embrace an open culture in which we can seek and stimulate a constructive dialogue to accelerate transparency in corporate responsibility
reporting.
With the new criteria, The transparency Benchmark aims to contribute to the long term success of organisations in the field of sustainability.
The Jury hopes that the leaders of the benchmark take the lead and inspire others to take action. The Jury is on the one hand delighted that many
organisations have already progressed in order to meet the new expectations in the field of corporate responsibility reporting. On the other hand
the Jury observes that the new criteria have led to shifts on the ladder of the Transparency Benchmark. Organisations that for example already
report by using the GRI guidelines G4 or the IIRC Framework for integrated reporting score relatively higher than organisations that do not. The
Jury hopes that the Transparency Benchmark will stimulate organisations to take the next step in corporate responsibility reporting.
An important challenge for most of the organisations is to report in a concise and clear way about the entire value chain, especially when the
value chain is complex. By reporting in a clear and concise way concerning the value chain, interested parties will be enabled to understand
the context and nature of business in a better way. This can result in the fact that the performance of the organisations will be much more
appreciated. It should be noted that many organisations still struggle with this challenge. Fortunately more and more best practices are being
developed.
The winners
The Jury has the task to determine the winners. The Jury is supported in this process by the Panel of experts of the Transparency Benchmark. The
Jury thanks the efforts of the Panel of Experts. This year the Transparency Benchmark has the following winners:
Transparency Benchmark 2014 The Crystal 2014
53
Fastest climber on the ladder of the Transparency Benchmark: E.ON
E.ON has climbed this year from position 171 to position 36. An increase of a staggering 135 positions; and an increase in points achieved from 69
to 162. This is a surprising and marvellous performance.
E.ON sells gas, electricity, warmth and energy services in the Netherlands and in Belgium. E.ON decided in 2013 to include corporate
responsibility in the strategy department. By doing so, E.ON aimed at putting more emphasis on developing its strategy in line with corporate
responsibility. Additionally it should be mentioned that the activities with regard to corporate responsibility are now better aligned with the
strategy of E.ON.
The report of E.ON clearly reports on almost all the categories of the Transparency Benchmark. The Jury applauds the usage of G4 Guidelines by
E.ON. The Jury additionally believes that the report is written in a clear and comprehensible manner. Most stakeholders will be able to easily gain
information and insights from the report. Another key strength of the report lies in the fact that E.ON reports in a clear and transparent manner
about the challenges and responsibilities faced in the entire supply chain.
The most innovative report: Unilever
Since last year the Transparency Benchmark introduced a new prize: the most innovative report. The Jury stresses that the report should
contribute in a creative and innovative manner to the public debate. The Jury hopes that in this way corporate responsibility reporting will
become more and more important for all stakeholders involved.
This year’s prize for most innovative report will be awarded to Unilever. Unilever’s report is highly innovative by making a clear link between
macro-economic challenges and its own targets for growth. Three themes are central: health and wellbeing, environment and livelihoods. The
Jury believes that Unilever is a clear differentiator compared to other organisations.
In addition, Unilever’s report provides clear examples illustrating how certain products contribute in generating impact for society at large. Next
to this, a variety of videos and links to the report provide an appealing approach as to how Unilever acts on major societal challenges.
The Crystal Prize, first prize of the Transparency Benchmark
The three nominees for this year’s first prize of the Transparency Benchmark are the following (in alphabetical order): AkzoNobel, KPN and
NS. It was again a big challenge for the Jury to choose the best report out of three excellent reports. It should be noted that even this year the
differences between the quality of the reports was very small.
54
Transparency Benchmark 2014 The Crystal 2014
As usual, first the organisation that received the third place on the Transparency Benchmark: KPN (same position as last year). One of the key
strengths of KPN is that it is willing and able to take a vulnerable position in its reporting. KPN provided insight not only in all the things that
went well, but also articulated what went wrong. An illustrative example can be found in being transparent about the fines that were received.
Additionally, KPN was able to fulfil the new criteria of the Transparency Benchmark. One point of improvement lies in creating a clear common
focus running through the entire report. It can be said that that information occasionally is scattered throughout the report, which causes a bit
of confusion.
The second place is awarded to AkzoNobel. The Jury believed that the report of AkzoNobel was superior in both risk management and describing
added value. Another strength of the report could according to the Jury be found in the link between materiality and societal trends. AkzoNobel
is highly consistent by finishing again 2nd , for the third time in a row. A point of improvement could lie in describing the connectivity between
financial and social aspects.
Winner of the Crystal Prize 2014: NS
Although the differences between the top 3 were relatively small, it should be noted that there is one clear point in which NS is a real
differentiator compared to the other competitors. NS is the only organisation that presented indicators to express the monetary value of its
social and environmental impact. By doing so, NS clearly responds to the following trend: the value of organisations is more and more being
determined by societal aspects.
The Jury applauds the report of the NS because it incorporates and anticipates on the current societal expectations. Additionally the rise on
the ladder of the Transparency Benchmark is impressive. NS was ranked on the 28th place in 2012, climbed to the 6th place in 2013 and is now
the number one of the Transparency Benchmark. The report meets almost all the criteria of the Transparency Benchmark. Next to this the Jury
believes that the NS has interpretated the theme ‘show who your are’ in an outstanding way. NS showed real courage by describing the disaster of
the Fyra in its report. Additionally it can be said that the NS is a great leader concerning responsible energy usage:
‘In 2014 we will be entering into a new long-term contract for the supply of electricity for all the electric trains in the Netherlands on behalf of the rail sector. NS uses about
1.2 TWh of electricity to run its trains. The request for tender includes requirements for this electricity to be made more environmentally friendly in a financially viable
manner. From 2014, the electricity supplier will build additional sustainable sources in the course of the contractual period such as wind turbines or solar panels, so that NS
will be able to offer its customers climate-neutral (clean) train journeys.’
The Jury hopes to have even better reports in 2015. The Jury will however have a different composition since chairman Mrs Bibi de Vries will
resign.
Transparency Benchmark 2014 The Crystal 2014
55
6.7Organisations with zero points awarded
The category ‘organisations with zero points awarded’ consists of organisations that are included in the research group but that did not achieve a
score (0-score). An organisation can fall into the this category if:
• The report was not publicly available for free
• The report was not published in a timely manner, and previous reports have already been included in the Transparency Benchmark.
• The organisation did not refer to a report from the parent on group level. And if the organisation did not apply for the group report
arrangement.
2011
2012
2013
Total number of participants
469
473
460
2014
409
Total of organisations with zero
points awarded
236
242
200
165
Percentage of organisations with
zero points awarded
50%
51%
43%
40%
The Ministry aims to reduce the group of organisations with zero points awarded. Because of several initiatives the group of organisations
with zero points awarded significantly reduced. In total there were 165 organisations with a 0-score, whereas last year this amount was 200.
It is important to stakeholders and society that organisations are transparent. The Ministry will keep initiating different activities to inspire
organisations to act on corporate responsibility reporting. The appendix will provide an overview of all the organisations with zero points
awarded (a difference is made between business-to-business and business-to-consumer organisations).
Several initiatives have led to a reduction in the amount of organisations with
zero points awarded
56
Transparency Benchmark 2014 The Crystal 2014
7 Appendices
7.1 New Participating organisations
New Participants
Sector
AND International
Services
Batenburg Techniek N.V.
Services
Binckbank
Banking and insurers
Clondalkin Industries B.V.
Other
Coöperatie Univé U.A.
Banking and insurers
Coöperatie VGZ U.A.
Banking and insurers
Gemalto N.V.
Services
Grondexploitatiemaatschappij Meerstad B.V.
Banking and insurers
Kardan N.V.
Real estate
Monuta
Banking and insurers
N.V. HVC
Services
Nederlandse Waterschapsbank N.V.
Banking and insurers
Stichting Espria
Services
Stichting Kwadrantgroep
Services
Value8
Services
Yarden Holding B.V.
Services
Ziggo N.V.
Technology
Transparency Benchmark 2014 The Crystal 2014
57
7.2 Dutch organisations with an international group report
Before this year, organisations in the research group which are part of a multinational organisation, but did not provide public accounting
information on the Dutch activities were placed in the category ‘organisations with zero points awarded’. The reason was that if an organisation
was included in the research group (due to substantial Dutch activities), it should also have accounting information about specific situation in
The Netherlands.
This score, however, often does not do justice to the CSR efforts ( and accountability on the international level) of the specific organisation.
As of this year it was possible for these organisations to choose a separate arrangement. This arrangement includes not being displaced on the
ranking of the Transparency Benchmark. Instead, these organisations will be placed on a different list, without a benchmark. In order to qualify
for this arrangement, a report on group level should fulfil at least a minimum amount of criteria. These criteria can be found on the website
of the Transparency Benchmark (www.transparantiebenchmark.nl). An organisation will be included in the Transparency benchmark as an
organisation with zero points awarded if the organisation fails to fulfil the required criteria for the arrangement concerning the international
group report.
58
Company
Company
BP Nederland Holdings
Nike
Apollo Vredestein
Capgemini
T-Mobile Netherlands
Thales Nederland
Thomas Cook Nederland
Eur. Container Terminals
Coca-Cola Enterprises Nederland
Essent
A.S. Watson (Health and Beauty Continental Europe)
Abbott
Ericsson
IBM
Sodexo
Loders Croklaan - IOI Group
Nuon
Grolsch
Esso Benelux
Oracle
Transparency Benchmark 2014 The Crystal 2014
7.3 Organisations with zero points awarded
This year, 165 organisations have been categorized as ‘organisations with zero points awarded’. As mentioned before, organisations can be placed
in this category because of several reasons. In order to provide more insight into the type of organisation, the organisations with zero points
awarded were divided into business to business (B2B) and Business to consumer (B2C) organisations (see table below):
• 103 organisations are active as B2B
• 60 organisations are active as B2C
• 2 organisations are active in both categories
Company
B2B/B2C
Company
B2B/B2C
Aan de Stegge Holding B.V.
B2B & B2C
Bluewater Energy Services B.V.
B2B
ABB B.V.
B2B
Booking.com B.V.
B2C
Accenture B.V.
B2B
Bosal Nederland B.V.
B2B
Acer Europe B.V.
B2B
Bose Products
B2B & B2C
Action Service & Distributie
B2C
Boston Scientific Int. B.V.
B2B
Adecco Nederland Holding B.V. B2C
B2B
ADG dienstengroep B.V.
B2B
British American Tobacco International (Holdings)
B.V.
Advanced Travel Partners Nederland B.V.
B2C
C. den Braven Beheer B.V.
B2B
B2B
Cabot Norit Activated Carbon
B2B
B2B
Caldic B.V.
B2B
B2B
Canon Europa N.V.
B2C
B2B
Cargill B.V.
B2B
B2B
Center Parcs Europe N.V.
B2C
B2C
Cisco Systems International B.V.
B2C
B2B
Citadel Enterprises B.V.
B2B
B2B
Clondalkin Industries B.V.
B2B
Bakkersland Groep B.V.
B2C
Copaco Nederland B.V.
B2B
BASF Nederland B.V.
B2B
CRH Nederland B.V.
B2B
BCD Travel Holding
B2C
Da Holding B.V.
B2C
Beleggingsmij. Braverassa B.V.
B2B
Damen Shipyards Group N.V.
B2B
Amlin Corporate Insurance
ArcelorMittal Netherlands B.V.
Ardagh Group Netherlands B.V.
Argos Group Holding B.V.
Astellas B.V.
Atos Origin Nederland B.V.
Audax B.V.
A-Ware Food Group B.V.
Transparency Benchmark 2014 The Crystal 2014
59
60
Company
B2B/B2C
Company
B2B/B2C
Danone Baby and Medical Nutrition B.V.
B2C
Hoogvliet B.V.
B2C
De Hoop Terneuzen B.V.
B2B
Hoogwegt Groep B.V.
B2B
De Kon. Nederlandse Munt N.V.
B2B
Horedo/Rensa
B2B
De MandemakersGroep Holding B.V.
B2C
Hyva Group B.V.
B2B
DE Masterblenders 1753
B2C
IMCD Holding B.V.
B2B
De Rijke Continental B.V.
B2B
Inalfa Roof Systems Group B.V.
B2B
De Stiho Groep B.V.
B2B
Ingram Micro
B2C
Delek Nederland B.V.
B2B
Interfood Holding
B2B
Denkavit Internationaal B.V.
B2B
Intergamma B.V.
B2C
Denso Int. Europe B.V.
B2B
Inter-Sprint Banden
B2B
Dirk van den Broek/Dekamarkt
B2C
Intervet International / MSD
B2C
Dockwise Ltd.
B2B
Intres B.V.
B2C
Ecurion
B2C
ISS Holding Nederland B.V.
B2B
EEA Helicopter Operations B.V.
B2B
Koepon
B2C
Elopak B.V.
B2B
Koninklijke De Heus B.V.
B2B
Endemol B.V.
B2C
Koninklijke Distill. Dirkzwager B.V.
B2B
Enviem Holding B.V.
B2B
Koninklijke Wagenborg
B2C
Epson Europe B.V.
B2B
Koninklijke Wegener N.V.
B2C
Equens SE
B2B
Koninklijke Zeelandia Groep B.V.
B2B
Ewals Holdings B.V.
B2B
Koops Furness N.V.
B2C
Flowserve
B2B
Kuehne + Nagel N.V.
B2B
Foot Locker Europe B.V.
B2C
Kuwait Petroleum B.V.
B2C
FUJIFILM Europe B.V.
B2C
Kyocera Mita Europe B.V.
B2B
Glencore Grain Rotterdam B.V.
B2B
Lekkerland Beheer
B2B
Grondexploitatiemaatschappij Meerstad BV
B2B
Lohomij B.V.
B2C
Handelsveem Beheer
B2B
Loyens & Loeff N.V.
B2C
Hanos (Apeldoorn B.V.)
B2B
Luchthaven Maastricht
B2C
Heerema Marine Contractors Holding Nederland B.V. B2B
Manpower Nederland B.V.
B2C
Hitachi Machinery N.V.
B2B
Markeur
B2B
Honeywell Netherl. Hold. B.V.
B2C
Mars Nederland B.V.
B2C
Transparency Benchmark 2014 The Crystal 2014
Company
B2B/B2C
Company
B2B/B2C
MCB International B.V.
B2B
Rockwell Automation B.V.
B2B
Mediq
B2B
RTL Nederland B.V.
B2C
Metro Distributie Nederland/Mediamarkt
B2C
Samskip
B2C
Mexx Europe Holding B.V.
B2C
Sanoma Magazines B.V.
B2C
MHI Equipment Europe B.V.
B2B
Scania Europe
B2C
Miss Etam B.V.
B2C
Scheuten Glass Holding B.V.
B2B
Mitsubishi Motors Europe B.V.
B2B
Sensata Technol. Holding N.V.
B2B
Momentive Specialty Chemicals BV
B2B
SIHI Group B.V.
B2B
Mosadex
B2C
Sogeti Nederland B.V.
B2B
N.V. Deli Maatschappij
B2B
SPAR Holding B.V.
B2C
Nedschroef Nederland B.V.
B2B
Specialist Computer Holdings Nederland B.V.
B2B
Nestlé Nederland B.V.
B2C
St. Clair/ De Bijenkorf
B2C
NetApp & Manufacturing
B2C
Stage Entertainment B.V.
B2B
New World Resources
B2B
Stolt Tankers
B2B
Office Depot International
B2C
Storteboom Group B.V.
B2B
Omron Europe B.V.
B2C
Sulzer Netherlands Holding
B2C
Optiver Holding B.V.
B2B
Sundio Group B.V.
B2C
Otra N.V.
B2B
Swets & Zeitlinger Hold. N.V.
B2B
Oxbow Coal B.V.
B2B
Synbra Holding B.V.
B2B
P.L. v. Merksteijn Hold. B.V.
B2B
Tata Steel
B2B
PGA Nederland N.V.
B2C
Terberg Group B.V.
B2C
Philip Morris Holland B.V.
B2B
The Royal Bank of Scotland
B2B
Plukon Food Group
B2C
Theobroma B.V.
B2B
Poiesz Beheer B.V.
B2C
Tommy Hilfiger Europe
B2C
Post-Kogeko Logistics B.V.
B2C
Toshiba Medical Systems Europe B.V.
B2B
Raben Group B.V.
B2B
Transm. and Engineer. Services Netherl.
B2B
Remeha Group B.V.
B2C
Universal Cargo Logistics
B2B
RFS Holland Holding B.V.
B2C
V&D Group
B2C
Roba
B2B
Van den Ban Autobanden B.V.
B2B
Transparency Benchmark 2014 The Crystal 2014
61
62
Company
B2B/B2C
Van Wijnen Groep N.V.
B2B
Vroegop Ruhe & Co. B.V.
B2B
Vroon Group B.V.
B2B
WE Europe B.V.
B2B
Xeikon
B2B
Xerox Investments Europe
B2B
Yanmar Europe
B2B
Yara Sluiskil B.V.
B2B
Transparency Benchmark 2014 The Crystal 2014
7.4 Panel of Experts Transparency Benchmark
The Panel of Experts controls the quality of the assessments and communicates with organisations that had comments regarding their final
score. Additionally, the Panel of Experts assesses the top 20 of the Transparency Benchmark; the highest scoring reports plus additional
periodical information. The Panel of Experts focuses on the quality related criteria (relevance, clarity, reliability, responsiveness and coherence)
and adjusts these with a maximum of 15% (positive or negative) based on their own set of criteria. The selected top 3 by the Panel of Experts will
be nominated and handed over to the jury. Furthermore, the Panel of Experts determines ‘good practices’, the most communicative and most
innovative report and the winners per sector. The panel of Experts advises the Ministry on possible revision of criteria as well.
The Panel of Experts consists of the following members:
• Chairman:
• Member on behalf of the organisation for entrepreneurs:
• Member on behalf of academic expertise:
• Member on behalf of GRI expertise:
• Member based on personal title:
• Member on behalf of users:
• Member on behalf of communication advisors:
• Member on behalf of investors:
• Member on behalf of corporate responsible organisations:
mrs. Nancy Kamp-Roelands (external expert);
mrs. Linda van Beek;
mr. André Nijhof;
mrs. Teresa Fogelberg (vice-chair);
mr. Ernst van Weperen;
mr. Willem Lageweg;
mr. Gijs Droge;
mr. Giuseppe van der Helm;
mr. Tim Steinweg.
7.5 Jury of The Crystal
The jury chooses a winner out of the three nominated reports. The jury provides an explanation in the jury report. The jury adopts the criteria:
‘show who you are’ in choosing the winner of the top 3 organisations. In addition, the jury formalizes the honourable announcements and
determines the theme and theme prize for the coming year.
The jury that determines the top 3 of the Transparency Benchmark and selects the winner of The Crystal award consists of the following
members:
• Chairman:
mrs. Bibi de Vries
• Member:
HRH Prince Carlos de Bourbon de Parme
• Member:
mr. Leen Paape
Transparency Benchmark 2014 The Crystal 2014
63
64
Transparency Benchmark 2014 The Crystal 2014
This is a publication of the Ministry of Economic Affairs, The Hague
Do you have additional reactions or feedback? Please send your reactions/comments to: [email protected]
This publication is digitally available via www.rijksoverheid.nl/ez
The Crystal, the main award of the Transparency Benchmark is an initiative of the Ministry of Economic Affairs and the Netherlands Institute for Chartered Accountants (NBA)
Project team 2014: EZ: Margo Stam, NBA: Michèl Admiraal
www.transparantiebenchmark.nl www.kristalprijs.nl
Directorate-General for Enterprise and Innovation
Bezuidenhoutseweg 73
Postbus 20401
2500 EK The Hague
www.rijksoverheid.nl/ez
November 2014 | e02-626439

DWH Maintenance Optimisation

Job Summary: MAIN DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES:

training course

Board quotas for women - is this really the gender

bitesize executive summary

PRM Guidelines

Bank Item Number GC2.12.L1 Benchmark SS.7.C.2.12 Cognitive

Board of Directors Meeting 30 Report

D10 Masters 2015 open evenings flier

Flyer Summer Programme on the WTO 2014