Ranking of Austrian Online CSR Reports
Results 2020: Mayr-Melnhof - Consolidated Non-Financial Report 2018
|1. STRATEGIC APPROACH||23||20.9||11.9||42.8|
|a. Were the material aspects identified according to the criteria of the GRI standard?||16||6.4||6.5||9.4|
|b. Does the company take responsibility for its impact along the entire value chain?||20||4.9||6.0||9.2|
|c. Does the corporate strategy include a management approach to all material topics?||20||4.4||6.0||9.0|
|d. Are both harm reduction strategies and maximization of benefits pursued?||27||1.7||5.6||9.6|
|e. Have appropriate structures and processes for sustainability management been set up and sufficiently presented in the report?||18||3.4||4.6||9.1|
|2. OPEN INFORMATION||27||6.3||6.2||26.9|
|a. Does the report make clear and complete statements? (Key figures on all material topics, interpretation of development, definition/evaluation of goals)||27||1.9||4.8||9.2|
|b. Is the report balanced? (positive / negative developments, solved / unresolved problems, etc.)||28||2.0||5.0||8.8|
|c. Are internal and external stakeholders appropriately involved and are the relevant structures and processes disclosed?||26||2.4||5.1||9.1|
|3. USER ORIENTATION||21||6.9||4.0||17.0|
|a. Is the report clearly structured according to the material topics?||10||3.4||2.8||4.7|
|b. Is the text clear and precise, easy to understand and read?||25||2.1||3.0||4.4|
|c. Is the visualization appealing and does it support the understanding of the content?||28||0.7||2.3||4.6|
|d. Is the report user-friendly and are online features sufficiently utilized? (Target group specific approach, optional information, links, timeliness, interactivity etc.)||24||0.7||1.7||4.5|
|TOTAL RANK & SCORE||26||34.1||53.6||86.2|
The whole report should include more key figures, e.g. how much waste does MM want to reduce…
Hard facts and numbers are definitely missing in this report. It is a lot of vague written content without numbers or key figures. Substantial, essential information, more details and further information on their CSR efforts are desperately needed to make this report better.
I would endorse that they implement a management-approach with measurements and the results described.
Their management approach to all material topics is barely mentioned. They show measurements and key factors however they do not explain HOW the measure it and WHAT are the further steps are. Tables show some developments (reduction of CO2 emissions for example) but this numbers do not really differ from the year before, so I do not see the point in even showing them. I would recommend a detailed visualisation of their material topics with a general description at fist and than a well thought explanation of how to manage this topics and which stakeholders are important for each material topic. In addition, I would recommend only showing changes in tables when the numbers are clearly different in comparison to the last year.
They analyse and describe factor along the value chain, however, one important point is totally missing, and this is how the products get delivered to the customer.
Reporting on negative developments and unresolved problems should be included.
The report is very unbalanced concerning the positive and negative things that are mentioned. It should also describe the unresolved problems of the company to achieve transparency and not only describe, what good they do.
To make a more detailed analysis of their stakeholder involved in the CSR material topics. They have defined some superficial engagement levels but not as detailed as seen in other reports.
The chapter “Stakeholder Dialog” could be extended. Mayr-Melnhof talks here about information and personal contacts but it is not described in which decisions stakeholders could engage or are even involved. I also think that the personal contacts could be described in more detail. For example, the report says that customer surveys are conducted regularly. But what is regularly? Mayr-Melnhof could develop a table where they define the frequency on how often they are in contact with their stakeholders, e.g. customer surveys: twice a year.
I also think that they could list their stakeholders in more detail. For example, Mayr-Melnhof could add media to its stakeholders or they could specify the industry associations.
My recommendation would be to include in the report a more extensive stakeholder mapping and a thorough analysis of the different engagement levels on which the company is working with the different stakeholders.
The structure and processes for sustainability management could be further developed. The structure could be shown in the organigram of the company and the process should be more detailed and visualized.
In the area of sustainability management there are large information gaps. It should be mentioned which processes, responsibilities and tasks exist in sustainability management and, above all, HOW this is implemented.
To make the report more user-friendly and to make the text more understandable Mayr-Melnhof should make use of a lot more visualizations. In my opinion pictures can also underline what Mayr-Melnhof stands for.
MM should also add the GRI standard numbers at the end of every page.
Pictures, graphics and tables should be inserted here, which support the contents again. Especially the key figures should be visualized.
Leave a ReplyWant to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!