Ranking of Austrian Online CSR Reports

Results 2019: BAWAG - Corporate Social Responsibility Report 2018

For the ranking in each category (Strategic Approach, Open Information and User Orientation) click on the respective link below.

1. STRATEGIC APPROACH2420.411.942.8
a. Were the material aspects identified according to the criteria of the GRI standard?
b. Does the company take responsibility for its impact along the entire value chain?
c. Does the corporate strategy include a management approach to all material topics?
d. Are both harm reduction strategies and maximization of benefits pursued?
e. Have appropriate structures and processes for sustainability management been set up and sufficiently presented in the report?
2. OPEN INFORMATION249.96.226.9
a. Does the report make clear and complete statements? (Key figures on all material topics, interpretation of development, definition/evaluation of goals)
b. Is the report balanced? (positive / negative developments, solved / unresolved problems, etc.)
c. Are internal and external stakeholders appropriately involved and are the relevant structures and processes disclosed?
3. USER ORIENTATION197.94.017.0
a. Is the report clearly structured according to the material topics?
b. Is the text clear and precise, easy to understand and read?
c. Is the visualization appealing and does it support the understanding of the content?
d. Is the report user-friendly and are online features sufficiently utilized? (Target group specific approach, optional information, links, timeliness, interactivity etc.)
TOTAL RANK & SCORE2238.153.686.2


(provided by students, how the company should improve its report)

More in-depth work should be spend on clear explanations and representation towards the materiality analysis. This could be acted out in form of a detailed process analysis or chart.

The BAWAG GROUP could for example present the following: the stakeholder engagement process in detail (including graphical visualization), the materiality process in more detail – particularly pointing out the rating scheme where they prioritize the long list of topics. Currently, one cannot be sure whether there has been a long list or not and how the decision-making towards the material topics took place.

Explanations are missing and the impact of the company on society, the environment, the economy and stakeholders is not clear. One repeatedly gets the impression that BAWAG is not quite clear what the CSR Report is really about - namely its impact on society and not vice versa. So for the next report the material topics should be explained in more detail and BAWAG should make sure that it really is about the company's impact on the outside world!

Go into more detail in the next report, as some topics were only dealt with very superficially.

The way the stakeholder analysis and involvement has been carried out could have been more elaborated.

In general, with the various initiatives the bank already does they could offer more stakeholders from along the value chain to participate and actively involve in certain processes.

Following the path of an external view on the organization, another improvement would be to integrate an unbiased study on which impacts the bank has on the various external environments.

An important recommendation from my side includes a sufficient presentation of structures and processes for CSR management.

Instead of just enumerating what they have achieved a more elaborated overview about the future objectives regarding corporate social responsibility would be very good. An example would be to present them in a chart including the prioritization and the impact on the environment.

They must keep an eye on the layout and design, as this report does not really appear comfortable towards the reader. In fact, creative visualizations and colors are completely missing. The integration of links and cross-references would further help the readers confidence with the topics and comprehensibility of the report.

Work should be done on the visual presentation.

The report clearly needs a more user-oriented style

The report is very vaguely user-friendly and is not sufficiently appealing to the various target groups. To a large extent, the report lacks interactivity, which makes it seem too scientific and demanding throughout.

0 replies

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply