Ranking of Austrian Online CSR Reports
Results 2020: Uniqa - Sustainability Report 2019
| Rank | Score | Average | Best | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. STRATEGIC APPROACH | 25 | 25.3 | 15.8 | 45.1 |
| a. Were the material aspects identified according to the criteria of the GRI standard? | 18 | 6.2 | 6.0 | 9.3 |
| b. Does the company take responsibility for its impact along the entire value chain? | 22 | 5.7 | 6.0 | 9.0 |
| c. Does the corporate strategy include a management approach to all material topics? | 23 | 5.3 | 5.8 | 9.6 |
| d. Are both harm reduction strategies and maximization of benefits pursued? | 22 | 5.3 | 5.6 | 8.7 |
| e. Have appropriate structures and processes for sustainability management been set up and sufficiently presented in the report? | 29 | 2.8 | 4.8 | 9.0 |
| 2. OPEN INFORMATION | 27 | 10.7 | 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) | 30 | 3.3 | 4.8 | 9.3 |
| b. Is the report balanced? (positive / negative developments, solved / unresolved problems, etc.) | 24 | 4.1 | 4.5 | 8.7 |
| c. Are internal and external stakeholders appropriately involved and are the relevant structures and processes disclosed? | 30 | 3.3 | 4.9 | 9.3 |
| 3. USER ORIENTATION | 28 | 7.3 | 5.1 | 19.0 |
| a. Is the report clearly structured according to the material topics? | 14 | 2.5 | 2.2 | 4.7 |
| b. Is the text clear and precise, easy to understand and read? | 24 | 2.4 | 2.7 | 4.7 |
| c. Is the visualization appealing and does it support the understanding of the content? | 31 | 1.4 | 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.) | 29 | 1.0 | 1.8 | 5.0 |
| TOTAL RANK & SCORE | 26 | 43.3 | 51.6 | 91.4 |
| Uniqa | UNIQA |
Recommendations:
They must become much more precise in their formulations and must go into much more detail, because they are only scratching the surface in basically all matters.
They must also include negative aspects and aspects for which there is currently no solution. In the report, it appears as if they know an answer to all the problems they are facing.
There was an individual management approach for each materiality topic, but it was relatively meaningless. There is a lack of clear roles and responsibilities as to who is in charge of what measure.
A more personal appearance (with picture and name) of the executive board with more commitment towards sustainability would also be desirable.
They should try to appear more professional, the report is very promotional, it is more likely to be seen as a magazine than as an objective report on the services and key figures of the company
Should aim for outside in approach, they don’t include all the necessary stakeholders
They should mention what they can do for environment and society; they are more focused on presenting themselves
The management approach is hardly given. The persons & functions are only named - no further information about structures and processes. Maybe a graphic could give a good overview to represent the responsible departments.
In order to make the report more user-friendly, the company should include useful graphics and provides a varying degree of detail through interactive parts.
Each important part of report should be included; just referring to other reports or website is insufficient
Should consider creating and stating table with goal-overview
Reinforce thinking about outside-in approach; it is not important what company changes for itself regarding CSR, it is important what they could change for environment and society to improve achieving SDGs
Report-structure should be fully reconsidered; informative part first not in the end after promotion part
Leave a Reply
Want to join the discussion?Feel free to contribute!