Ranking of Austrian Online CSR Reports
Results 2020: BIG - NFI Bericht 2019
|1. STRATEGIC APPROACH||15||31.7||15.8||45.1|
|a. Were the material aspects identified according to the criteria of the GRI standard?||17||6.8||6.0||9.3|
|b. Does the company take responsibility for its impact along the entire value chain?||18||6.5||6.0||9.0|
|c. Does the corporate strategy include a management approach to all material topics?||12||7.0||5.8||9.6|
|d. Are both harm reduction strategies and maximization of benefits pursued?||6||7.4||5.6||8.7|
|e. Have appropriate structures and processes for sustainability management been set up and sufficiently presented in the report?||24||4.0||4.8||9.0|
|2. OPEN INFORMATION||16||15.3||7.9||27.3|
|a. Does the report make clear and complete statements? (Key figures on all material topics, interpretation of development, definition/evaluation of goals)||13||5.5||4.8||9.3|
|b. Is the report balanced? (positive / negative developments, solved / unresolved problems, etc.)||10||5.5||4.5||8.7|
|c. Are internal and external stakeholders appropriately involved and are the relevant structures and processes disclosed?||22||4.3||4.9||9.3|
|3. USER ORIENTATION||5||11.8||5.1||19.0|
|a. Is the report clearly structured according to the material topics?||17||2.3||2.2||4.7|
|b. Is the text clear and precise, easy to understand and read?||3||3.9||2.7||4.7|
|c. Is the visualization appealing and does it support the understanding of the content?||9||3.4||2.4||4.7|
|d. Is the report user-friendly and are online features sufficiently utilized? (Target group specific approach, optional information, links, timeliness, interactivity etc.)||14||2.3||1.8||5.0|
|TOTAL RANK & SCORE||13||58.7||51.6||91.4|
BIG mainly focuses on what they can do to improve general sustainability problems and make the world a better place. However, I would love to read in more detail about how they as a company affect the environment negatively (actively or passively) and what they do against that.
It would be nice to have more concrete statements from Stakeholders or key employees on certain topics. The report sometimes seems like one big list of all the great things they’re doing and some statements could easen that up a bit and make it more authentic.
They could make the report a little more interactive. They have an amazing website dedicated solely to sustainability (Nachhaltigkeitsportal) and I feel like they could mention it more often, for example to reference to “further information”, interviews, downloadable content or such. It is only mentioned in the introduction!
When describing the organizational structure that has been set up for sustainability management, for most people it is helpful to have a visualization or a more detailed description than just a paragraph. It is the basis for working sustainably after all.
When it comes to the supply and value chain, the BIG should elaborate that topic a lot more in the report. The company could visualize and describe the value chain more in detail, like Lenzing AG for example.
To be more authentic the company should also analyze their figures and be more transparent regarding negative experiences or outcomes and what they learned from that.
BIG wants to convey an urban and modern image for the reader of the report, but they did not provide any online features or interactivity features in this report. This would be a positive add-on.
Contact Person: There isn’t a contact person included, why? Organizational structures and people, who are responsible for sustainability must be mentioned, otherwise it appears like a pr-text and even they have contact numbers
Utilize Online features: Cross-References to website could be linked, content could include hyperlinks to actual pages as well, GRI standards have page-references could be linked too, so no scrolling would be needed
Value Chain: Value Chain in construction industry is really important, as the company has to buy materials, needs investors. The report misses a clear overview, reader needs to gather and make his/her own big picture
Include NGOs in report: As they want to surpass sustainability standards, one way to catch the reader’s attention would be highlighting co-operations with NGOs better, BGI could name them and give them some spotlight in the report itself
The concrete process of SH engagement could be more transparent, w. e.g quotes of most important inputs from SH & frequency of certain topics SH mentioned, etc. This would enhance transparency & would make clear how the perspectives of intern./extern. SH merge w. each other ( not just different colors in the matrix).
Need to highlight more the material topics (just like they do it with the BIG 10 pts.) w. more measurable/ decisive objectives, appropriate KPIs. Need to mention them throughout the report.
BIG definitely is on the right track but needs to involve more in future aspects. Could identify more SDGs/mat. topics relevant for contributing to unsolved problems (positive impacts). For this they could cooperate w. NGOs.
BIG should give CSR report even more importance as a platform: Exposing relevant information (e.g. processes of sustainability mgmt.) in more detail - graphs could help here. Should highlight more its efforts to maximize positive impacts throughout the report (Hektar Nektar only mentioned at the end of the report).
Leave a ReplyWant to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!