Ranking of Austrian Online CSR Reports
Results 2020: Magenta - Nachhaltigkeitsbericht 2019
|1. STRATEGIC APPROACH||26||24.4||15.8||45.1|
|a. Were the material aspects identified according to the criteria of the GRI standard?||22||5.6||6.0||9.3|
|b. Does the company take responsibility for its impact along the entire value chain?||21||5.8||6.0||9.0|
|c. Does the corporate strategy include a management approach to all material topics?||22||5.6||5.8||9.6|
|d. Are both harm reduction strategies and maximization of benefits pursued?||19||5.5||5.6||8.7|
|e. Have appropriate structures and processes for sustainability management been set up and sufficiently presented in the report?||33||1.9||4.8||9.0|
|2. OPEN INFORMATION||31||10.3||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)||35||2.9||4.8||9.3|
|b. Is the report balanced? (positive / negative developments, solved / unresolved problems, etc.)||28||3.5||4.5||8.7|
|c. Are internal and external stakeholders appropriately involved and are the relevant structures and processes disclosed?||24||3.9||4.9||9.3|
|3. USER ORIENTATION||19||9.0||5.1||19.0|
|a. Is the report clearly structured according to the material topics?||19||2.2||2.2||4.7|
|b. Is the text clear and precise, easy to understand and read?||13||3.0||2.7||4.7|
|c. Is the visualization appealing and does it support the understanding of the content?||27||1.5||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.)||13||2.3||1.8||5.0|
|TOTAL RANK & SCORE||25||43.6||51.6||91.4|
Although the report is unique in being designed for online use only, it is not structured and user-friendly. A table of content, which can be called up at any time, would counteract this problem.
There is a lack of a clear commitment of the management to the issue of sustainability. One way to provide a first indication could be a foreword by the board of directors.
The report is generally attractively designed. However, the report is very text-heavy. Graphics and illustrations would be suitable to enhance the report.
Magenta has the possibility to integrate new elements into the report such as videos or interactive graphics. These forms are not used yet, although they would be much easier to integrate into an online report than into a classic PDF report.
They should reflect THEIR negative developments and impacts more – not only focusing on the good things or on developments they don’t cause (they face the problem of child labor, and try to improve there, but they are not focusing on their own problems
Providing the report online is a modern and good idea, but they should use the options online is providing like multimedia or interactive information design
They should make the report clearer – a user-friendlier approach
Improve their stakeholder engagement and show how they are interacting with them and prove that the opinions of the stakeholders are being heard
Visualization: Include more graphs and figures in the report to clarify the points. At the moment it seems like a text cemetery that cannot be fully comprehended the way it is structured right now.
Stakeholders: In the report the high stakeholder engagement measures are stated – these should be further described, and possibilities of stakeholder engagement could be included right into the website of the report.
Mobile optimization: The report is not optimized for mobile devices. As a mobile company this should be integrated (maybe even though an app); right now the site looks exactly like the web report and many figures cannot be read easily.
Magenta could provide more figures on all material topics and define their goals clearer and measurable.
Including charts and images would help the user to understand the content and make the report more appealing.
Magenta could disclose more details about their sustainability management structures and processes.
The report contains individual formulations of objectives, but SMART objectives are missing. This means that it is not possible to measure and control the objectives. This is noticeable in the report, as the developments are (periodically) hardly interpreted. In the individual thematic priorities it is stated that the goals have already been fully achieved or that great efforts are being made to achieve them. Key figures are missing. A more precise formulation and graphic support must be chosen here.
T-Mobile Austria is talking about defining binding sustainability targets in the various areas of its business activities. A table follows in which the subject areas, measures and target horizon are listed. In the last column you will often only find the words: ongoing or achieved. This is an inadequate representation of the achievement of objectives or the target horizon. A comparison of the status quo and vision/objectives, including important key figures, would be suitable here. But not only in the overview but also in the description of the individual priorities, the goals, their achievement and the state of development should be described and critically interpreted.
Show developments in comparative period: In order to understand the objectives and their achievement, a uniform comparative framework is needed. The key figures should refer to a common reference date or source. When reading through the data, it is noticeable that the comparison was made with any other years. It seems as if particularly suitable figures were selected to make the developments work as well as possible. It is important to define a comparison period and to draw this through all the main topics. With this approach, development gaps and standstills become visible. This approach is not appropriate for a qualitative report and does not provide meaningful information for the different target groups and to not show the further development of the organization.
Analysis content is missing: Which stakeholders and why, what influences has the company? Why are those core issues determined, with what motives were they determined. What is the basis of the decisions. There is a lack of transparency and explanation. Within the core issues, objectives must also be defined in a measurable way, the measures for achieving the objectives must be described, control mechanisms and developments must be shown.