Ranking of Austrian Online CSR Reports
Results 2020: Post - Sustainability Report 2018
|1. STRATEGIC APPROACH||16||31.0||15.8||45.1|
|a. Were the material aspects identified according to the criteria of the GRI standard?||8||7.7||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?||14||6.9||5.8||9.6|
|d. Are both harm reduction strategies and maximization of benefits pursued?||25||4.9||5.6||8.7|
|e. Have appropriate structures and processes for sustainability management been set up and sufficiently presented in the report?||19||4.6||4.8||9.0|
|2. OPEN INFORMATION||15||15.6||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)||24||4.0||4.8||9.3|
|b. Is the report balanced? (positive / negative developments, solved / unresolved problems, etc.)||16||5.0||4.5||8.7|
|c. Are internal and external stakeholders appropriately involved and are the relevant structures and processes disclosed?||8||6.6||4.9||9.3|
|3. USER ORIENTATION||25||7.9||5.1||19.0|
|a. Is the report clearly structured according to the material topics?||11||2.8||2.2||4.7|
|b. Is the text clear and precise, easy to understand and read?||25||2.3||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.)||27||1.2||1.8||5.0|
|TOTAL RANK & SCORE||18||54.5||51.6||91.4|
|Post *||Post *|
The information it contains is too general and the objectives too unspecific. It would be advisable to describe in more detail in the next report how far the company has progressed in achieving the goals for the individual material topics.
The report could be a bit more concise next year, as there is a lot of text, but the information remains rather superficial in many places.
Sometimes the text is very similar to a PR text because it is very simple and most aspects are never discussed in detail. In general, they could have dealt more intensively with the topics from the Materiality Matrix.
Management approaches for the material topics are also described, but unfortunately this is only a very superficial description and the majority of the objectives are company-related and not aimed at society.
Basically, I would advise you to put less information in the report and to emphasize the essential aspects more clearly. This could also be better illustrated using icons and graphics.
I would suggest that the value chain be presented more precisely. This can also be implemented graphically. This should clarify the CSR-impact in the individual steps of the value chain
Post AG mentions its objectives along the value chain, but no precise KPIs are given to enable readers to assess the progress made in achieving these objectives.
It’s good that also bad developing factors are displayed (such as fluctuation), but they should be commented and explained to the reader
Present the material topics at the beginning of the report, so that the reader can navigate better through the report.
To make the goals measurable, I recommend reformulating them using the SMART model (specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, time-bound). In order to develop and present an evaluation system for these goals, KPIs should also be formulated.
Stakeholders are indicated, but no rating, no mapping, no ranking by size, concern, importance etc., just a mere enumeration or presentation in the form of a graph
The level of stakeholder involvement could be higher, as the only stakeholder groups with which Post AG regularly engages in dialogue are its employees and political representatives.
Since the last identification of the company's stakeholders already took place in 2014, I would advise you to carry out another identification.
It would be helpful to better explain the structures and processes of the company's CSR management so that the reader gets an impression of how it is structured.
The graphics are sometimes a bit confusing, as there is not always a legend to the individual graphics.
The report can be opened as PDF. Unfortunately there are no links in the text, which would have been very helpful with 110 pages.
Finally, it would be useful to animate the pdf document of the report to make navigation easier for readers.