Ranking of Austrian Online CSR Reports
Results 2020: Sibur - Sustainability Report 2018
|1. STRATEGIC APPROACH||23||27.2||15.8||45.1|
|a. Were the material aspects identified according to the criteria of the GRI standard?||23||5.5||6.0||9.3|
|b. Does the company take responsibility for its impact along the entire value chain?||26||4.8||6.0||9.0|
|c. Does the corporate strategy include a management approach to all material topics?||21||5.6||5.8||9.6|
|d. Are both harm reduction strategies and maximization of benefits pursued?||29||4.5||5.6||8.7|
|e. Have appropriate structures and processes for sustainability management been set up and sufficiently presented in the report?||10||6.8||4.8||9.0|
|2. OPEN INFORMATION||6||18.9||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)||4||7.1||4.8||9.3|
|b. Is the report balanced? (positive / negative developments, solved / unresolved problems, etc.)||12||5.4||4.5||8.7|
|c. Are internal and external stakeholders appropriately involved and are the relevant structures and processes disclosed?||9||6.5||4.9||9.3|
|3. USER ORIENTATION||15||10.2||5.1||19.0|
|a. Is the report clearly structured according to the material topics?||22||2.0||2.2||4.7|
|b. Is the text clear and precise, easy to understand and read?||20||2.5||2.7||4.7|
|c. Is the visualization appealing and does it support the understanding of the content?||7||3.9||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.)||17||1.8||1.8||5.0|
|TOTAL RANK & SCORE||16||56.4||51.6||91.4|
The report sounds very promotional and self-praising at times. It should be written in a more neutral tone and include a clear visualization of goals in each topic: achieved, unachieved and new goals for the next year.
It is interesting how some critical environmental topics were rated less material than Sibur‘s charity. This should be explained clearly, or the rating system or stakeholder groups should be redefined.
It should be made more clear which material topic corresponds to which section of the value chain (maybe illustration). Focus less on suppliers and examine the rest of the value chain.
The report could be much more user-friendly. A PDF should be made navigable with linking the index to the respective pages. A browser version would allow for interactive material, videos and animated graphs.
For the materiality topics, it is not fully clear how they were identified. Although they describe that they did an analysis with different stakeholders, they do not give any information on how many of which stakeholders were represented.
The presentation of sustainability on the value chain is currently not sufficiently comprehensible. More attention should be paid here to the entire value chain and not just to a few individual elements.
Although they provide a very complex org. structure that covers their sustainability issues, this does not allow any conclusions to the individual mat. topics. A separate mgmt. approach would have to be worked out for each mat. topic
Mat. topics should be highlighted more concisely and not disappear at the back of the annex of the report
Rather aim for a longer report than only reference/link important information from previous reports – such as formats of interactions with stakeholders (report 2016). Hard to assess report, as relevant information is often divided between different documents.
Change order of topics covered in the report. As a petrochemical company, fossil fuels and thus environmental topics should be of MOST relevance & most material, Environmental protection as a topic should be covered in the beginning, intensely and as a singular topic-> don’t put too much emphasis on „the company“ and „random“ topics that only fill pages and sound good such as customer centricity or digital transformation
Include materiality assessment and matrix in the beginning of the report as it is essential to understand the following action areas and assess the relative importance of the topics. The process should also be explained in more detail and the topics should be overall ranked and prioritized in a complete list.
Aim for a new clustering of material topics / chapters. It is hard to get a sufficient overview and understand the relative priority of topics/chapters in the 2018 report. Report should clearly structure in certain material topics and per topic state management approach, measures, performance etc. I would recommend not cluster environmental protection and HSE under one chapter for example but dedicate one chapter for each topic.
Leave a ReplyWant to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!