in cooperation with the netherlands institute of … · in cooperation with the netherlands...

Transparency Benchmark 2015The Crystal 2015

In cooperation with the Netherlands Institute of Chartered Accountants (NBA)

Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 2015 1

Transparency Benchmark 2015The Crystal 2015

In cooperation with the Netherlands Institute of Chartered Accountants (NBA)

Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 20152

1 The Transparency Benchmark Ladder

The Transparency Benchmark Ladder provides an overview of the total scores of the participating organizations, including the sub scores

concerning 8 different criteria categories. The organizations that are included in the Transparency Benchmark are ranked in different groups:

Frontrunners, Followers, Peloton, Laggards and organizations with zero scores

Category transparancy ladder 2015 Ranking Positions

Leaders 1 - 20

Followers 21 - 70

Peloton 71 - 213

Laggards 214 - 245

Organisations with zero scores 246 - 461


1 - Company Profile and Business

Model

2 - Policy and Results

3 - Management Approach

4 - Relevance

5 - Clarity

6 - Reliability

7 - Responsiveness

8 - Coherence

The Transparency Benchmark Ladder

TMG - Telegraaf Media GroepJoh. Mourik & Co. Holding B.V.

Bavaria N.V.ASML

Facilicom Services GroupWageningen UR

CZ GroepUnibail Rodamco

NN GROUPVivat Verzekeringen

ProRail B.V.Koninklijke Wessanen N.V.

E.ON Benelux N.V.Koninklijke FrieslandCampina N.V.

Enexis B.V.Menzis Holding B.V.

VolkerWesselsAir France - KLM

SBM OdshoreRockwool Benelux Holding

PricewaterhouseCoopersKendrion N.V.

Holding Nationale Goede Doelen Loterijen N.V.Royal Imtech N.V.

Koninklijke Ahold N.V.Rabobank

Q Park N.V.Nederlandse Waterschapsbank NV

MNNV NOM Investerings- en Ontwikkelingsmaatschappij voor Noord-Nederland

Koninklijke Ten Cate N.V.ABN AMRO Group N.V.

SNS Bank N.V.Heijmans

TenneT Holding B.V.Ernst & Young Nederland

De Nederlandsche Bank N.V.Achmea

ANWB B.V.Vitens N.V.

PostNLBank Ned. Gemeenten N.V.

DSM N.V.Van Lanschot Bankiers

Nederlandse Gasunie N.V.ING Groep

Heineken N.V.Aegon N.V.Vodafone

Siemens NederlandAlliander N.V.

Havenbedrijf Ro_erdam N.V.Schiphol Group

KPNRoyal BAM Group

NSUnilever N.V.

Koninklijke Philips N.V.AKZO Nobel N.V. | 001

| 002| 003| 004| 005| 006| 007| 008| 009| 010| 011| 012| 013| 014| 015| 016| 017| 018| 019| 020| 021| 022| 022| 022| 022| 026| 027| 028| 028| 028| 031| 031| 031| 034| 035| 035| 037| 037| 037| 037| 037| 042| 042| 044| 045| 045| 047| 048| 049| 050| 051| 051| 053| 053| 055| 056| 056| 056| 056

196195194194193192191191189189186185182181181180179179177177176174174174174173172171171171170170170169168168167167167167167166166165163163162161159158157157156156155153153153153

LE

AD

ER

SF

OL

LO

WE

RS

0 50 100 150 200

Organisation Pos. Cat. Total score



Model



4 - Relevance

5 - Clarity

6 - Reliability

7 - Responsiveness

8 - CoherenceWereldhave Manag. Holding B.V.

Roto Smeets Group N.V.PLUS Retail B.V.

Vos Logistics Beheer B.V.GVB Holding NV

Van OordStichting Exploitatie Nederlandse Staatsloterij

Waterweg WonenVreugdenhil Groep B.V.

Arcadis N.V.Vebego International N.V.

Sligro Food Group N.V.TNO

Universiteit TwenteBallast Nedam N.V.

Universiteit MaastrichtBeter Bed Holding N.V.

COVRA NVBidvest Deli XL

Corbion N.V.Wolters Kluwer N.V.

DOW Benelux B.V.Atradius N.V.

Universiteit van AmsterdamRijksuniversiteit Groningen

Delta Lloyd GroepRadboudumc

USG People N.V.Wavin N.V.

VimpelCom Ltd.TKH Group N.V.

Ontwikkelingsmaatschappij Oost Nederland NVVanDrie Group

TNT ExpressKoninklijke Vopak N.V.Albron Nederland B.V.

Beelen Groep B.V.Perfe_i v. Melle

N.V. HVCNidera B.V.

Zeeman Groep B.V.TBI Holdings

Industriebank LIOF N.V.EBN

Royal HaskoningDHVRELX Group N.V.

Jumbo Groep Holding B.V.Arla Foods B.V.

Accell GroupTUI Nederland

Randstad Holding N.V.Koninklijke Boskalis Westminster N.V.

Airbus Group N.V.Royal Dutch Shell

Nederlandse Financierings-Maatschappij voor Ontwikkelingslanden NVNutreco

Deloi_e Holding B.V.KPMG N.V.

Eneco Holding N.V.Ordina N.V.

GasTerra B.V.NIBC Bank N.V.Westland Infra

TMG - Telegraaf Media GroepJoh. Mourik & Co. Holding B.V. | 056

| 056| 056| 061| 062| 063| 064| 064| 066| 066| 068| 068| 070| 071| 072| 072| 074| 074| 074| 074| 074| 079| 079| 079| 079| 083| 084| 085| 086| 087| 087| 087| 090| 091| 092| 092| 092| 095| 095| 097| 098| 098| 100| 100| 100| 103| 104| 105| 106| 106| 108| 108| 110| 111| 111| 113| 113| 113| 116| 117| 118| 118| 120| 120| 120

153153153152151150148148147147146146144143140140139139139139139138138138138137136133132131131131130129128128128126126124122122121121121119118117116116115115114112112111111111110109108108105105105

FO

LL

OW

ER

SP

EL

OT

ON

0 50 100 150 200




Model



4 - Relevance

5 - Clarity

6 - Reliability

7 - Responsiveness

8 - CoherenceUMC UtrechtYarden Holding B.V.

CZAVAgeas Insurance International N.V.

Academisch Medisch CentrumO.W.M. DSW Zorgverzekeraar UA

ICT AutomatiseringNieuwe Steen inv

Dura Vermeer GroepCoöperatie VGZ U.A.

Coöperatie AVEBE U.A.ONVZ Ziektekostenverzekeraar N.V.

Koninklijke Coöperatie Cosun U.A.GALAPAGOS

Brunel International N.V.Dela Uitvaartverzorging B.V.

BinckbankAmsterdam Commodities N.V.

Technische Universiteit EindhovenTechnische Universiteit Delb

ASM International N.V.Universiteit van Tilburg

AMG Advanced Metallurg. Gr. NVThe Greenery B.V.

Kardan N.V.Propertize B.V.

Unica Groep B.V.Broekhuis Holding

Brab. Ontw. Maatschappij N.V.TomTom N.V.

Nedap N.V.Stichting Zorgpartners Friesland

Stern Groep N.V.Nuon Energie N.V.

Core Laboratories N.V.Stichting Espria

Vastned Retail N.V.Eurocommercial Properties

ForFarmers Group B.V.Gemalto N.V.

Leids Universitair Medisch Centrum (LUMC)LeasePlan Corporation N.V.

Aalberts Industries N.V.IHC Merwede Holding B.V.

Fugro N.V.Macintosh Retail Group N.V.

Coop HoldingIKEA Nederland B.V.ASR Nederland N.V.

Holland CasinoHEMA

CoMoreBE Semiconductor Indus. N.V.

Tele2 Netherlands Holding N.V.Dutch Flower Group B.V.

Cooperative Agricrm U.A.Universiteit Leiden

Damen Shipyards Group N.V.Universiteit Utrecht

Grontmij N.V.Aperam

PGGMWereldhave Manag. Holding B.V.

Roto Smeets Group N.V.| 120| 123| 124| 125| 126| 127| 127| 127| 130| 130| 132| 132| 132| 132| 136| 137| 138| 138| 140| 140| 142| 143| 143| 143| 143| 147| 148| 149| 150| 150| 152| 153| 154| 154| 156| 157| 158| 159| 160| 160| 162| 162| 164| 164| 164| 167| 167| 167| 170| 171| 172| 172| 172| 175| 175| 175| 178| 178| 180| 180| 180| 183| 183| 185

10510310098979696969393929292929187858583838180808080767372717170686767666564626161595958585855555554535252525151515050494949474746

PE

LO

TO

N

0 50 100 150 200



Kramp Groep B.V.Audax B.V.

IMC TradingForbo Flooring B.V.

de Persgroep Nederland B.V.Maxeda Nederland B.V.

SHV Holdings N.V.Global City Holdings N.V.

The Royal Bank of ScotlandCimpress

Farm Frites Beheer B.V.Hertel Holding B.V.

ESPERITEVan Wijnen Groep N.V.Coöperatie Univé U.A.

VDL GroepBlokker Holding B.V.

Ultra-Centrifuge Ned. N.V.Brocacef Holding

Janssen De Jong Groep B.V.TMF Group Holding B.V.

NXP Semiconductors Netherlands B.V.Louis Dreyfus

De Goudse N.V.Exact Holding N.V.

APGDOCDATA N.V.

VION Holding N.V.DPA GROUP

Credit Europe Bank N.V.Value8

MonutaRobeco Groep N.V.

Koninklijke Brill N.V.GROOTHANDELSGEBOUW

FagronAerCap Holdings N.V.

NyenrodeB & S International B.V.

Radboud Universiteit NijmegenKAS BANK N.V.

Neways Electronics International N.V.Erasmus MCHurks groep

Oranjewoud N.V.Van Leeuwen Buizen Groep B.V

VUmcUniversitair Medisch Centrum Groningen (UMCG)

OCICentric Holding B.V.

StorkZorg en Zekerheid Groep

Euretco B.V.Erasmus Universiteit Ro_erdam

Legal & GeneralDelta N.V.

Allianz Nederland Groep N.V.Refresco Holding B.V.

Maastricht UMC+Open Universiteit

DOC KaasUMC Utrecht

| 185| 186| 187| 187| 189| 189| 189| 192| 193| 193| 195| 195| 197| 197| 197| 200| 200| 202| 203| 203| 205| 205| 207| 207| 209| 209| 209| 209| 209| 214| 215| 215| 217| 218| 219| 219| 219| 222| 222| 222| 222| 226| 227| 227| 229| 229| 231| 232| 233| 234| 234| 236| 237| 238| 239| 240| 241| 241| 243| 244| 245

46454444434343403939373736363635353433333232313130303030302928282726252525242424242322222121201918171716151413121010985

PE

LO

TO

NL

AG

GA

RD

S


Companies in the top 20 with the same rounded oU scores, were ranked based on a diUerence in decimal points, which were ultimately determined and awarded by the Panel of Experts.


Model



4 - Relevance

5 - Clarity

6 - Reliability

7 - Responsiveness

8 - Coherence

0 50 100 150 200


Content

1 The Transparency Benchmark Ladder 2

2 Introduction 8

2.1 Preface 8

2.2 About this report 9

3 This year’s winners 10

4 What stands out? 11

4.1 Category comparison 11

4.2 Criteria comparison 12

4.2.1 Materiality 15

4.3 Sector comparison 18

4.3.1 Banking and insurance 19

4.3.2 Construction and maritime 20

4.3.3 Consumer products 21

4.3.4 Services 22

4.3.5 Energy, oil and gas 23

4.3.6 Trading 24

4.3.7 Industrial products 25

4.3.8 Media and communications 26

4.3.9 Pharmaceuticals 27

4.3.10 Retail 28

4.3.11 Technology 29

4.3.12 Transport 30

4.3.13 Universities and Medical Centres 31

4.3.14 Real estate 32

4.3.15 Food and beverage 33

4.3.16 Other 34

4.4 Corporate responsibility reporting in practice 35

5 In-depth theme:

The impact of Transparency 40

6 Explanation of the Transparency Benchmark 47

6.1 Goal 47

6.2 Differences to previous year 47

6.3 Boundary of publicly available accounting

information 48

6.4 Methodology 49

6.5 Criteria 50

6.6 Jury report 51

7 Appendices 56

7.1 New Participating organizations 56

7.2 Dutch organizations with an international

group report 59

7.3 Organizations with zero points awarded 60

7.4 Panel of Experts Transparency Benchmark 65

7.5 Jury of The Crystal 65

7.6 Literature 66


2 Introduction

2.1 Preface

This booklet contains the results of the Transparency Benchmark 2015, assessing organizations’ disclosures for the reporting year 2014.

The Transparency Benchmark provides insight into the degree of transparency from a corporate responsibility perspective of the 485 largest

organizations in the Netherlands.

The structure of the Transparency Benchmark 2015 is similar to the Transparency Benchmark 2014. The criteria were radically changed in 2014

to align them with the new GRI Guidelines and account for the trend in Integrated Reporting. This year, the criteria have not been changed with

regards to their content. However, some of the criteria have been redefined or provided with a supplement to enhance comprehensibility and

reduce room for interpretation. As a result of this fine-tuning, some elements of companies’ reports, which were eligible for points in 2014,

might have been rejected this year. The self-assessment methodology remained the same as last year:all organizations were invited to measure

the quality of their reports through an online self-assessment. By completing the online self-assessment, organizations obtained direct insights

into the strong elements of their report and those elements on which points were missed. The submitted answers of the self-assessment were

critically checked for accuracy by a team of researchers.

Additionally, the group of participating organizations was changed compared to last year. The executor of the Transparency Benchmark, EY,

has carefully checked the group,removing organizations that no longer belonged to the target group and adding new ones. Newly added

organizations were informed of their inclusion in the benchmark in March 2015. The participation protocol (available at www.transparantie-

benchmark.nl) describes the standards followed in defining the final participants group as well as the accounting information eligible for

obtaining points on the Transparency Benchmark Ladder.

An independent panel of experts has additionally assessed the top 20 based on their own criteria, which are also available on the website.

In addition, the website provides insights into all participating organizations and their respective scores.

The Crystal, developed in 2010 by the Ministry of Economic Affairs and the Netherlands Institute of Chartered Accountants (NBA), aims to be

the most prestigious award for the best corporate responsibility reporting . As such, it is presented to the organization with the highest score

on the Transparency Benchmark. The jury, consisting of Ms. Monika Milz, MBA (chairman), HRH Prince Carlos de Bourbon de Parme and


Professor. Leen Paape RA RO CIA, has chosen the winner from the top three. Next to the Crystal, additional awards are presented to the organiza-

tion that climbed the most places on the Transparency Benchmark ladder and the organization that addresses transparency in corporate

responsibility reporting in the most creative and innovative manner.

Stakeholders, like consumers, shareholders and governments expect an organization to be transparent about its tradeoffs and performance on

an environmental, social and governance level. By openly communicating on these matters, an organization assumes a vulnerable position as its

activities can be evaluated by its stakeholders. Transparency triggers the stakeholder dialogue, which can lead to adjustments in the company’s

policy. This has been the purpose of the Transparency Benchmark for the past11 years and it seems to work.

This year, the TB report includes an in-depth chapter in which transparency on social, environmental and governance elements is discussed.

What is it, how does it work and what is the impact of transparency on the way organizations conduct business today?

In order to gain a proper understanding of the Transparency Benchmark, it is important to emphasize that the benchmark is purely aimed at

measuring transparency in reporting. The Ministry gives no substantive judgment about the performance of organizations in the field of

corporate responsibility. However, the Transparency Benchmark goes beyond merely establishing scores for companies. The observed trends in

scores and patterns within sectors are also interesting to delve into. In this booklet, you will find more information in this respect, besides the

results of companies’ transparency over the reporting year 2014.


3 This year’s winners

The Jury has the task to determine the winners. The winners of 2015 are:

Fastest climber on the ladder of the Transparency Benchmark

Westland Infra has climbed this year from position 162 to position 56. An increase of a staggering 106 positions.

Most innovative report

The award for the most innovative report this year goes to Schiphol Group.

The Crystal Prize, First prize of the Transparency Benchmark

The third position is for Unilever, right behind number two, Philips. The winner of the Crystal Prize 2015 with 196 points is AkzoNobel.

The complete report with the considerations of the Jury can be found in paragraph 6.6.


4 What stands out?

This chapter will focus on the results of the Transparency Benchmark. The results concerning the criteria were based on the analyses of the

organizations that obtained a score on the Transparency Benchmark (245 organizations). Organizations with zero scores have thus not been

included in the analysis.

4.1 Category comparison

The criteria of the Transparency Benchmark have been divided into two main categories: content-oriented and quality-oriented criteria.

The content-oriented criteria are related to the content of the report, such as a description of the business model, policies and results,

and the management approach. The quality-oriented criteria provide insight into the quality of the report such as consistency of information,

reliability and relevance. The main categories are further divided into a total of eight subcategories. The graph below shows the average total

score and average scores for each subcategory.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Coherence

Responsiveness

Reliability

Clarity

Relevance

Qualitative criteria

Management Approach

Policy and Results

Company ProBle and Business Model

Content criteria

Total score A remarkable observation this year is that

organizations score on average higher on

the content-oriented criteria (53%) than

on the quality-oriented criteria (46%).

Similar to last year, 49.6% of the maximum

number of points have been obtained by

organizations in the participating group.

This corresponds to an average score of

99 points.


4.2 Criteria comparison

The next pages will provide more information on the criteria of the Transparency Benchmark 2015. The table below indicates the criteria with the

best and worst scores obtained by the participating organizations. The highest and lowest scoring criteria are the same criteria as in 2014.

This table is then followed by, an overview of the most relevant and remarkable results of the Transparency Benchmark 2015. The graphs included

in this overview present the average scores along the organizational classification of the TB Ladder (as defined in chapter 1). Comparison with last

year’s scores is made possible by including the 2014 results. Moreover, based on a complementary in-depth analysis, the texts accompanying each

graph highlight further observations of this year’s TB results, which are not directly derived from the graphs themselves.

TOP 3 HIGHEST SCORINING CRITERIA TOP 3 LOWEST SCORING CRITERIA

Score & Criteria Explanation criteria Score & Criteria Explanation criteria

82% of the organizations achieved

the maximum score concerning

criterion 13

Complete understanding of

the organizational structure

67% of the organizations

obtained the minimum score

concerning criterion 30

No inclusion of a signed statement from

an independent third party, who has

verified the corporate responsibility

information

79% of the organizations achieved

the maximum score on criterion 1

General information about the

organization, a quantitative summary

of the organization’s profile (amount

of employees, amount of supplied

goods/ services, etc.)

65% of the organizations has



Subject matter experts or stakeholders

have not been invited to express their

opinion in the report itself (e.g. quotes

have not been included)

61% of the organizations

achieved the maximum score

on criterion 35

Sharing a vision on relevant corporate

responsibility themes and creating

awareness / understanding with

stakeholders on these specific themes

61% of the organizations has



The achieved corporate responsibility

results are not compared with relevant

publications from external parties (e.g.

listings, benchmark information, trend

analyses and best practices)

Top 3 best scoring categories: Top 3 lowest scoring categories:

1. Company Profile and Business Model (59% of maximum attainable score) 1. Reliability (27% of maximum attainable score)

2. Clarity (58% of maximum attainable score) 2. Policy and Results (47% of maximum attainable score)

3. Management Approach (53% of maximum attainable score) 3. Coherence (48% of maximum attainable score)


69% of organizations report on the value chain in which it operates. (compared to 73% in 2014).

The percentage of organizations receiving the maximum score on this

criteria increased from 16% to 22%. The full score can be obtained by

providing an explanation about the main corporate social responsi-

bilities that are of importance within the value chain and including a

graphical representation.

Category: Organization and Business Model

Value Chain

0 20 40 60 80 100

Laggards

Peloton

Followers

Leaders

Total 2014

Total 2015 69%

73%

100%

98%

9%

67%

91%

33%

2%

0%

27%

31%

Yes No

Business Strategy

0 20 40 60 80 100

Laggards

Peloton

Followers

Leaders

Total 2014

Total 2015 86%

88%

100%

100%

38%

90%

63%

10%

0%

0%

12%

14%

Yes No This year, 86% of the organizations provide an explana-tion on the business strategy. The percentage of organizations that obtained the maximum score

increased from 50% in 2014 to 55%. These organizations provide

specific information on the strategy and present a coherent set of

strategic themes, priorities and objectives. Additionally, they explicitly

link the strategy with other components of the report.

Category: Organization and Business Model

74% of the organizations have formulated specific targets concerning corporate responsibility in 2015.

This is comparable with previous year.In total, 29% of the organizations obtained the maximum score on

this criteria (4% more than previous year). These organizations provide

quantitative targets and link them with the material aspects.

Categorie: Policy and results

Objectives

0 20 40 60 80 100

Laggards

Peloton

Followers

Leaders

Total 2014

Total 2015 74%

73%

100%

100%

16%

74%

84%

26%

0%

0%

27%

26%

Yes No


33% of organizations have a statement of an independent third party included in the corporate

responsibility report. In comparison with previous year, it is remarkable that the followers-

group scores on average significantly better: 76% of the followers

obtained an independent statement, compared to 63% in 2014.

In total, 11 organizations gained the maximum score on this criteria.

Category: Reliability

0 20 40 60 80 100

Laggards

Peloton

Followers

Leaders

Total 2014

Total 2015 33%

30%

100%

76%

3%

15%

97%

85%

24%

0%

70%

67%

Yes No

Third-party Assurance

0 20 40 60 80 100

Laggards

Peloton

Followers

Leaders

Total 2014

Total 2015 74%

76%

100%

13%

76%

88%

24%

0%

100% 0%

24%

26%

Yes No

Stakeholder Engagement 74% of the organizations indicate how they engage their stakeholders in the strategy, policy and activities of the organization. This is a slight decrease from last year. There is room for improvement since only 17% of the organizations

achieve the maximum score. These organizations report on the

outcomes of the stakeholder dialogue, the involvement of the highest

governance body during the dialogue and indicate how the

stakeholder dialogue is related to the organization’s strategy and

established targets.

Category: Reliability

67% of the organizations report on the challenges, issues or dilemma’s faced with regards to their business,

a slight increase from last year.Moreover, there is a clear increase in the percentage of organizations

that achieved the maximum score on this criteria. These organizations

include the description on challenges, issues or dilemmas as a

stand-alone recognizable part within the report.

Category: Responsiveness

0 20 40 60 80 100

Laggards

Peloton

Followers

Leaders

Total 2014

Total 2015 67%

66%

100%

13%

65%

88%

35%

0%

94% 6%

34%

33%

Yes No

Challenges and Dilemmas


64% of organizations clearly report how their strategy, activities and results with regards to corporate

responsibility align to the organization’s strategy. 50% of the organizations achived the maximum score on this criteria.

These organizations use their set of strategic priorities as a guidance

for an explanation of the developments, results and future expecta-

tions regarding corporate social responsibility.

Category: Coherence

0 20 40 60 80 100

Laggards

Peloton

Followers

Leaders

Total 2014

Total 2015 64%

65%

100%

0%

60%

100%

40%

0%

100% 0%

35%

36%

Yes No

Link between CR

and Strategic Aspects

4.2.1 Materiality

Internationally, the subject of materiality within reporting has been receiving more and more emphasis. This includes a sharpened focus on

materiality of CSR themes in sustainability reporting in particular, evident from the latest GRI G4 guidelines. To keep the ever-increasing amount of

non-financial information clearly structured and relevant for users, companies need to focus on those subjects, which are of most material impor-

tance to their own business and/or the users of the report. Therefore, this year special attention was dedicated to materiality in the formulation of

criteria for the Transparency Benchmark 2015, leading to a redefinition of some criteria. The next pages provide insight in the conclusions related to

the criteria about materiality.

The precentages of organizations that report about material themes is 72% in 2015 (which is a decrease of 7%

from last year). Despite this total decrease, the percentage of organizations that

provide additional insights into their material themes (insights into

the relative importance of the identified material themes and

graphical representation of this) increased from 27% to 38%.

Category: Organization and business model

0 20 40 60 80 100

Laggards

Peloton

Followers

Leaders

Total 2014

Total 2015 72%

79%

100%

9%

73%

91%

27%

0%

100% 0%

21%

28%

Yes No

Materiality I: General


0 20 40 60 80 100

Laggards

Peloton

Followers

Leaders

Total 2014

Total 2015 61%

82%

100%

3%

56%

97%

44%

0%

100% 0%

18%

39%

Yes No

Materiality II: RelevanceCriteria 22 was changed in comparison to last year. Whereas last year

the organizations could obtain the maximum score if they reported

on at least five of the total pool of identified material issues, this

year, organizations could only obtain the maximum score if they

report on all (and exclusively on) the material themes, which they

have identified themselves. Due to these changes, there is a

noticeable decrease in the percentage of organizations that obtained

points on this criteria (82% in 2014 to only 61% in 2015).

Despite the changes and the stricter interpretation of the criteria,

37% of the organizations obtained the maximum score.

Category: Relevance

Monetary value

A large number of organizations describe the impact of their products/services on society. Quantifying and monetizing the generated impact

is becoming more popular. The monetary value of environmental or social impact is the value (in Euros or other monetary value) of the effect

on the environment or society. It should be noted that there is a significant difference between the monetary value of a cost saving for the

organization (or the supply chain) and the monetary value of an effect (impact) for society. An investment in charity or an energy-saving

program expressed in Euros of costs saved is not similar to the monetary value of a social of environmental effect. Monetizing the impact of

training and education on employees, (future) employers and society is an example of such monetary value.


Criteria 11 and 12 were also changed in comparison to last year. In 2014, the organizations were awarded full points for explanations in their

reports about a number of standard environmental and social aspects, specifically included in the criteria (assuming relevant aspects are similar

for all organizations). This year, these criteria were reformulated such that a list of possible environmental and social aspects was no longer

provided. Rather, organizations could only get points if all the material environmental and social aspects (as identified in their own reports) are

explained, i.e. the criteria took into account the fact that companies have material aspects specific to their own organization).

0 20 40 60 80 100

Laggards

Peloton

Followers

Leaders

Total 2014

Total 2015 74%

100%

19%

74%

81%

26%

0%

100% 0%

26%

74% 26%

Yes No

Materiality III: Environmental Aspects 74% of the organizations report about their material environmental aspects of business practice. Although last year, the same percentage reported about material environmental aspects, in 2014 this criteria looked at a standardized list of aspects.This year, 65% of the organizations included a quantitative explanation

of at least one material environmental aspect. In total 6 organizations

obtained the maximum amount of points on this criteria: in order to

receive the maximum amount of points it is required to express the

environmental results in a monetary value (see box about monetary

value).

Category: Policy and results

76% of the organizations report about their material social aspects of business practice.

Next to this, it is worth noting that 7 organizations have gained the

maximum amount of points on this criteria and have expressed their

social results in a monetary value ( see box about monetary value) .

Category: Policy and results

0 20 40 60 80 100

Laggards

Peloton

Followers

Leaders

Total 2014

Total 2015 76%

100%

13%

78%

88%

22%

0%

100% 0%

24%

84% 16%

Yes No

Materiality IV: Social Aspects


4.3 Sector comparison

The participating organizations of the Transparency Benchmark have been divided into 16 different sectors (similar to last year). The organiza-

tions that could not be included in a specific sector form the sector ‘other’, a total of 19 organizations.

The dynamics in the operating environment and challenges vary per sector making a sector-based analysis essential and valuable. The various

sectors demonstrate differences in average points received. A lower average score provides insights into the transparency within a particular

sector and not necessarily about the performance regarding corporate responsibility of the sector.

Sector Average score

2015

Percentage

zero scores

2015

As in last year, the transport sector has the highest average

score in 2015 with 156 points.

The average score of all organizations is exactly the same as

last year (99 points).

There are substantial differences between the scores of

sectors. An illustrative example of this is the difference of in

total 122 points between the transport sector and the pharma-

ceuticals industry.

In addition, it is noticeable that some sectors consist majorly

of organizations with a zero score. For example, although in

the consumer products sector the average is 133 points, 86% of

the organizations in this sector received a 0-score. On the

contrary, the real estate sector only achieves an average score

of 95 points, however all organizations have achieved a

positive in this sector.

Banking and insurance 108 5%

Construction and maritime 110 23%

Consumer products 133 86%

Services 94 32%

Energy, oil and gas 129 42%

Trading 75 76%

Industrial products 97 67%

Media and communications 66 44%

Other 91 74%

Pharmaceuticals 34 50%

Retail 85 60%

Technology 101 60%

Transport 156 63%

Universities and Medical

Centres

73 4%

Real estate 96 0%

Food and beverage 104 52%

For this year’s sector comparison a general reclassification has been made. This entails that some organizations have been assigned

to another sector compared to last year. In addition, 80 new organizations have been added to the Transparency Benchmark. Only

these 80 organizations are considered as new participants within the sectors.


4.3.1 Banking and insurance

0 50 100 150 200

HDI-Gerling Verzekeringen N.V.

RFS Holland Holding B.V.

The Royal Bank of Scotland

Coöperatie Univé U.A.

De Goudse N.V.

Credit Europe Bank N.V.

Robeco Groep N.V.

KasBank

Zorg en Zekerheid Groep

Allianz Nederland Groep N.V.

Legal & General

Ageas Insurance International N.V.

O.W.M. DSW Zorgverzekeraar UA

Coöreratie VGZ U.A.

ONVZ Ziektekostenverzekeraar N.V.

Binckbank

Stichting Zorgpartners Friesland

ASR Nederland B.V.

Atradius N.V.

Delta Lloyd Groep

Ned. Financierings-Maatschappij voor Ontwikkelingslanden NV

NIBC Bank N.V.

CZ Groep

NN GROUP

Vivat Verzekeringen

Menzis Holding B.V.

Rabobank

MN

Nederlandse Waterschapsbank NV

ABN AMRO Group N.V.

SNS Bank N.V.

Achmea

De Nederlandse Bank N.V.

Bank Ned. Gemeenten N.V.

Van Lanschot Bankiers

ING Groep

Aegon N.V. 185

181

180

179

174

174

172

171

170

170

169

165

158

157

156

152

146

124

121

91

68

55

52

51

50

49

43

43

39

32

30

28

24

20

15

0

0

Number of organisations 37

Number of organisations with zero score 2

Number of organisation with a score 35

Average score (excl. organisation with zero score) 108

Percentage of organisation with zero score 5%

Number of new participants 5

The banking and insurance sector scored,

similar to last year, above average with an

average score of 108 points. However, this is a

decrease from last year, when an average of

116 points was obtained.

In this sector, only 5% of the organizations

have awarded zero-score.

Vivat Verzekeringen is the best scoring new

member of the participants group, with a

score of 158.


4.3.2 Construction and maritime

0 50 100 150 200

SPIE Nederland B.V.

Koninklijke Wagenborg

CRH Nederland B.V.

Bluewater Holding B.V.

A. Hakpark B.V.

Aan de Stegge Holding B.V.

Van Wijnen Groep N.V.

Janssen De Jong Groep B.V.

Hurks groep

Oranjewoud N.V.

Dura Vermeer Groep

Unica Groep B.V.

IHC Merwede Holding B.V.

Damen Shipyards Group N.V.

Van Oord

Ballast Nedam N.V.

Wavin N.V.

Beelen Groep B.V.

TBI Holdings

Koninklijke Boskalis Westminster N.V.

Joh. Mourik & Co. Holding B.V.

VolkerWessels

SBM ORshore

Royal Imtech N.V.

Heijmans

Royal BAM Group 193173

168167166

153143

138132

128115

10996

8364

513534

2319

000000







This year, the construction and maritime

sector obtained an above-average score of

110 points. This is a decrease from an average

score of 120 points in 2014.

Oranjewoud N.V. is within this sector the

best new participant in the group with a

score of 35.


4.3.3 Consumer products

0 50 100 150 200

WE Europe B.V.

Van den Ban Autobanden B.V.

Tommy Hil<ger Europe

Swarovski (Europe) Holding B.V.

Smartwares B.V.

Remeha Group B.V.

Philip Morris Holland B.V.

Lekkerland Beheer

Hunter Douglas N.V.

Honeywell Netherl. Hold. B.V.

FUJIFILM Europe B.V.

De MandemakersGroep Holding B.V.

Canon Europa N.V.

Cabot Norit Activated Carbon

Bose Products

Apollo Vredestein B.V.

Action Service & Distributie

A.S. Watson B.V.

TomTom N.V.

Accell Group

Unilever N.V. 194139

67000000000000000000







Despite the fact that only three

organizations in this sector received a score,

the average score (excluding zero scores) is

133 points.

The consumer products sector is the sector

with the highest percentage of organizations

with a 0-score: 86%.


4.3.4 Services

0 50 100 150 200

Xylem Water Solutions Nederland B.V.Van Gansewinkel Groep

United Parcel Service Nederland B.V.Unit 4 N.V.

Twynstra GuddeTP Vision Europe B.V.Oracle Nederland B.V.

Omron Europe B.V.Manpower Nederland B.V.

Loyens & LoeI N.V.ISS Holding Nederland B.V.

Holiday Holding RoNerdam B.V.Equens SE

EcurionCGI Nederland B.V.

Booking.com B.V.BCD Travel Holding

Amlin Corporate InsuranceADG dienstengroep B.V.

Adecco Nederland Holding B.V.Accenture B.V.

IMC TradingTMF Group Holding B.V.

Exact Holding N.V.DOCDATA N.V.

APGDPA GROUP

Value8Monuta

Centric Holding B.V.Yarden Holding B.V.ICT Automatisering

Nieuwe Steen invBrunel International N.V.

Dela Uitvaartverzorging B.V.Propertize B.V.

Broekhuis HoldingBrab. Ontw. Maatschappij N.V.

Stichting EspriaLeasePlan Corporation N.V.

Fugro N.V.Holland Casino

CoMoreGrontmij N.V.

PGGMStichting Exploitatie Nederlandse Staatsloterij

Arcadis N.V.Vebego International N.V.

TNOCOVRA NV

USG People N.V.Ontwikkelingsmaatschappij Oost Nederland NV

N.V. HVCIndustriebank LIOF N.V.

Royal HaskoningDHVRandstad Holding N.V.

DeloiNe Holding B.V.KPMG N.V.Ordina N.V.

Facilicom Services GroupPricewaterhouseCoopers

Holding Nationale Goede Doelen Loterijen N.V.NV NOM Investerings- en Ontwikkelingsmaatschappij voor Noord-Nederland

Ernst & Young NederlandANWB B.V. 176

174

171

167

167

155

150

148

147

140

139

138

136

129

126

117

114

112

111

110

103

98

92

92

83

80

72

66

65

62

55

54

51

50

47

37

29

28

27

25

25

25

24

9

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0







The service sector has the highest number of

participating organizations, in total there are

65 organizations included in this sector. The

average score is, just like last year, 94 points.

About one third of the organizations have a

0-score in this sector.

Propertize B.V. is within this sector the best

new participant in the group with a score of

62.


4.3.5 Energy, oil and gas

0 50 100 150 200

Yara Sluiskil B.V.

TOTAL Nederland N.V.

New World Resources

Neste Oil Netherlands B.V.

Kuwait Petroleum B.V.

Heerema Marine Contractors Holding Nederland B.V.

Essent

Delek Nederland B.V.

De Nederlandse Energie Maatschappij B.V.

Argos Group Holding B.V.

Ultra-Centrifuge Ned. N.V.

Delta N.V.

Nuon Energie N.V.

Core Laboratories N.V.

EBN

Royal Dutch Shell

Eneco Holding N.V.

GasTerra B.V.

Westland Infra

E.ON Benelux N.V.

Enexis B.V.

TenneT Holding B.V.

Nederlandse Gasunie N.V.

Alliander N.V. 189181

174163162

153151

148146

1387171

4322

0000000000







The energy, oil and gas sector has achieved a

higher average score than last year. Last year,

the sector has achieved an average score of

124 points, while this year the average score

is 129.


4.3.6 Trading

0 50 100 150 200Transm. and Engineer. Services Netherl.

Toshiba Medical Systems Europe B.V.Scania Europe

RobaOxbow Coal B.V.

Momentive Specialty Chemicals BVMCB International B.V.

Interfood HoldingHager-Minnema-HuJen Beheer B.V.

Getinge Arjo Holding Netherlands B.V.Copaco Nederland B.V.

Auctus Holding B.V.N.V. Deli Maatschappij

SHV Holdings N.V.Amsterdam Commodities N.V.

Dutch Flower Group B.V.Nidera B.V. 137

9355

130000000000000







The trading sector has an average score of 75

points, which is higher than the average of

last year: 73 points.


4.3.7 Industrial products

0 50 100 150 200

Yanmar EuropeVoestalpine Automotive Netherlands Holding B.V.

Tetra Laval Holdings B.V.Terberg Group B.V.

Tata SteelSynbra Holding B.V.

SIHI Group B.V.Scheuten Glass Holding B.V.

SABIC International Holdings B.V.Rockwell Automation B.V.P.L. v. Merksteijn Hold. B.V.

Otra N.V.Nedschroef Nederland B.V.

MHI Equipment Europe B.V.LyondellBasell Industries N.V.

Kuehne + Nagel N.V.INVISTA B.V.

International Flavors & Fragrances I.F.F. (Nederland) B.V.Inalfa Roof Systems Group B.V.

Huntsman Investments (Netherlands) B.V.Hitachi Machinery N.V.

FlowserveEnviem Holding B.V.

Denkavit Internationaal B.V.De Stiho Groep B.V.

De Hoop Terneuzen B.V.Citadel Enterprises B.V.

Caldic B.V.C. den Braven Beheer B.V.

Bosal Nederland B.V.Avery Dennison Materials Nederland B.V.

Ardagh Group Netherlands B.V.ArcelorMittal Netherlands B.V.

Ace Innovation Holding B.V.ABB B.V.

Sulzer Netherlands HoldingKramp Groep B.V.

Forbo Flooring B.V.Hertel Holding B.V.

Brocacef HoldingVan Leeuwen Buizen Groep B.V

StorkAMG Advanced Metallurg. Gr. NV

Nedap N.V.Aalberts Industries N.V.

AperamCorbion N.V.

DOW Benelux B.V.Rockwool Benelux Holding

Kendrion N.V.Koninklijke Ten Cate N.V.

DSM N.V.Koninklijke Philips N.V.

AKZO Nobel N.V. 196

195

179

171

167

167

121

119

100

81

67

59

37

35

22

17

10

5

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0







Last year, the sector had an average score of

89 points,while this year, the sector scores an

average of 97 points.

The industrial products sector is, a_er the

technology sector, the sector with the most

new participants.


4.3.8 Media and communications

0 50 100 150 200Stichting Nederlandse Publieke Omroep

Stage Entertainment B.V.Sanoma Magazines B.V.

RTL Nederland B.V.Nielsen N.V.

Koninklijke Wegener N.V.Endemol B.V.

Audax B.V.de Persgroep Nederland B.V.

Global City Holdings N.V.Cimpress

Koninklijke Brill N.V.Roto Smeets Group N.V.

Wolters Kluwer N.V.RELX Group N.V.

TMG - Telegraaf Media Groep 153139

121105

301614

108

0000000







The average score of the media sector is 66

points. This is a sharp decline from the

average of 96 points last year. Remarkably,

all the organizations in this sector score

lower than last year.

Global City Holdings NV is within this sector

the best new participant in the group with a

score of 14.


4.3.9 Pharmaceuticals

0 50 100 150 200

Astellas B.V.

Alliance Boots B.V.

A&D Pharma Holdings N.V.

ESPERITE

Fagron

GALAPAGOS 5330

180

00







Same as last year, the pharmaceuticals

sector has the smallest number of

participants and the lowest average score.

Four of the six organizations within this

sector are new compared to last year.

GALAPAGOS is within this sector the best

new participant in the group with a score

of 53.


4.3.10 Retail

0 50 100 150 200

Yamaha Motor Europe N.V.

V&D Group

St. Clair/ De Bijenkorf

SPAR Holding B.V.

Retailcom Beheer B.V.

Pon Holdings B.V.

Poiesz Beheer B.V.

PGA Nederland N.V.

Peugeot Nederland N.V.

Mitsubishi Motors Europe B.V.

Miss Etam B.V.

Mercedes-Benz Nederland B.V.

Markeur

Lohomij B.V.

Inter-Sprint Banden

Intergamma B.V.

Hoogvliet B.V.

Foot Locker Europe B.V.

Dirk van den Broek/Dekamarkt

Da Holding B.V.

BMW Nederland B.V.

Maxeda Nederland B.V.

Blokker Holding B.V.

B & S International B.V.

Euretco B.V.

Stern Groep N.V.

Macintosh Retail Group N.V.

Coop Holding

IKEA Nederland B.V.

HEMA

PLUS Retail B.V.

Beter Bed Holding N.V.

Zeeman Groep B.V.

Jumbo Groep Holding B.V.

Koninklijke Ahold N.V. 168

139

138

116

105

92

87

85

85

70

39

31

21

12

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0







The retail sector has achieved a higher

average score than last year. The sector

achieved an average score of 84 points in

2014, this year the average score is 85.

B & S International B.V. is within this sector

the best new participant in the group with a

score of 31.


4.3.11 Technology

0 50 100 150 200

Xerox Investments Europe

Verizon Business International Holdings B.V.

Tech Data Nederland B.V.

Specialist Computer Holdings Nederland B.V.

Sensata Technol. Holding N.V.

Saphin B.V.

Samsung Electronics Benelux B.V.

Plantronics B.V.

Nokia Solutions and Networks B.V.

Liberty Global Holding B.V.

KYOCERA Document Solutions Europe B.V.

Ingram Micro

IBM Nederland BV

Huawei Technologies Coöperatief U.A.

Fujitsu Technology Solutions (Holding) B.V.

Dell Global B.V.

Cisco Systems International B.V.

Chemours Netherlands B.V.

Boston ScientiYc Int. B.V.

ALTICE

Acer Europe B.V.

VDL Groep

NXP Semiconductors Netherlands B.V.

Neways Electronics International N.V.

OCI

ASM International N.V.

Gemalto N.V.

BE Semiconductor Indus. N.V.

Tele2 Netherlands Holding N.V.

VimpelCom Ltd.

TKH Group N.V.

ASML

Vodafone

Siemens Nederland

KPN 192

189

186

153

128

128

93

92

80

58

36

33

24

21

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0







The technology sector has the most new

participants in the group of the Transparency

Benchmark 2015, in total there are 14 new

organizations in this sector.

The average score of the sector increased

this year from 92 points to 101 points.

Vimpelcom Ltd. is within this sector the best

new participant with a score of 128.


4.3.12 Transport

0 50 100 150 200

Vroon Group B.V.

Thomas Cook Nederland B.V.

Sundio Group B.V.

Stolt Tankers

Samskip

Raben Group B.V.

Post-Kogeko Logistics B.V.

Handelsveem Beheer

Gaiwin B.V.

Ewals Holdings B.V.

Eur. Container Terminals B.V.

EEA Helicopter Operations B.V.

De Rijke Continental B.V.

DAF Trucks N.V.

Connexxion

Catom Enterprises B.V.

Universal Cargo Logistics

Vos Logistics Beheer B.V.

GVB Holding NV

TNT Express

Koninklijke Vopak N.V.

ProRail B.V.

Air France - KLM

PostNL

Schiphol Group

Havenbedrijf RoRerdam N.V.

NS 194191191

177166

159131131

108108

00000000000000000







Similar to last year, the transport sector has

the highest average score. The sector

achieved an average score of 126 points in

2014. This year the average score is 156

points.

In addition, it is the only sector in which all

organizations with a score have achieved

more than 100 points.


4.3.13 Universities and Medical Centres

0 50 100 150 200

Vrije Universiteit

Nyenrode

Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen

Erasmus MC

VUmc

Universitair Medisch Centrum Groningen (UMCG)

Erasmus Universiteit RoBerdam

Maastricht UMC+

Open Universiteit

UMC Utrecht

Academisch Medisch Centrum

Technische Universiteit Eindhoven

Technische Universiteit DelJ

Universiteit van Tilburg

Leids Universitair Medisch Centrum (LUMC)

Universiteit Leiden

Universiteit Utrecht

Universiteit Twente

Universiteit Maastricht

Universiteit van Amsterdam

Rijksuniversiteit Groningen

Radboudumc

Wageningen UR 156

126

122

122

116

115

97

96

80

59

58

58

49

47

45

44

40

36

36

33

32

31

0







The universities and medical centers (UMC)

sector has 6 new participants compared to

last year. This is caused by the fact that the

vast majority of UMC’s received

dispensation from the government last year.

The UMC’s did not publish their reports

before the 1st of June 2014, and therefore

they could not be included in last year’s

Transparency Benchmark.

This year, the average score of the sector is

73 in comparison to 85 points in 2014.

The Leids Universitair Medisch Centrum

(LUMC) is within this sector the best new

participant with a score of 80.


4.3.14 Real estate

0 50 100 150 200GROOTHANDELSGEBOUW

Refresco Holding B.V.

Vastned Retail N.V.

Eurocommercial Properties

Wereldhave Manag. Holding B.V.

Waterweg Wonen

Unibail Rodamco

Q Park N.V. 170157

111105

7673

4430







This year, the real estate sector scores an

average of 96 points. This is a decrease from

last year when the average score was 107.

In the sector none of the participating

organizations ended with a zero score.


4.3.15 Food and beverage

0 50 100 150 200

Theobroma B.V.Storteboom Group B.V.

Plukon Food GroupNVDU Acquisition B.V.

Milkiland N.V.Mijwo Beheer B.V.

Meatpoint B.V.Mead Johnson B.V.

Mars Nederland B.V.Loders Croklaan Group B.V.

Koninklijke Zeelandia Groep B.V.Koninklijke De Heus B.V.

IMCD Holding B.V.Hoogwegt Groep B.V.

Hanos (Apeldoorn B.V.)H.L. Barentz B.V.

Glencore Grain RoSerdam B.V.DE Masterblenders 1753

Danone Baby and Medical Nutrition B.V.Cargill B.V.

Bakkersland Groep B.V.A-Ware Food Group B.V.

Addasta Holding B.V.Farm Frites Beheer B.V.

VION Holding N.V.DOC Kaas

CZAVKoninklijke Coöperatie Cosun U.A.

Coöperatie AVEBE U.A.The Greenery B.V.

ForFarmers Group B.V.Cooperative Agri]rm U.A.

Vreugdenhil Groep B.V.Sligro Food Group N.V.

Bidvest Deli XLVanDrie Group

Albron Nederland B.V.PerfeSi v. MelleArla Foods B.V.

Bavaria N.V.Koninklijke Wessanen N.V.

Koninklijke FrieslandCampina N.V.Vitens N.V.

Heineken N.V. 182

177

163

161

153

139

133

131

130

118

112

111

96

80

61

52

52

49

46

26

17

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0







With an average score of 104 points, the

food and beverage sector improved their

average in comparison to last year’s average

score of 97 points.

About half of the organizations in the food

and beverage sector has received a zero

score.


4.3.16 Other

0 50 100 150 200

Vroegop Ruhe & Co. B.V.

Optiver Holding B.V.

O;ce Depot International

NetApp & Manufacturing

Mosadex

Mediq

Koninklijke Distill. Dirkzwager B.V.

Hyva Group B.V.

Horedo/Rensa

Elopak B.V.

De Kon. Nederlandse Munt N.V.

Clondalkin Industries B.V.

Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V.

Center Parcs Europe N.V.

British American Tobacco International (Holdings) B.V.

Beleggingsmij. Braverassa B.V.

Advanced Travel Partners Nederland B.V.

Louis Dreyfus

AerCap Holdings N.V.

Kardan N.V.

TUI Nederland

Airbus Group N.V.

Nutreco 147

144

140

61

30

24

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0







Compared to last year, the industry sector

‘other’ has obtained a higher score. The

composition of the sector has signiicantly

changed compared to last year, a possible

explanation for the higher average score of

91 points this year. In 2014, the average score

was 53 points.


4.4 Corporate responsibility reporting in practice

The participating organizations that filled in the self-assessment were asked to (voluntarily) answer some additional questions about reporting

and the process of developing a report.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

20152014

Seperate CR Report

Other Relevant Information

None

Integrated Report - Other

Integrated Report - IIRC

Financial Report

Type of Report(Analysis based on 244 (2014) and 245 (2015) respondents)

24%

1%6%

33%

8%

29%

30%

14%

1%

22%

7%

26%

Compared to last year, the number of respondents who

indicated that they have some form of Integrated

Reporting in place increased from 37% to 41%. Of those

reports, 8% is based on the framework for Integrated

Reporting of the IIRC (International Integrated Reporting

Council).

This year, 24% publish a separate CSR report, a decrease

from last year. The percentage of organizations that only

publish a financial report has also risen (to 29%).

The biggest difference is in the percentage of organiza-

tions that state not to publish a report, decreasing from

14% to 6%.


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

20152014

No

Yes

Use of GRI Guidelines(Analysis based on 244 (2014) and245 (2015) respondents)

51%

49%

48%

52%

0%

10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

20152014

G4 core

G4 comprehensive

G3.1

G3.0

48%

18%

26%

8%

20%

11%

17%

52%

GRI Version Used(Analysis based on 126 (2014) and 120 (2015) respondents)

Almost half of the organizations use the guidelines of the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) in the preparation of the

(corporate social responsibility) report.

The use of the GRI 3.1 version has significantly decreased compared to last year from 52% to 26%partly explained by the

fact that GRI 3.1 can no longer be applied from 2015. As a logical consequence the use of the GRI G4 Core has increased

from 20% to 48% and GRI G4 Comprehensive from 11% to 18%. This shows that the majority of organizations follow

the development of the GRI guidelines and are committed to meet these new standards.


0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

OtherNo useof frameworkfor reporting

ISO 26000SustainabilityAccounting

Standards Board

EMASCarbonDisclosure

Project

InternationalIntegratedReporting

Council (IIRC)framework

Use of Internationally Recognized Frameworks(Analysis based on 90 (2014) and 73 (2015) respondents)

31% 32%

23%25%

0%3% 4% 4%

20% 21%24% 25%

30%

18%

2014

2015

In addition to the use of the GRI guidelines (see above), 32% of organizations indicate that they make use of the

framework for integrated reporting by the IIRC, while 25% use the Carbon Disclosure Project. Compared to last year,

the number of organizations that indicate their use of another internationally recognized framework has fallen from

30% to 18%. Furthermore, it is remarkable that once again a quarter of organizations do not use any framework for its

reporting.


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

OtherLack of appropriateknowledge/

expertisein the elaboration

of a CR report

The elaboration of the report is more time-consuming

than initially expected

The report is not

considered a key point

DiHculties with the interpretation

of external guidelines

Data collectionwithin the

organisationis complex

Most important challenges in the process of CR reporting(Analysis based on 137 (2014) and 99 (2015) respondents)

48% 50%

34%29%

18% 19%

45% 44%

9%6%

20% 18%

2014

2015

Most of the respondents indicate that the biggest challenges during the process of reporting can be found inside their

own organization, identifying in particular those related to data collection (50%), time investment (44%) and a lack of

priority (19%).

Compared to last year, the number of respondents who expressed difficulties in interpreting external guidelines

decreased from 34% to 29%.


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

20152014

Fully implemented

OECD guidelines

Not familiar with

OECD guidelines

Familiar with OECD

guidelines, but not

implemented

Used OECD guidelines as a starting point in the elaboration of the code of conduct and corporate governance

Use of OECD Guidelines(Analysis based on 108 (2014) and 71 (2015) respondents)

11%

14%

44%

31%

46%

12%

32%

10%

Of the organizations that answered this question, 42%

apply the OECD guidelines for International Enterprises

to some extent: while 31% use the guidelines only as the

basis for their Code of Conduct and Corporate

Governance Code, 11% have fully implemented the OECD

guidelines. On the other hand, 44% of the organizations

indicated that, although they are familiar with the OECD

guidelines, they don’t have them integrated in their

company policies. This is a slight decrease compared to

last year. Finally, 14% of the organizations indicated that

they are not familiar with the OECD guidelines.


5 In-depth theme: The impact of Transparency

IntroductionThe Transparency Benchmark focuses – as one can already imagine – on Transparency. Online dictionaries (www.financiële begrippen.com)

explain transparency as: the extent to which the management of a business is clear. In order to achieve transparency, companies will have to

communicate, i.e. provide useful information. However, the precise definition of ‘useful information’ differs per (group of ) stakeholders.

As a result, ‘transparency’ also carries a different meaning for different stakeholders. Furthermore, communication is not only about the

receiver, but it also concerns the sender of such information. The organization (i.e. the sender) has its own opinion of how often and in which

way useful information should be provided to the receiver.

Currently, people and organizations are in the position to know a lot more about one another due to the widespread usage of the internet,

which provides the opportunity to obtain a vast amount of relevant information. This makes transparency even more important,

allowing the right kind of information to reach the right receiver. Needless to say, information has an impact.

This section will focus on the existing relationship between the organization and its stakeholders by taking a so-called agency perspective

to clarify the choices that companies can make when communicating their information (through an annual report). Furthermore,

this section will include insights into the extent to which the organizations address the information needs of their stakeholders.

Agency TheoryAgency theory is a well-known and respected theory originating in both economics and business research. It explains the relationship between

principals (client) and agents (executor) in business. The traditional agency theory (Jensen & Meckling, 1976) reasons from the perspective that

ownership and management in (large) enterprises is separated. The shareholders (principals) transfer the management of the organization

(in which they have invested) to the board (the agents) of the organization. Agency theory argues that the principal and the agents could have

conflicting interests, due to the fact that principals have less knowledge about the activities and results of the organization. This situation is

referred to the presence of information-asymmetry.


However, next to the shareholders, other diverse parties including (social) organizations and persons may also have some stake in an organiza-

tion. The modernistic agency theory approach focuses on this larger basket of principals, i.e. the stakeholders. The concept of information

asymmetry is also applicable to these stakeholders (employees, clients, suppliers, banks, the government, interest groups and others).

CommunicationIn order to reduce the effect of information asymmetry (i.e. stakeholders having less knowledge about the organization), organizations should

provide adequate and useful information. This information should enable stakeholders to make justified choices in relation to the organization

(investing, procurement, employee relations, social level of acceptance and more), also referred to as ‘incremental information paradigm’.

Information asymmetry is only one element of agency theory. Another element important in the discussion of transparency is the conflicting

interests between the management of an organization and its stakeholders. This conflict of interests influences the way in which management

decides to provide information, leaving the stakeholders in a position of dependency within this process of information-sharing. The question

that arises is then: to what extent is the management of an organization able to reduce the asymmetry of information, given the conflicts of

interests? Providing information can thus be seen as an instrument of the management of an organization.

Annual reportingNowadays, organizations are primarily sharing information through their annual public reporting, the most common forms of which include

the financial statements, a management report, a sustainability report, and/oran integrated report. Additionally, organizations often communi-

cate other messages through their websites or additional publications. In the context of the Transparency Benchmark, this chapter will especially

focus on the communication of accounting information, which is periodically released through the annual reports.

The annual report of an organization includes the financial statement (a factual overview of the financial results of an organization) and the

management report (the board of an organization provides an explanation of the results of the organization and the related risks at year-end).

In addition to the management report, some organizations also report a so-called sustainability report, or integrate the results related to

sustainability in the management report. The financial statement primarily includes quantitative information, whereas the management report

mainly includes qualitative information. Basically, the management report can be viewed as an explanation of how the company is performing

through the perspective of the board of an organization.


The board of an organization asks itself the following question: whom do I want to reach through this annual report, what do message do I want

to convey and how am I going to realize this? In answering these questions, the board of an organization will make certain choices that will

influence the way in which the report will be presented. A reporting strategy will be formulated but not formally included in the report itself.

Communication StrategyAn important characteristic of the annual report is that it serves as a channel for the organization to communicate its corporate image.

As a result, the annual reports constitute a showcase of ‘company pride’ for the management of an organization. Though in essence a potentially

positive characteristic, this element of ‘company pride’ brings about a risk of presenting a biased picture for the readers of the report.

Deegan (2002) provides additional insights into the communication strategies that have been elaborated by Lindblom. In reporting information

an organization stands to: (1) provide full transparency about recent events related to the organization, (2) influence the perception of the

stakeholders, (3) manipulate the perception of the stakeholder by diverging attention, and (4) influence the expectations concerning the results

of the organization. In order to realize the communication strategy, the board of the organization has a wide set of reporting-instruments at its

disposal.

Communicating is making choices

The communication instruments available to management can be categorized into: design, presentation and phrasing.

Design Design can help accentuate important parts of information. The reader’s attention to certain elements in the report can be

influenced through different aspects in the design of the report itself. Some of these aspects refer to the positioning of

disclosures in the report, the layout/design of the different pages, the use of colors,pictures and graphics to convey a

particular message, and the use of different font types and text boxes throughout the report.

Presentation The presentation of information is related to the design of the report. As such, ‘presentation’ focuses on the selection of

topics to include, the right balance between positive and negative disclosures, the decision to provide insights into

dilemmas, the structure in which topics are introduced and elaborated on, the degree of detail in information, ,as well as a

balance between quantitative and qualitative information on the one hand, and prospective and retrospective information

on the other.

Phrasing Finally, information can also become biased as a result of the choices in phrasing. A message can be delivered in many ways,

positively or negatively formulated, in an easily comprehensible way, or with a series of very technical terms. Much research


has been done on the comprehensibility of reporting. Students of the University of Groningen have, for example, researched

this theme with great interest. The main findings across researchers highlight that annual reports are difficult to read.

This is based on word-phrase characteristics in the text (length and amount). This research, however, does not take into

account characteristics of the reader (e.g. level of expertise, experience, education and degree to which the person is

interested).

When managing the introduced instruments, many choices have to be made. The table below provides examples of relevant choices.

These choices are not meant as an either/or decision, but rather should be considered as two extremes of a continuum.

Choices made when drafting a sustainability report

• Separate or integrated report

• Annual report in pdf or printed versus and online report

• Graphical representations versus textual guidance

• Differences in lay-out

• Negative versus positive results

• Retrospective versus prospective information

• Verification or no verification of annual report

• Qualitative information versus quantitative information

• Detailed information versus general information

• Stakeholder relevance versus management relevance

• Absolute versus relative

• Comparable results (peer group related to time)

• All including annual reports (‘take a lot approach’) versus focused reports (materiality)

• Information grouped by theme or integrated in the subjects

• Measured information versus non-measureable information

• Information about targets or about results

• Information about actions or about the impact of the organization

• Vague versus specific formulations

• Simple usage of language or academic usage of language

• Neutrally comparing versus subjectively comparing


The stakeholder as starting point

It is of great importance – also within the Transparency Benchmark – that

organizations consult their stakeholders in order to discover which themes

and topics they consider to be important for the organization. Figure 1

provides an overview of an ideal situation regarding the development of an

annual report. The strategy of an organization and an adequate stakeholder

engagement constitute the basis for the reporting process. Based on this, the

organization can by means of a materiality analysis identify which themes

(ranked by importance) are most material to report on: the reporting strategy.

In doing so, the organization may decide to rely on sustainability reporting

standards such as GRI G4, SASB, and/or the criteria of the Transparency

Benchmark. The reader should also in this ideal situation realize that even

when an organization chooses to carry out a stakeholder consultation in

combination with a materiality analysis, the final decisions regarding the

annual report rest with the management.

StrategyStakeholder

consultation

Materiality

analysis

Reporting

strategy

External reporting

criteria

Annual report


Voluntary or mandatory?

Frameworks for reporting

The quality of sustainability reporting has increased through the development of sustainability reporting guidelines. The most well-known

sustainability reporting guidelines are those developed by the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI G4), Raad voor de Jaarverslaggeving (RF400),

the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) and the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC). Within the Dutch reporting

landscape, the criteria of the Transparency Benchmark are also used by organizations. All the aforementioned reporting guidelines are ‘princi-

ples based’ and their implementation is therefore voluntary.

External pressure

Much academic research has focused on the question: which factors explain transparency of organizations (organizational characteristics,

financial results, board composition, composition of the board of directors, industry associations and others). Many research approaches make

use of certain institutional theories such as isomorphism. Organizations experience pressure from society (government, NGO’s, Transparency

Benchmark) to publish sustainability reports (coercive isomorphism). Additionally, many organizations imitate each other’s behavior.

These organizations look at what other organizsations are doing and replicate it within their own situations (mimetic isomorphism).

Given these organizational behavior patterns, to what extent is sustainability reporting really voluntary? A negative approach in answering such

question implies that an organization negatively differentiating itself from its competitors when it chooses not publish a sustainability report.

In addition, it should also be noted that organizations that do business with the government are increasingly being questioned on their

sustainability policy, and as such, the sustainability report becomes an important component of this ‘accountability to the state’.

Legislation?

A concrete example of external pressure can be found in legislation. Since the beginning of sustainability reporting, the value of relevant

legislation has been a matter of constant debate. A downside of legislation, which is often referred to, is the risk to compliance-related behavior,

‘use the law as a checklist’. This risk is also evident when looking at the Transparency Benchmark. An important advantage of legislation is

however the fact that it will create a framework for both the writer as well as the reader of the report, increasing the comparability across reports.

This is also an advantage of the Transparency Benchmark.

Financial reporting is important for society and is thus governed by rules related to financial reporting. Reasoning from the same societal

perspective, sustainability reporting should also include more relevant reporting rules. Whether this will eventually lead to real transparency

– given the wide variety of organizations and qualitative nature of subjects – remains a subject of speculation.


Does transparency impact the organization?

It is not an easy task to determine whether the degree of transparency impacts the reporting organizations. Will stakeholders do more business

with organizations because of increased transparency? Examples of situations where this has indeed been the case abound, such as the recent

the news of ABP’s decision to dispose its investments in Mylan. Academic research shows that investors’ decisions are increasingly being guided

by information other than financial information. There are however also examples of organizations that operate in an extremely sustainable

way, and which, despite not reporting on their sustainable efforts, still make a profit and see an increase in their revenue.

Financial statements have been mandatory for years, but who reads them? The same question can be posed related to sustainability reports.

Observations from practice do show, however, that creating an annual report, and providing it with external assurance, contributes to the better

performance of an organization. Many organizations communicate to their accountant or advisor their intentions of publishing a sustainability

report. These organizations are thus actually starting at the end of the process. Theoretically speaking, better communication of sustainability

performance should start with the creation of a vision, mission and a strategy. In practice, however, it seems that after the publication of a first

sustainability report, organizations want to progress more and more. For example, these organizations then expect to report better results the

next year. This means that they then will need to improve their actual results by for example developing policies, targets and ways of measuring

information. If the performance of organizations suddenly drops instead of rises, what can be done about this?

The quality of reporting by organizations has progressed and changed over the years. Research conducted on the factors that influence the

quality of reporting (based on the criteria of the Transparency Benchmark) shows that the Transparency Benchmark has been an influence in this

process.

Reporting seems to be an institutionalized phenomenon: the audience is limited, but the mechanism in itself is an important element of the

checks and balances of an organization. An important challenge for the coming years is to further develop the Transparency Benchmark in order

to help expand the understanding of transparency and impact.

* Please refer to Appendix 7.6 for an overview of literature used in this section.


6 Explanation of the Transparency Benchmark

6.1 Goal

The Transparency Benchmark aims to provide an opinion on the content and quality of external reporting on corporate responsibility issues.

To this end, the accounting information of the largest Dutch organizations is reviewed against 40 criteria related to corporate responsibility

aspects of the organizations and their operations. The Transparency Benchmark does not explicitly give an opinion on the actual performance

of organizations.

6.2 DiMerences to previous year

Compared to the previous year the following parts of the Transparency Benchmark have been changed:

1. The criteria

In 2014, the criteria of the Transparency Benchmark have been refined and adjusted to account for new international developments,

such as the new GRI guidelines (the G4), the framework for integrated reporting of the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC),

the OECD Guidelines for International Enterprises and the EU directive concerning reporting on non-financial information and diversity for PIEs

(Public Interest Entity) with more than 500 employees. This year, some criteria have been refined to enhance the comprehensibility and reduce

room for interpretation. Furthermore, three criteria regarding materiality have been adjusted with the purpose of aligning closely to

the international reporting guidelines.


2. The participation protocol and the participating organizations

The participants group was developed by incorporating the following different categories:

• Public Interest Entities (PIE’s) with more than 500 employees

• Organizations listed in Amsterdam’s stock exchange

• Organizations with substantial activities in the Netherlands related to revenue and/or amount of employees

• (Partly) State-owned companies

• Universities and University Medical Centres (UMC)

• Large organizations (more than 250 employees) who have been included in the participants group on a voluntary basis in the past.

Based on the aforementioned criteria, the final participants group increased this year to 485 organizations (compared to 429 in 2014). The list of

new participating companies can be found in the Appendix. The entire participation protocol can be downloaded from the website of the

Transparency Benchmark (www. Transparantiebenchmark.nl)

Dutch organizations with an International group report

An organization may be excluded from participation in the Transparency Benchmark when it is a subsidiary and the report of the parent

company meets the guidelines of the expected EU directive proposal on non-financial reporting. This means that information on the

environment, social and labor-related issues, human rights, anti-corruption, bribery, and diversity on the board should be included in

the annual report. For these organizations a separate overview was prepared, without a benchmark. These organizations receive no score.

In total, 24 of the 485 organizations participated in the group arrangement. A list of these organizations is included in the appendix.

An organization that meets the requirements to participate in this arrangement, and also publishes its own Dutch report, can choose to

submit the Dutch report voluntarily for the purpose of the benchmark.

6.3 Boundary of publicly available accounting information

The scores on the Transparency Benchmark are awarded based on the publicly available reports over the reporting year 2014. Different types of

reports qualify, such as annual reports, financial reports and corporate responsibly reports. The main condition is that reports should be publicly

available. This implies that the report (the information) of the participant should be available at no additional fees, or should be available for

downloading from the corporate website. Reports that are only available at the Chamber of Commerce do not meet the eligibility criteria and

can therefore not be used as available accounting information (no points will be received). Additionally, the report should published periodically


and concentrated on accounting information of the reporting year 2014 (ended in 2014). Only reporting information published before the 1st of

July 2015 has been included the Transparency Benchmark.

6.4 Methodology

The overall process consists of the six following steps:

• The self-assessment: organizations can assess their own information based on the criteria of the Transparency Benchmark. This year 158

organizations have filled in the self-assessment.

• Evaluation of the self-assessment and/or integrated assessment: in order to secure the quality of provisional scores and remedy interpreta-

tion differences of participants, all self-assessment have been assessed by a team of reviewers. Participants that did not fill in the self-assess-

ment themselves, were also provided with a provisional score by the reviewing team, based on the publicly available annual reports.

Commentary period: Participants that did not agree with the determined provisional score were given the opportunity to submit their

comments at the level of the individual criteria by using the e-tool. The comments of the participants have been reviewed and a reaction was

formulated by the executor of the Transparency Benchmark. After this process the final scores of the Transparency Benchmark have been

determined and communicated to the different participants.

• Communication with the Panel of Experts: Even after the determination of the final score by the reviewing team, an organization may wish

to express disagreement with the score. Such disagreement tends to originate mainly from a difference in interpretation of a criterion between

the executor of the Transparency Benchmark and the participant. Interaction with the Panel of Experts took place in the event of disagreement

about the final score. The Panel of Experts assessed in these cases the final score. In total, 6 organizations have requested the involvement of

the Panel of Experts. As a result, the comments of 3 organizations (5 criteria) upheld. The final scores have been set after the period of

communication with the Panel of Experts. The composition of the Panel of Experts can be found in the Appendix.

• Panel Assessment: The 20 highest scoring participants were also separately evaluated by the Panel of Experts. The reports of these organiza-

tions have been assessed based on so-called ‘panel criteria’ (these criteria can be found in the appendix of the criteria 2015, to be downloaded

from the website of the Transparency Benchmark: www.transparantiebenchmark.nl ).

• Winner of the Crystal Price’: The Jury ultimately determines the winner of the ‘Crystal Price’. The composition of the Jury can be found in the

Appendix. An overview of the jury criteria of 2015 can be found on the following website: www.kristalprijs.nl. Next to the Crystal Price, the Jury

awards the organization that addresses transparency in corporate responsibility reporting in the most creative and innovative manner.

Similar to last year participating organizations could use the e-tool; a web based application that assisted them through the first three steps of

the process.


6.5 Criteria

The Transparency Benchmark is based on 40 criteria. An overview of the criteria can be downloaded from the website of the Transparency

Benchmark (www.transparantiebenchmark.nl). The criteria have been divided into two categories: content-related (three criteria subcategories)

and quality-related (five criteria subcategories). A maximum of 200 points can be scored; 100 points for content and quality respectively.

The total score can be calculated by adding the total score obtained for both content and quality. The maximum amount of points varies per

criteria subcategory (see figure).

Inhoudsgericht normenkader 100

1. Onderneming en bedrijfsprojel 33 2. Beleid en resultaten 34 3. Management aanpak 33

1A. Projel en waardeketen 10 2A. Beleid en (zelf opgelegde) verplichtingen 5 3A. Governance en

remuneratie

10

1B. Proces van waardecreatie 10 2B. Doelstellingen 5 3B. Sturing en beheersing 8

1C. Omgevingsanalyse

(incl. risico’s en kansen)

8 2C. Economische aspecten van

ondernemen

8 2D. Milieu-aspecten van

ondernemen

8 2E. Sociale aspecten

van ondernemen

8 3C. Toekomst verwachting 5

1D. Strategische conext 5 3D. Verslaggevingscriteria 10

Kwaliteitsgericht normenkader 100

4. Relevantie 20 5. Duidelijkheid 20 6. Betrouwbaarheid 20 7. Responsiviteit 20 8. Samenhang 20

Materialiteit 8 Begrijpelijkheid 6 Juistheid, volledigheid 17 Gerichtheid op

belanghebbenden

13 Strategische focus 5

Reikwijdte en anakening 6 Beknoptheid 4 Voorzichtigheid 3 Bijdrage aan

maatschappelijk

debat

2 Contextuele samenhang 6

Tijdigheid 6 Inzichtelijkheid 7 Durf 5 Integratie 6

Toegangkelijkheid 3 Vergelijkbaarheid 3


6.6 Jury report

This year, the Crystal Award will presented for the sixth consecutive time. The jury acknowledges and therefore rewards the positive develop-

ments in building a culture of transparency in reporting. Companies’ efforts in the area of sustainability reporting are indeed observable and

the jury recognizes their potential to lead to increasingly positive results. To stimulate the continuous development of sustainability reporting in

the Netherlands, the Ministry of Economic Affairs adjusted and sharpened the criteria of the Transparency Benchmark in 2014. After an initial

decrease of the average score, the top-20 organisations score 4 points higher this year. In general, sustainability is more and better integrated in

the business model of companies..

Criteria, materiality and taxes

Sustainability reporting – and transparency within such reporting in particular – should be considered as a process in continuous development.

With the purpose of aligning to such developments, the evaluation criteria were radically adjusted for the Transparency Benchmark 2014.

In doing so, the framework of the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC), the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) and the EU directive

on non-financial reporting have all been used as a starting point.

In 2015, the criteria remained mostly unchanged from the previous year, although lessons learned from the previous year and developments

observed in the reporting practice motivated the fine-tuning and sharpening of several criteria. On the one hand, some criteria had presented

large room for interpretation, and as such, they were rephrased . However, the most important adjustment was driven by the increased focus

on materiality within reporting. Compared to last year, companies were assessed on the extent to which they report on specifically those topics

that are most relevant, i.e. material, for their organizations and their stakeholders.

Reporting with the concept of materiality in mind, is indeed an art of omission. When companies strive for a concise report, they allow for those

aspects of most importance to receive the attention they deserve. The jury recognizes this is as a special challenge faced by many organizations.

Concise reporting thus constitutes a potential differentiator in todays’ reporting landscape. As such, the jury placed strong emphasis on

conciseness in selecting the recipient of the Award to the Most Innovative Report 2015.

A particularly positive development observed by the jury is the way in which companies have opted to elaborate on who they are and what they

actually do in their course of business.


Portrayals of the business model in the context of the value that a company creates have developed into a core component of reporting.

What is more, these value creation narratives are increasingly becoming more intelligible and accessible through, among other, the use of

graphic representations.

These observations on materiality and conciseness align with a wider-reaching development in the business world: sustainability is ever more

embedded in the business model. The jury is therefore convinced that this increased focus on sustainability from the strategic perspective

translates into an emerging culture of transparency in reporting. Companies who manage to constantly communicate on their sustainability

performance in a transparent manner, stand more resilient whenever dilemma’s or scandals may arise. The more a company’s contribution

towards society is recognized, the more forgiving this society will react to potential drawbacks and incidents. This does require companies to

communicate pro-actively on what went wrong. By providing insight in the causes and lessons-learned of incidents, companies have a chance

to show society they are striving for continuous improvement. Some leading companies are already doing this, but it is not yet a widely accepted

practice. This so called ‘license to operate’ is, next to traditional ethical arguments, an additional motivation to be transparent about both the

positive as well as the negative aspects of business on society.

In this respect, the Transparency Benchmark aims to stimulate a culture of transparency. Yet, when considering the current extent of transpar-

ency in reporting, a next step in this culture development process is the open communication on tax obligations. As such, the jury also urges

companies to become ever more transparent on this particularly sensitive subject. It comes as no surprise that the topic of tax obligations is of

social importance and is in fact encompassed in the broader contribution a business makes to society. The OECD has been striving to reduce

harmful tax competition for a long time. This has caused companies to increasingly pay taxes in the countries where they operated, and to be

more open about their tax payments. There is, however, still significant room for improvement. Especially multi-national organizations should

disclose more information on their tax policies and payments. Country-by-country reporting, for instance, is still an exception to the rule. In this

case, an attitude of ‘better safe than sorry’ should also be adopted, whereby communication on tax obligations and payments serves to minimize

or avoid reputational damage due to potential incidents.

This year’s winners

The jury is commissioned with the task to determine the ultimate winner of the awards accompanying the Benchmark. In such responsibility,

they are supported by the Panel of Experts of the Transparency Benchmark when making content-related considerations. The jury is thus grateful

to the Panel for their contributions in the process. The winners of this year’s Transparency Benchmark’s awards are presented as follows:


The Highest Climber Award: N.V. Holding Westland Infra

The highest climber in the Transparency Benchmark 2015 is Westland Infra. The company obtained 69 points in total in the 2014 benchmark.

With a total of 153 points obtained this year, Westland infra climbed from rank 162th last year to number 56 in 2015. A raking improvement

of 106 positions.

The jury acknowledges the accomplishments of Westland Infra in the area of corporate social responsibility reporting, which they developed

along the Global Reporting Initiative’s G4 guidelines.

In their reporting over the period 2014, the company has stressed the concepts of value creation and materiality. Westland Infra has included

a materiality matrix in their report and has achieved to elaborate on all identified material topics. In doing so, the company has been able to

meet the pertinent criteria of the Transparency Benchmark, especially given this year’s stricter view on materiality. Additionally, Westland infra

provides clear insights into the value chain within which it operates, presenting a comprehensive value creation model and an accompanying

summary of all relevant quantitative indicators.

The Award to Most Innovative Report: N.V. Luchthaven Schiphol

The Award to the Most Innovative Report is a token of merit for the organization, which succeeded in the most creative way to contribute to

the discourse on the most relevant corporate social responsibility aspects of their business.

This year, the jury has decided to present Schiphol Group with this award. The Integrated Report of Schiphol Group opens with their value

creation model, even before providing insight into their most prominent performance results. In doing so they have set out the connecting

thread that leads the reader through the whole report, making it reader friendly. Similarly, the key characteristics of the company and its external

environment, as well as the results in 2014 are also presented in the first few pages of the report. As a result, Schiphol Group has thrived in

concisely bringing to the forefront what is most important.

Another innovative aspect of the company’s reporting is the description of its own value chain, in which Schiphol Group specifies the extent to

which they have influence on each part of the chain and which parts require cooperation with partners. This results in a report that is not only

innovative in itself but also accessible for a wider audience.

The Crystal Award, the main award of the Transparency Benchmark

After the assessment by the Panel of Experts, the jury has decided which of the three highest-ranked companies wins this year’s Crystal Award.

Even though the reports are substantially different from each other, the scores and quality of the reports are rather similar.


The third position this year is for Unilever N.V., claiming a spot in the top three of the Transparency Benchmark for the first time. The jury values

the large steps taken by Unilever in improving their corporate social responsibility reporting over the past couple of years. The company set itself

ambitious objectives and has developed into an international frontrunner in the area of sustainability. This consistent emphasis on sustainability

as a core element of the organization and its strategy has hence translated into a robust and reliable reputation.

The jury is therefore pleased to observe that Unilever has also strengthened their reporting, as they make it increasingly clear how external

developments at a global scale influence their business. Unilever’s mission and objectives are comprehensibly introduced in the context of the

Sustainability Living Plan, which was launched back in 2010. However, the jury still identifies an opportunity for further progress if Unilever

decides to improve the clarity with which it communicates on those aspects that are of a more negative nature (e.g. weaker than expected

performance).

Koninklijke Philips N.V. is placed second in the 2015 Transparency Benchmark. Philips’ reporting has already been recognized with high scores in

the Benchmark of previous years. The company’s choice to present its role within society linked to external environment trends (such as aging

population and urbanization), has in fact concretized into a core element of Philips’ reporting. The jury therefore wishes to acknowledge the way

in which the company has achieved to convert its reporting into a tool for contributing towards raising awareness into these and other topics

relevant for society.

Additionally noteworthy is how Philips highlights the importance of corporate social responsibility information by seeking the same level of

assurance for these type of disclosures as for their financial reporting. In this regard, Philips can take pride in being one of the few organizations

at the forefront, both in the Netherlands as well as internationally. Yet, a next step could consist of aiming for a more concise report, by reducing

the amount of product information.

Winner of the Crystal Award

The jury presents the Crystal Award 2015 to Akzo Nobel N.V.. Despite the close scores between the top 3 of this year, AkzoNobel’s report differenti-

ates itself both in relation to content as well as presentation. From simply looking at the report it becomes clear that sustainability is an integral

part of the company’s strategy and organizational culture. Value creation and the relevant results are in fact presented at the level of individual

business units. As such, the reader can in one glance gain insights into both the positive as well as negative effects of business operations.

It is easy for the reader to track where these take place and in which way they influence the value creation potential of the company.

Additionally, the company’s report is a good example of achieving a ‘balanced image’ of the organization. The jury has decided to reward

AkzoNobel for their willingness to elaborate in detail on those aspects of their business that are concerning sources of issues, even when these

may well lie outside of the company’s scope of influence. AkzoNobel clearly indicates its progress on its strategic sustainability goals in the first


section of the report. It is also open about the fact that two goals require significant improvement. In doing so, AkzoNobel assumes – and

communicates – its responsibility for the chain and the sector in which it operates. The jury is therefore convinced that this level of openness

and vulnerability that such a company is prepared to shoulder, will support the development of a culture of transparency in the Netherlands.

Society as a whole stands to benefit from this, and AkzoNobel deserves special recognition for their contribution.

AkzoNobel’s strong profile in the area of sustainability is also clear when taking into account the consistent high scores in the Transparency

Benchmark: the company has consecutively claimed a spot in the top 3 in the past couple of years. This is a particularly noteworthy achievement,

given that organizations operating in the business-to-business segments may tend to regard public communication tools, such as sustainability

reports, as being of lesser commercial value

Beyond these consistently admirable results in the Transparency Benchmark, the importance that AkzoNobel places on sustainability reporting is

evident from the innovative steps taken to improve it. The company developed the 4D methodology, which allows for the more insightful

presentation of the impacts of AkzoNobel’s activities along indicators: ‘environment’, ‘human’, ‘social’, and ‘financial’. In its report, the company

elaborates on the lessons learned from a pilot project applying this methodology, and explains the conclusions on the extent to which it can be

implemented in a feasible and valuable manner. The jury deems such initiative praiseworthy and hopes that it will be followed up both internally

as well as externally.

6.7 Organizations with zero scores

The category of organizations with zero scores consists of organizations that are included in the participants group but did not achieve a score

(0-score) . An organization can fall into the this category if:

• The report was not publicly available for free

• The report was not published in a timely manner, and previous-year reports have already been included in an earlier edition of the

Transparency Benchmark.

• The organization is a subsidiary of a group but did not refer to a report from the parent on group level in the Dutch (financial) report and/or

did not apply for the group report arrangement.


2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Total number of participants 469 473 460 409* 461*

Total of organisations with zero score 236 242 200 165* 216*

Percentage of organisations with zero score 50,32% 51,16% 43,48% 40,34% 46,85%

* Companies who have participated with their group report are excluded

The Ministry aims to reduce the group of organizations with zero scores. Unfortunately, this year the percentage organizations with zero scores

increased from 40% to 47%. The main reason for this increase is that 80 new organizations have been added to the participants group of the

Transparency Benchmark in 2015. Of these 80 organizations, 53 obtained a zero score, 21 had a positive score and 6 organizations participated in

the group report arrangement.

To gain more insight into the type of organizations that obtained a zero score , the organizations are divided into Business-to-Business (B2B) and

Business-to-Consumer (B2C) organizations (this table can be found in the appendix):

132 organizations with a zero score are active in the B2B segment

73 organizations with a zero score are active within the B2C segment

11 organizations with a zero score are active in both segments

Most organizations with a zero score can be found in the Industrial products sector, involves total of 36 organizations. However, the percentage

of companies with a zero score is highest in the Consumer products sector (86%). Of all listed companies(73), only two companies have a zero

score.


7 Appendices

7.1 New Participating organizations

In 2015, the Ministry of Economic Affairs decided to expand the Transparency Benchmark and include the 485 largest organizations.

This has resulted in 80 new participants. The table below shows the new participants and in which sector they operate.

New Participant Sector

A&D Pharma Holdings N.V. Pharmaceuticals

Academisch Medisch Centrum Universities and Medical

Centres

Ace Innovation Holding B.V. Industrial products

Addasta Holding B.V. Food and beverage

Ageas Insurance International N.V. Banking and insurers

Alliance Boots B.V. Pharmaceuticals

ALTICE Technology

ASICS Europe B.V. Consumer products

Auctus Holding B.V. Trading

Avery Dennison Materials Nederland B.V. Industrial products

B & S International B.V. Retail

BMW Nederland B.V. Retail

CGI Nederland B.V. Services

Chemours Netherlands B.V. Technology

Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V. Other

De Nederlandse Energie Maatschappij B.V. Energy, oil and gas


Dell Global B.V. Technology

DPA GROUP Services

Erasmus MC Universities and Medical

Centres

ESPERITE Pharmaceuticals

Fujitsu Technology Solutions (Holding) B.V. Technology

Gaiwin B.V. Transport

GALAPAGOS Pharmaceuticals

GDF Suez Energy, oil and gas

Getinge Arjo Holding Netherlands B.V. Trading

Global City Holdings N.V. Media and communications

GROOTHANDELSGEBOUW Real estate

H.L. Barentz B.V. Food and beverage

Hager-Minnema-Hutten Beheer B.V. Trading

HDI-Gerling Verzekeringen N.V. Banking and insurance

Hewlett-Packard The Hague B.V. Technology

Holiday Holding Rotterdam B.V. Services



Huawei Technologies Coöperatief U.A. Technology

Huntsman Investments (Netherlands) B.V. Industrial products

International Flavors & Fragrances I.F.F.

(Nederland) B.V.

Industrial products

INVISTA B.V. Industrial products

Leids Universitair Medisch Centrum

(LUMC)


Centres

Liberty Global Holding B.V. Technology

LyondellBasell Industries N.V. Industrial products

Maastricht UMC+ Universities and Medical

Centres

Mead Johnson B.V. Food and beverage

Media Markt Saturn Holding Nederland B.V. Retail

Mercedes-Benz Nederland B.V. Retail

Merck Sharp & Dohme B.V. Pharmaceuticals

Mijwo Beheer B.V. Food and beverage

Milkiland N.V. Food and beverage

Neste Oil Netherlands B.V. Energy, oil and gas

Nielsen N.V. Media and communications

NN GROUP Banking and insurance

Nokia Solutions and Networks B.V. Technology

NVDU Acquisition B.V. Food and beverage

OCI Technology

Oranjewoud N.V. Construction and maritime

Peugeot Nederland N.V. Retail

Plantronics B.V. Technology


Propertize B.V. Services

Retailcom Beheer B.V. Retail

Ricoh Europe SCM B.V. Technology

Robeco Groep N.V. Banking and insurance

SABIC International Holdings B.V. Industrial products

Samsung Electronics Benelux B.V. Technology

Saphin B.V. Technology

Smartwares B.V. Consumer products

SPIE Nederland B.V. Construction and maritime

Stichting Nederlandse Publieke Omroep Media and communications

Swarovski (Europe) Holding B.V. Consumer products

Tech Data Nederland B.V. Technology

Tetra Laval Holdings B.V. Industrial products

TMF Group Holding B.V. Services

TOTAL Nederland N.V. Energy, oil and gas

TP Vision Europe B.V. Services

UMC Utrecht Universities and Medical

Centres

United Parcel Service Nederland B.V. Services

Universitair Medisch Centrum Groningen

(UMCG)


Centres

Verizon Business International Holdings

B.V.

Technology

VimpelCom Ltd. Technology

Vivat Verzekeringen Banking and insurance



Voestalpine Automotive Netherlands

Holding B.V.

Industrial products

Xylem Water Solutions Nederland B.V. Services

Yamaha Motor Europe N.V. Retail


7.2 Dutch organizations with an international group report

Organizations in the participants group, which are part of a multinational organization and do not provide public accounting information

on the Dutch activities were placed in the category ‘organizations with zero scores’ until 2013. This classification was based on the consideration

that if an organization merited its inclusion in the participants group (due to substantial Dutch operations), it should also report on its activities

in the Netherlands.

This score, however, often does not do justice to the CSR efforts ( and accountability on the international level) of the specific organization.

As of 2013, it is possible for these organizations to choose a separate arrangement. According to this special arrangement these organizations

are not displayed on the ranking of the Transparency Benchmark. Instead, these organizations will be placed on a different list, without a

ranking (see below). In order to qualify for this arrangement, a report on group level should fulfill at least a minimum amount of criteria.

These criteria can be found on the website of the Transparency Benchmark (www.transparantiebenchmark.nl). An organization will be included

in the Transparency benchmark as an organization with zero score if the organization fails to fulfil the required criteria for the arrangement

concerning the international group report. In total 24 organizations participated in the group report arrangement.

Company

Abbott Healthcare Products B.V.

ASICS Europe B.V.

Atos Origin Nederland B.V.

BASF Nederland B.V.

BP Nederland Holdings B.V.

Capgemini N.V.

Coca-Cola Ent. Nederl. B.V.

DENSO INTERNATIONAL EUROPE B.V.

Epson Europe B.V.

Ericsson Holding Int. B.V.

Esso Benelux B.V.

GDF SUEZ Energie Nederland N.V.

Company

Hewlett-Packard The Hague B.V.

Koninklijke Grolsch N.V.

Media Markt Saturn Holding Nederland B.V.

Merck Sharp & Dohme B.V.

Metro Cash & Carry Nederland B.V.

Nestlé Nederland B.V.

Nike Eur. Operat. Neth. B.V.

Ricoh Europe SCM B.V.

Sodexo Nederland B.V.

Teijin Aramid B.V.

Thales Nederland

T-Mobile


7.3 Organizations with zero points awarded

This year are 216 organizations categorized as ‘organizations with zero score’.

Company B2B / B2C

A&D Pharma Holdings N.V. B2B & B2C

A. Hakpark B.V. B2B

A.S. Watson B.V. B2C

Aan de Stegge Holding B.V. B2B & B2C

ABB B.V. B2B

Accenture B.V. B2B

Ace Innovation Holding B.V. B2B

Acer Europe B.V. B2B

Action Service & Distributie B2C

Addasta Holding B.V. B2B

Adecco Nederland Holding B.V. B2B

ADG dienstengroep B.V. B2B

Advanced Travel Partners Nederland B.V. B2C

Alliance Boots B.V. B2B & B2C

ALTICE B2B & B2C

Amlin Corporate Insurance B2B

Apollo Vredestein B.V. B2C

ArcelorMittal Netherlands B.V. B2B

Ardagh Group Netherlands B.V. B2B

Argos Group Holding B.V. B2B

Astellas B.V. B2B

Auctus Holding B.V. B2B

Company B2B / B2C

Avery Dennison Materials Nederland B.V. B2B

A-Ware Food Group B.V. B2B

Bakkersland Groep B.V. B2C

BCD Travel Holding B2C

Beleggingsmij. Braverassa B.V. B2B

Bluewater Holding B.V. B2B

BMW Nederland B.V. B2C

Booking.com B.V. B2C

Bosal Nederland B.V. B2B

Bose Products B2B & B2C

Boston Scientific Int. B.V. B2B

British American Tobacco International (Holdings) B.V. B2C

C. den Braven Beheer B.V. B2B

Cabot Norit Activated Carbon B2B

Caldic B.V. B2B

Canon Europa N.V. B2C

Cargill B.V. B2B

Catom Enterprises B.V. B2B

Center Parcs Europe N.V. B2C

CGI Nederland B.V. B2B

Chemours Netherlands B.V. B2B

Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V. B2B


Company B2B / B2C

Cisco Systems International B.V. B2C

Citadel Enterprises B.V. B2B

Clondalkin Industries B.V. B2B

Connexxion B2C

Copaco Nederland B.V. B2B

CRH Nederland B.V. B2B

Da Holding B.V. B2C

DAF Trucks N.V. B2B

Danone Baby and Medical Nutrition B.V. B2C

De Hoop Terneuzen B.V. B2B

De Kon. Nederlandse Munt N.V. B2B

De MandemakersGroep Holding B.V. B2C

DE Masterblenders 1753 B2C

De Nederlandse Energie Maatschappij B.V. B2C

De Rijke Continental B.V. B2B

De Stiho Groep B.V. B2B

Delek Nederland B.V. B2B

Dell Global B.V. B2C

Denkavit Internationaal B.V. B2B

Dirk van den Broek/Dekamarkt B2C

Ecurion B2C

EEA Helicopter Operations B.V. B2B

Elopak B.V. B2B

Endemol B.V. B2C

Enviem Holding B.V. B2B

Company B2B / B2C

Equens SE B2B

Essent B2B

Eur. Container Terminals B.V. B2B

Ewals Holdings B.V. B2B

Flowserve B2B

Foot Locker Europe B.V. B2C

FUJIFILM Europe B.V. B2C

Fujitsu Technology Solutions (Holding) B.V. B2C

Gaiwin B.V. B2B

Getinge Arjo Holding Netherlands B.V. B2B & B2C

Glencore Grain Rotterdam B.V. B2B

H.L. Barentz B.V. B2B

Hager-Minnema-Hutten Beheer B.V. B2B

Handelsveem Beheer B2B

Hanos (Apeldoorn B.V.) B2B

HDI-Gerling Verzekeringen N.V. B2B

Heerema Marine Contractors Holding Nederland B.V. B2B

Hitachi Machinery N.V. B2B

Holiday Holding Rotterdam B.V. B2B

Honeywell Netherl. Hold. B.V. B2C

Hoogvliet B.V. B2C

Hoogwegt Groep B.V. B2B

Horedo/Rensa B2B

Huawei Technologies Coöperatief U.A. B2C

Hunter Douglas N.V. B2B


Company B2B / B2C

Huntsman Investments (Netherlands) B.V. B2B

Hyva Group B.V. B2B

IBM Nederland BV B2B

IMCD Holding B.V. B2B

Inalfa Roof Systems Group B.V. B2B

Ingram Micro B2C

Interfood Holding B2B

Intergamma B.V. B2C

International Flavors & Fragrances I.F.F. (Nederland) B.V. B2B

Inter-Sprint Banden B2B

INVISTA B.V. B2B

ISS Holding Nederland B.V. B2B

Koninklijke De Heus B.V. B2B

Koninklijke Distill. Dirkzwager B.V. B2B

Koninklijke Wagenborg B2C

Koninklijke Wegener N.V. B2C

Koninklijke Zeelandia Groep B.V. B2B

Kuehne + Nagel N.V. B2B

Kuwait Petroleum B.V. B2C

KYOCERA Document Solutions Europe B.V. B2B

Lekkerland Beheer B2B

Liberty Global Holding B.V. B2C

Loders Croklaan Group B.V. B2B

Lohomij B.V. B2C

Loyens & Loeff N.V. B2C

Company B2B / B2C

LyondellBasell Industries N.V. B2B

Manpower Nederland B.V. B2C

Markeur B2B

Mars Nederland B.V. B2C

MCB International B.V. B2B

Mead Johnson B.V. B2C

Meatpoint B.V. B2C

Mediq B2C

Mercedes-Benz Nederland B.V. B2C

MHI Equipment Europe B.V. B2B

Mijwo Beheer B.V. B2B

Milkiland N.V. B2C

Miss Etam B.V. B2C

Mitsubishi Motors Europe B.V. B2B

Momentive Specialty Chemicals BV B2B

Mosadex B2C

N.V. Deli Maatschappij B2B

Nedschroef Nederland B.V. B2B

Neste Oil Netherlands B.V. B2B

NetApp & Manufacturing B2C

New World Resources B2B

Nielsen N.V. B2C

Nokia Solutions and Networks B.V. B2C

NVDU Acquisition B.V. B2B

Office Depot International B2C


Company B2B / B2C

Omron Europe B.V. B2C

Optiver Holding B.V. B2B

Oracle Nederland B.V. B2B

Otra N.V. B2B

Oxbow Coal B.V. B2B

P.L. v. Merksteijn Hold. B.V. B2B

Peugeot Nederland N.V. B2C

PGA Nederland N.V. B2C

Philip Morris Holland B.V. B2B

Plantronics B.V. B2B & B2C

Plukon Food Group B2C

Poiesz Beheer B.V. B2C

Pon Holdings B.V. B2B

Post-Kogeko Logistics B.V. B2C

Raben Group B.V. B2B

Remeha Group B.V. B2C

Retailcom Beheer B.V. B2B

RFS Holland Holding B.V. B2C

Roba B2B

Rockwell Automation B.V. B2B

RTL Nederland B.V. B2C

SABIC International Holdings B.V. B2B

Samskip B2B

Samsung Electronics Benelux B.V. B2C

Sanoma Magazines B.V. B2C

Company B2B / B2C

Saphin B.V. B2C

Scania Europe B2B

Scheuten Glass Holding B.V. B2B

Sensata Technol. Holding N.V. B2B

SIHI Group B.V. B2B

Smartwares B.V. B2B

SPAR Holding B.V. B2C

Specialist Computer Holdings Nederland B.V. B2B

SPIE Nederland B.V. B2B

St. Clair/ De Bijenkorf B2C

Stage Entertainment B.V. B2B

Stichting Nederlandse Publieke Omroep B2C

Stolt Tankers B2B

Storteboom Group B.V. B2B

Sulzer Netherlands Holding B2C

Sundio Group B.V. B2C

Swarovski (Europe) Holding B.V. B2C

Synbra Holding B.V. B2B

Tata Steel B2B

Tech Data Nederland B.V. B2B

Terberg Group B.V. B2C

Tetra Laval Holdings B.V. B2B

Theobroma B.V. B2B

Thomas Cook Nederland B.V. B2C

Tommy Hilfiger Europe B2C


Company B2B / B2C

Toshiba Medical Systems Europe B.V. B2B

TOTAL Nederland N.V. B2B & B2C

TP Vision Europe B.V. B2B

Transm. and Engineer. Services Netherl. B2B

Twynstra Gudde B2B

Unit 4 N.V. B2B

United Parcel Service Nederland B.V. B2B & B2C

Universal Cargo Logistics B2B

V&D Group B2C

Van den Ban Autobanden B.V. B2B

Van Gansewinkel Groep B2B & B2C

Verizon Business International Holdings B.V. B2B

Voestalpine Automotive Netherlands Holding B.V. B2B

Vrije Universiteit B2C

Vroegop Ruhe & Co. B.V. B2B

Vroon Group B.V. B2B

WE Europe B.V. B2B

Xerox Investments Europe B2B

Xylem Water Solutions Nederland B.V. B2B & B2C

Yamaha Motor Europe N.V. B2C

Yanmar Europe B2B

Yara Sluiskil B.V. B2B


7.4 Panel of Experts Transparency Benchmark

The Panel of Experts controls the quality of the assessments and communicates with organizations that had comments regarding their final

score. Additionally, the Panel of Experts assesses the top 20 of the Transparency Benchmark; the highest scoring reports plus additional periodic

information. The Panel of Experts focuses on the quality-related criteria (relevance, clarity, reliability, responsiveness and coherence) and adjusts

these by a maximum of 15% (positive or negative) based on their own set of criteria. The Panel of Experts nominated the resulting top 3 organiza-

tions for the Crystal Awards, after which the winner is ultimately determined by the jury. The panel of Experts also advises the Ministry on

possible revision of criteria.

The Panel of Experts consists of the following members:

• Chairman: miss Nancy Kamp-Roelands (external expert);

• Member on behalf of the organization for entrepreneurs: miss Linda van Beek;

• Member on behalf of academic expertise: mr. André Nijhof;

• Member on behalf of GRI expertise: miss Teresa Fogelberg;

• Member based on personal title: mr. Ernst van Weperen;

• Member on behalf of communication advisors: mr. Gijs Dröge;

• Member on behalf of investors: mr. Giuseppe van der Helm;

• Member on behalf of corporate responsible organizations: mr. Tim Steinweg.

7.5 Jury of The Crystal

The jury selects the winner of the Crystal Award out of the three nominated reports. The jury provides an explanation for their decision in the jury

report. IN 2015, the jury adopted, similar to last year, the criteria: ‘show who you are’ in choosing the winner of the top 3 organizations. In

addition, the jury determines the winners of the complementary awards (for the most creative and innovative report and for the fastest climber)

and determines the theme for theme award for the following year.


The jury that determines the top 3 of the Transparency Benchmark and selects the winner of The Crystal Award consists of the following

members:

• voorzitter: mevr. Monika R. Milz

• lid: Z.K.H. Prins Carlos de Bourbon de Parme

• lid: dhr. Leen Paape

7.6 Literature

Overview of literature used for chapter 5:In-depth theme: The impact of Transparency.

C. Deegan: “The legitimacy effect of social and environmental disclosure – a theoretical foundation”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability

Journal, vol 15, no 3, 2002, pp. 282-311.

P.J. DiMaggio en W.W. Powell: “The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields”, American

Sociological Review, vol 48, 1983, pp. 146-160.

D. Feenstra: “Ontwikkeling in het leesbaarheidsonderzoek van narratieve accountingteksten”, MAB jaargang 86 no 6. juni 2012, pp. 222-234.

M.C. Jensen en W.H. Meckling: ”Theory of the firm: managerial behavior agency costs and ownership structure”, Journal of financial economics

3, 1976, pp. 305-360.

R. de Jong: “Indicatoren voor transparantie”, masterscriptie Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, 2015.

D.A. de Waard: “Als de vos de passie preekt…”, oratie Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, januari 2011.

D.A. de Waard: “De bomen en het bos”, oratie University of Curaçao dr. Moises da Costa Gomez, oktober 2014.

This is a publication of

the Ministry of Economic A7airs, ’s-Gravenhage

Do you have additional reactions or feedback?

Please send your reactions/comments to:

[email protected].

This publication is digitally available via

www.rijksoverheid.nl/ez

The Crystal, the main award of the Transparency Benchmark

is an initiative of the Ministry of Economic A7airs and

the Netherlands Institute for Chartered Accountants (NBA)

Project team 2015

EZ: Margo Stam

NBA: Marc Schweppe

www.transparantiebenchmark.nl www.kristalprijs.nl

Directorate-General for Enterprise & Innovation

Bezuidenhoutseweg 73

Postbus 20401

2500 EK | ’s-Gravenhage

Internet: www.rijksoverheid.nl/ez

November 2015 | Publication-nr. 87579

in cooperation with the netherlands institute of … · in cooperation with the netherlands...

Documents