Ranking of Austrian Online CSR Reports
Results 2020: Voest - Corporate Responsibility Report 2019
|1. STRATEGIC APPROACH||31||19.5||15.8||45.1|
|a. Were the material aspects identified according to the criteria of the GRI standard?||33||3.0||6.0||9.3|
|b. Does the company take responsibility for its impact along the entire value chain?||32||4.0||6.0||9.0|
|c. Does the corporate strategy include a management approach to all material topics?||31||4.0||5.8||9.6|
|d. Are both harm reduction strategies and maximization of benefits pursued?||28||4.5||5.6||8.7|
|e. Have appropriate structures and processes for sustainability management been set up and sufficiently presented in the report?||24||4.0||4.8||9.0|
|2. OPEN INFORMATION||29||10.5||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)||33||3.1||4.8||9.3|
|b. Is the report balanced? (positive / negative developments, solved / unresolved problems, etc.)||26||3.7||4.5||8.7|
|c. Are internal and external stakeholders appropriately involved and are the relevant structures and processes disclosed?||28||3.7||4.9||9.3|
|3. USER ORIENTATION||17||9.6||5.1||19.0|
|a. Is the report clearly structured according to the material topics?||31||1.3||2.2||4.7|
|b. Is the text clear and precise, easy to understand and read?||14||2.9||2.7||4.7|
|c. Is the visualization appealing and does it support the understanding of the content?||17||2.3||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.)||5||3.0||1.8||5.0|
|TOTAL RANK & SCORE||28||39.6||51.6||91.4|
All in all, my impression of the report was that most of the information is fairly shallow and superficial. If the information exists, it should be used and deeper, honest information should be provided to accomplish transparency and trust (this applies to almost every aspect).
Stakeholders should be included in the analysis to properly identify the material topics. Describe key steps and processes that were taken.
Although the structures for sustainability management are explained, my impression is that there should be more people involved. The processes need to be presented in the report as well and if they have not been properly set up, that needs to done as well.
Visualization and bad quality of pictures, logos and screenshots make the report seem nonserious. Improvements could be made easily and whilst the content is obv. more important, this would be a simple step to more credibility/authenticity.
The report should have been more detailed in many places. Many passages were only dealt with superficially, although they would have been necessary for a comprehensive assessment according to the GRI standard.
A materiality analysis did not exist, and no reference was made to it. In order to be compliant with GRI, such an analysis would have to be made with the stakeholders and the mat. topics would have to be derived accordingly.
Often a process description with clear roles & responsibilities is missing. e.g. there is no management approach at mat.topic level and one does not know how these mat. topics are actually handled