Ranking of Austrian Online CSR Reports
Results 2020: Greiner - Sustainability Report 2018
|1. STRATEGIC APPROACH||19||29.1||15.8||45.1|
|a. Were the material aspects identified according to the criteria of the GRI standard?||38||2.5||6.0||9.3|
|b. Does the company take responsibility for its impact along the entire value chain?||11||7.0||6.0||9.0|
|c. Does the corporate strategy include a management approach to all material topics?||17||6.4||5.8||9.6|
|d. Are both harm reduction strategies and maximization of benefits pursued?||17||6.1||5.6||8.7|
|e. Have appropriate structures and processes for sustainability management been set up and sufficiently presented in the report?||7||7.1||4.8||9.0|
|2. OPEN INFORMATION||12||16.6||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)||9||6.2||4.8||9.3|
|b. Is the report balanced? (positive / negative developments, solved / unresolved problems, etc.)||18||4.8||4.5||8.7|
|c. Are internal and external stakeholders appropriately involved and are the relevant structures and processes disclosed?||13||5.6||4.9||9.3|
|3. USER ORIENTATION||8||11.5||5.1||19.0|
|a. Is the report clearly structured according to the material topics?||36||0.8||2.2||4.7|
|b. Is the text clear and precise, easy to understand and read?||2||4.2||2.7||4.7|
|c. Is the visualization appealing and does it support the understanding of the content?||6||4.0||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.)||9||2.5||1.8||5.0|
|TOTAL RANK & SCORE||15||57.1||51.6||91.4|
I would recommend creating sub-chapters regarding the internal responsibilities within the company in terms of sustainability management. Until now there is only an overview which provides the reader an idea about structures and processes but not a proper understanding about their management.
In my opinion, the report is missing a good evaluation, especially in terms of goals. I think evaluation is the basis for constant development, which is necessary in today’s dynamic world. Greiner could improve that.
I would like to advise to enhance their user friendliness by providing further links to gather information. Also, in comparison with the Palfinger report f.e., the report could be more interactive and modern by adding some online tools. This might also strengthen the interest of “young people”.
Last, I would recommend including in the report a stronger link to their “daily business”. Plastic is high on interest nowadays and an important topic (not only with sustainability). I think it would be smart to list some of the challenges within the report – this shows reflection and further development.
Identify or present the material topics according to the GRI standards. Above all, the point impact on certain things and stakeholder impact on the company
Include more negative developments or unresolved problems to make the report more balanced. This also makes Greiner more transparent and credible.
Structure the report according to the material topics as they have been identified and weighted. Also use the same wording, otherwise the reader will be confused.
Use modern online tools to make your report more interactive. In addition, stakeholder-specific (shorter) versions would be practical to find relevant topics quickly and easily.
Put the GRI Index in the annex at the back of the report and link pages to ensure a better user experience and navigation through the report
After the list of material topics (p. 27) they should include a section that shows which topics are then grouped together in which focus area / chapter -> this helps with navigation and evaluation whether most material topics come first in the report
SMART Objectives for each material topic should be stated right at the beginning and summarized in an overall chart. This chart should also include the performance evaluation for each objective in a summarizing way, which would help with evaluating the CSR performance of Greiner.
Missing content: This report is the first of its kind from the company. There are areas on which no comments have yet been made. These areas have been included and identified in the overview, with an indication that further information will be provided in the next reporting cycle. What is missing here is an explanation of why no information is available and why the part will be explained first next time. Comments could be made here to make the gap comprehensible.
It is mentioned in some places that the development of the objectives will be based on this current first report. The report is intended to be the basis for all future reports and should be seen as a starting point. I would recommend to focus in the next report more on the interpretation of development and the evaluation of goals. As well as the analysis and interpretation of results.
Interactive solutions: The presentation format and content are very appealing. Also the web-based solution is well structured and pleasant to read. They could adapt it to mobile usage. Information can be made available to a wider audience. Interactive graphics and various video formats can increase the transfer of knowledge. Optional in-depth material can be provided for the various target groups as an additional benefit and service. Today’s technologies offer many possibility to provide information in an innovative way.
External ratings: The report was not subject to an external review. Greiner has stated this transparently in the report. The key figures were analyzed by an external consultant. The results, feedback or interpretations of this consultant were not noted or labelled as such. This could be done in the next report. External voices and feedback made the report more transparent. This increases the credibility towards the company and its sustainability mission.
Real-time insights: This recommendation is a step further and opens up a new dimension of transparency. It is about opening up information on current key figures and other important developments in real time. This very visionary and courageous step makes a company vulnerable to various crises and contents. If the company meets this challenge openly and professionally, it can build up enormous trust and a long-term reputation.
Greiner misses to fulfill the structure the materiality topics more compact and spreads them over the whole document, making following them really hard. This should be provided more compact, ready to identify more quickly.
Greiner should aim to address the negative effects of their company more, the whole report keeps looking on the bright-side of things, the ugly truth needs to be said as well. That would make the whole report more honest.
The management approach of Greiner must be explained further, making clear how the management of CSR topics is handled and how the company tries to achieve the set goals in the future.
The report could use some online features also providing more data and graphs to understand and follow the sustainability aspects over the years and different branches of Greiner.