As for materiality analysis the graphic is nicely designed, but I miss numbers for interpretation of numbers or a list with an index of both scales.
I would recommend a bit a deeper dive in negative aspects/impacts on the topics with argumentation why, got the feeling sometimes it was only scratching the surface. (might be ok for target audience – Viennese population, media)
Positive things have overhand in the report, and are also argumented, but could be more on why things are done / will be improved.
The report could have been more balanced, according to point out threats, risks and problem solving management. There are hardly negative developments and how they have been or could have been handled.
This report seems a little bit like a PR report- just the good news are mentioned and the bad news hidden. My recommendation is that the next report includes the negative aspects and challenges, and how they can handle it.
What I miss are the negative aspects: the issues, the company is faced with, the failures, the challenges like a construction break because of unpredictable reasons, for example.
I would recommend making the report more credible by addressing potential hazards, risks and challenges. This can relate to both past and future challenges. It gives the reader the authenticity and certainty that the company is dealing with its environment.
With regard to risk management, I would recommend introducing an evaluation system. If this already exists, it should also be integrated into the report. In any case, it gives the reader added value to know how the company tracks opportunities and risks and evaluates its own dealings with them.
As for stakeholder I didn’t find the inclusion of other affected people like people who life next to the cementary or subway,…)
The company should revise the stakeholder analyses process and make it more transparent.
It should be noted that processes of defining and involving stakeholders is generally documented, but have not been categorized in detail - Stakeholder matrix is missing!
With regard to the stakeholder approach, I would recommend sharpening it more by clearly categorising at least external and internal stakeholders. I would also recommend including or addressing the media as external stakeholders.
Then there is no accurate separation of internal and external stakeholders- it’s just a vague definition of stakeholder.
My suggestion is that they should define media and NGOs as an important stakeholder.
As for design the double paged graphics and tableaus aren’t so good for pdfs – maybe extra download (in flipbook and print it is fine)
With regard to the wording, I would recommend revising and sharpening the wording. Many are very general and meaningless, so that no added value is created for the reader.
To make the report more user-friendly, it would also be useful to provide an English version of the report and possibly even a separate CSR website.
The topics from the table of content can be linked, so you don’t have to scroll down.