transparency benchmark 2016 the crystal · 2016. 11. 22. · 2 transparency benchmark 2016 the...
TRANSCRIPT
Transparency Benchmark 2016The Crystal
In cooperation with the Netherlands Institute of Chartered Accountants (NBA)
Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal 1
Transparency Benchmark 2016The Crystal
In cooperation with the Netherlands Institute of Chartered Accountants (NBA)
Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal2
1 The Transparency Benchmark LadderThe Transparency Benchmark Ladder provides an overview of the total scores of the participating companies, including the sub scores concerning 8 different criteria categories. The companies that are included in the Transparency Benchmark are ranked in different groups: Frontrunners, Followers, Peloton, Laggards and companies with zero scores.
Category Transparency ladder 2016 Ranking positions
Leaders 1 - 21
Followers 22 - 70
Peloton 71 - 217
Laggards 218 - 252
Companies with zero scores 253 - 483
Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal 3
■ 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
0 50 100 150 200
Aan de Stegge Holding B.V.SHV Holdings N.V.
Citco Bank Nederland N.V.Scholten Awater
Janssen De Jong Groep B.V.Kramp Groep B.V.Home Credit B.V.
Cefetra B.V.Van Wijnen Groep N.V.
Tauw Groep BVEuretco B.V.
Brocacef HoldingA-Ware Food Group B.V.
Constellium N.V.VDL Groep
Kiadis Pharma N.V.IMC Trading
Audax B.V.ESPERITE
Horedo/RensaLouis Dreyfus
Koninklijke Brill N.V.Flow Traders N.V.
de Persgroep Nederland B.V.NXP Semiconductors Netherlands B.V.
HDI-Gerling Verzekeringen N.V.Cimpress
MonutaDe Goudse N.V.
Action Service & DistributieUltra-Centrifuge Ned. N.V.
AerCap Holdings N.V.TMF Group Holding B.V.
Nieuwe Steen invNeways Electronics International N.V.
Oranjewoud N.V.CZAV
Open UniversiteitFagron
AMG Advanced Metallurg. Gr. NVHeerema Marine Contractors Holding Nederland B.V.
DOC KaasCentric Holding B.V.
APGDelta N.V.
Zorg en Zekerheid GroepVION Holding N.V.
Value8Blokker Holding B.V.
O.W.M. DSW Zorgverzekeraar UADura Vermeer Groep
Broekhuis HoldingYarden Holding B.V.
Van Leeuwen Buizen Groep B.VDPA GROUP
Propertize B.V.Kardan N.V.
Credit Europe Bank N.V.Vrije Universiteit
Lucas Bols N.V.DAS Nederlandse Rechtsbijstand Verzekeringmaatschappij N.V.
Refresco Holding B.V.Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen
Erasmus Universiteit Ro�erdamCoöperatie Univé U.A.
The Royal Bank of ScotlandKoninklijke Coöperatie Cosun U.A.
Euronext N.V.Robeco Groep N.V.
TomTom N.V.GALAPAGOS
Batenburg Techniek N.V.Airbus Group N.V.
NyenrodeICT Automatisering
OCILeids Universitair Medisch Centrum
VUmcNedap N.V.
Stichting EspriaCoöperatie AVEBE U.A.
The Greenery B.V.ONVZ Ziektekostenverzekeraar N.V.
BinckbankAcademisch Medisch Centrum
Maastricht UMC+Eurocommercial Properties
Erasmus MCA.S. Watson Health & Beauty Benelux B.V.
Farm Frites Beheer B.V.GrandVision N.V.
Fugro NVUniversiteit van Tilburg
Universiteit van AmsterdamTechnische Universiteit Eindhoven
Technische Universiteit Del�Holland Colours N.V.
BE Semiconductor Indus. N.V.Amsterdam Commodities N.V.
Royal Reesink N.V.Aalberts Industries N.V.
KAS BANK N.V.VvAA groep B.V.
Ballast Nedam N.V.Vastned Retail N.V.
Dela Coöperatie U.A.Ingka Holding B.V.
LeasePlan Corporation N.V.Brab. Ontw. Maatschappij N.V.
Allianz Nederland Groep N.V.PGGM
Universiteit UtrechtUMC Utrecht
ForFarmers N.V.Unica Groep B.V.
Tele2 Netherlands Holding N.V.Forbo Flooring B.V.
Koninklijke Coöperatieve Bloemenveiling FloraHolland U.A.Coop Holding
Damen Shipyards Group N.V.Brunel International N.V.
Vebego International N.V.Unibail Rodamco
Core Laboratories N.V.IHC Merwede Holding B.V.
Universiteit LeidenGemalto N.V.
Vos Logistics Beheer B.V.Stern Groep N.V.
Van OordStichting Exploitatie Nederlandse Staatsloterij
DOW Benelux B.V.CoMore
Agri�rm Group B.V.Thales Nederland
Beter Bed Holding N.V.Wereldhave Manag. Holding B.V.
GVB AmsterdamAperam
Atradius N.V.PLUS Holding B.V.
Universiteit TwenteHolland Casino
Universiteit MaastrichtNidera B.V.
USG People N.V.ASM International N.V.
HEMAKoninklijke Vopak N.V.
Koninklijke Ten Cate N.V.Rijksuniversiteit Groningen
Sligro Food Group N.V.Delta Lloyd Groep
Arcadis N.V.Waterweg Wonen
Wolters Kluwer N.V.Vreugdenhil Groep B.V.
Royal Dutch ShellOntwikkelingsmaatschappij Oost Nederland NV
TNT ExpressDeloi�e Holding B.V.
Royal HaskoningDHVRegionale Ontwikkelingsmaatschappij InnovationQuarter B.V.
Beelen Groep B.V.RELX Group N.V.
Accell GroupSUEZ Recycling & Recovery Netherlands B.V.
Jumbo Groep Holding B.V.Perfe�i v. Melle
KPMG N.V.Bidvest Deli XL
Bavaria N.V.Corbion N.V.
Universitair Medisch Centrum GroningenTBI Holdings
Joh. Mourik & Co. Holding B.V.Coöperatie VGZ U.A.
RadboudumcOrdina N.V.
Industriebank LIOF N.V.VimpelCom Ltd.
Eneco Holding N.V.Triodos Bank N.V.
TNORandstad Holding N.V.
Zeeman Groep B.V.TMG - Telegraaf Media Groep
ProRail B.V.ASML
GasTerra B.V.TKH Group N.V.
Kendrion N.V.ASR Nederland N.V.
Albron Nederland B.V.Wageningen UR
CZ groepVan Gansewinkel Groep
Ernst & Young NederlandVanDrie Group
De Nederlandsche Bank N.V.SBM O¢shore
NIBC Bank N.V.Westland Infra
Q-Park NVKoninklijke FrieslandCampina N.V.
EBNKoninklijke Boskalis Westminster N.V.
Facilicom Services GroupAchmeaN.V. HVC
Menzis Holding B.V.PostNL
NN GROUPVivat Verzekeringen
MNNederlandse Waterschapsbank NV
COVRA NVEnexis Holding N.V.
ANWB B.V.NV NOM Investerings- en Ontwikkelingsmaatschappij voor Noord-Nederland
Koninklijke Wessanen N.V.Holding Nationale Goede Doelen Loterijen N.V.
PricewaterhouseCoopersRoyal Ahold
Rockwool Benelux HoldingVolkerWessels
TenneT Holding B.V.SNS Bank N.V.
AKZO Nobel N.V.Air France - KLM
HeijmansAegon N.V.ING GroepVitens N.V.
Bank Ned. Gemeenten N.V.Havenbedrijf Ro�erdam N.V.
Koninklijke Philips N.V.Siemens Nederland
VodafoneNederlandse Financierings-Maatschappij voor Ontwikkelingslanden NV
Van Lanschot BankiersRabobank
ABN AMRO Group N.V.KPN
Heineken N.V.DSM N.V.
Royal BAM GroupNederlandse Gasunie N.V.
Unilever N.V.NS
Schiphol GroupAlliander N.V.
LEAD
ERS
FOLLO
WER
SFO
LLOW
ERS
PELOTO
NPELO
TON
PELOTO
NLA
GG
AR
DS
199198197193192191189189189188188187187186186186186186186186186185184184184183183182182181180180180179178178178177177176176175175174174173172172172172171171170169168167166166165164164164163161161160159157156156154154153152152151151150148146145144144143142142141140137137137136136135135134134131131131131130130130129126126125124120120118116116116115115114114114114114112112111111110106106105104104103101999898969595959490908988868584838280807878777777777776767574747470686666666362616160605958575353535150505047474545444444434343424242414141383838373634343434333333313029292928282727262525242323232322191816141412101010101088654221
| 001| 002| 003| 004| 005| 006| 007| 008| 009| 010| 011| 012| 013| 014| 015| 016| 017| 018| 019| 020| 021| 022| 023| 023| 023| 026| 026| 028| 028| 030| 031| 031| 031| 034| 035| 035| 035| 038| 038| 040| 040| 042| 042| 044| 044| 046| 047| 047| 047| 047| 051| 051| 053| 054| 055| 056| 057| 057| 059| 060| 060| 060| 063| 064| 064| 066| 067| 068| 069| 069| 071| 071| 073| 074| 074| 076| 076| 078| 079| 080| 081| 082| 082| 084| 085| 085| 087| 088| 089| 089| 089| 092| 092| 094| 094| 096| 096| 098| 098| 098| 098| 102| 102| 102| 105| 106| 106| 108| 109| 110| 110| 112| 113| 113| 113| 116| 116| 118| 118| 118| 118| 118| 123| 123| 125| 125| 127| 128| 128| 130| 131| 131| 133| 134| 135| 136| 136| 138| 139| 139| 139| 142| 143| 143| 145| 146| 147| 148| 149| 150| 151| 152| 152| 154| 154| 156| 156| 156| 156| 156| 161| 161| 163| 164| 164| 164| 167| 168| 169| 169| 169| 172| 173| 174| 174| 176| 176| 178| 179| 180| 181| 181| 181| 184| 185| 185| 185| 188| 188| 190| 190| 192| 192| 192| 195| 195| 195| 198| 198| 198| 201| 201| 201| 204| 204| 204| 207| 208| 209| 209| 209| 209| 213| 213| 213| 216| 217| 218| 218| 218| 221| 221| 223| 223| 225| 226| 226| 228| 229| 229| 229| 229| 233| 234| 235| 236| 237| 237| 239| 240| 240| 240| 240| 240| 245| 245| 247| 248| 249| 250| 250| 252
0 50 100 150 200
Organization Pos. Cat. Total score
Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal4
0 50 100 150 200
Aan de Stegge Holding B.V.SHV Holdings N.V.
Citco Bank Nederland N.V.Scholten Awater
Janssen De Jong Groep B.V.Kramp Groep B.V.Home Credit B.V.
Cefetra B.V.Van Wijnen Groep N.V.
Tauw Groep BVEuretco B.V.
Brocacef HoldingA-Ware Food Group B.V.
Constellium N.V.VDL Groep
Kiadis Pharma N.V.IMC Trading
Audax B.V.ESPERITE
Horedo/RensaLouis Dreyfus
Koninklijke Brill N.V.Flow Traders N.V.
de Persgroep Nederland B.V.NXP Semiconductors Netherlands B.V.
HDI-Gerling Verzekeringen N.V.Cimpress
MonutaDe Goudse N.V.
Action Service & DistributieUltra-Centrifuge Ned. N.V.
AerCap Holdings N.V.TMF Group Holding B.V.
Nieuwe Steen invNeways Electronics International N.V.
Oranjewoud N.V.CZAV
Open UniversiteitFagron
AMG Advanced Metallurg. Gr. NVHeerema Marine Contractors Holding Nederland B.V.
DOC KaasCentric Holding B.V.
APGDelta N.V.
Zorg en Zekerheid GroepVION Holding N.V.
Value8Blokker Holding B.V.
O.W.M. DSW Zorgverzekeraar UADura Vermeer Groep
Broekhuis HoldingYarden Holding B.V.
Van Leeuwen Buizen Groep B.VDPA GROUP
Propertize B.V.Kardan N.V.
Credit Europe Bank N.V.Vrije Universiteit
Lucas Bols N.V.DAS Nederlandse Rechtsbijstand Verzekeringmaatschappij N.V.
Refresco Holding B.V.Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen
Erasmus Universiteit Ro�erdamCoöperatie Univé U.A.
The Royal Bank of ScotlandKoninklijke Coöperatie Cosun U.A.
Euronext N.V.Robeco Groep N.V.
TomTom N.V.GALAPAGOS
Batenburg Techniek N.V.Airbus Group N.V.
NyenrodeICT Automatisering
OCILeids Universitair Medisch Centrum
VUmcNedap N.V.
Stichting EspriaCoöperatie AVEBE U.A.
The Greenery B.V.ONVZ Ziektekostenverzekeraar N.V.
BinckbankAcademisch Medisch Centrum
Maastricht UMC+Eurocommercial Properties
Erasmus MCA.S. Watson Health & Beauty Benelux B.V.
Farm Frites Beheer B.V.GrandVision N.V.
Fugro NVUniversiteit van Tilburg
Universiteit van AmsterdamTechnische Universiteit Eindhoven
Technische Universiteit Del�Holland Colours N.V.
BE Semiconductor Indus. N.V.Amsterdam Commodities N.V.
Royal Reesink N.V.Aalberts Industries N.V.
KAS BANK N.V.VvAA groep B.V.
Ballast Nedam N.V.Vastned Retail N.V.
Dela Coöperatie U.A.Ingka Holding B.V.
LeasePlan Corporation N.V.Brab. Ontw. Maatschappij N.V.
Allianz Nederland Groep N.V.PGGM
Universiteit UtrechtUMC Utrecht
ForFarmers N.V.Unica Groep B.V.
Tele2 Netherlands Holding N.V.Forbo Flooring B.V.
Koninklijke Coöperatieve Bloemenveiling FloraHolland U.A.Coop Holding
Damen Shipyards Group N.V.Brunel International N.V.
Vebego International N.V.Unibail Rodamco
Core Laboratories N.V.IHC Merwede Holding B.V.
Universiteit LeidenGemalto N.V.
Vos Logistics Beheer B.V.Stern Groep N.V.
Van OordStichting Exploitatie Nederlandse Staatsloterij
DOW Benelux B.V.CoMore
Agri�rm Group B.V.Thales Nederland
Beter Bed Holding N.V.Wereldhave Manag. Holding B.V.
GVB AmsterdamAperam
Atradius N.V.PLUS Holding B.V.
Universiteit TwenteHolland Casino
Universiteit MaastrichtNidera B.V.
USG People N.V.ASM International N.V.
HEMAKoninklijke Vopak N.V.
Koninklijke Ten Cate N.V.Rijksuniversiteit Groningen
Sligro Food Group N.V.Delta Lloyd Groep
Arcadis N.V.Waterweg Wonen
Wolters Kluwer N.V.Vreugdenhil Groep B.V.
Royal Dutch ShellOntwikkelingsmaatschappij Oost Nederland NV
TNT ExpressDeloi�e Holding B.V.
Royal HaskoningDHVRegionale Ontwikkelingsmaatschappij InnovationQuarter B.V.
Beelen Groep B.V.RELX Group N.V.
Accell GroupSUEZ Recycling & Recovery Netherlands B.V.
Jumbo Groep Holding B.V.Perfe�i v. Melle
KPMG N.V.Bidvest Deli XL
Bavaria N.V.Corbion N.V.
Universitair Medisch Centrum GroningenTBI Holdings
Joh. Mourik & Co. Holding B.V.Coöperatie VGZ U.A.
RadboudumcOrdina N.V.
Industriebank LIOF N.V.VimpelCom Ltd.
Eneco Holding N.V.Triodos Bank N.V.
TNORandstad Holding N.V.
Zeeman Groep B.V.TMG - Telegraaf Media Groep
ProRail B.V.ASML
GasTerra B.V.TKH Group N.V.
Kendrion N.V.ASR Nederland N.V.
Albron Nederland B.V.Wageningen UR
CZ groepVan Gansewinkel Groep
Ernst & Young NederlandVanDrie Group
De Nederlandsche Bank N.V.SBM O¢shore
NIBC Bank N.V.Westland Infra
Q-Park NVKoninklijke FrieslandCampina N.V.
EBNKoninklijke Boskalis Westminster N.V.
Facilicom Services GroupAchmeaN.V. HVC
Menzis Holding B.V.PostNL
NN GROUPVivat Verzekeringen
MNNederlandse Waterschapsbank NV
COVRA NVEnexis Holding N.V.
ANWB B.V.NV NOM Investerings- en Ontwikkelingsmaatschappij voor Noord-Nederland
Koninklijke Wessanen N.V.Holding Nationale Goede Doelen Loterijen N.V.
PricewaterhouseCoopersRoyal Ahold
Rockwool Benelux HoldingVolkerWessels
TenneT Holding B.V.SNS Bank N.V.
AKZO Nobel N.V.Air France - KLM
HeijmansAegon N.V.ING GroepVitens N.V.
Bank Ned. Gemeenten N.V.Havenbedrijf Ro�erdam N.V.
Koninklijke Philips N.V.Siemens Nederland
VodafoneNederlandse Financierings-Maatschappij voor Ontwikkelingslanden NV
Van Lanschot BankiersRabobank
ABN AMRO Group N.V.KPN
Heineken N.V.DSM N.V.
Royal BAM GroupNederlandse Gasunie N.V.
Unilever N.V.NS
Schiphol GroupAlliander N.V.
LEAD
ERS
FOLLO
WER
SFO
LLOW
ERS
PELOTO
NPELO
TON
PELOTO
NLA
GG
AR
DS
199198197193192191189189189188188187187186186186186186186186186185184184184183183182182181180180180179178178178177177176176175175174174173172172172172171171170169168167166166165164164164163161161160159157156156154154153152152151151150148146145144144143142142141140137137137136136135135134134131131131131130130130129126126125124120120118116116116115115114114114114114112112111111110106106105104104103101999898969595959490908988868584838280807878777777777776767574747470686666666362616160605958575353535150505047474545444444434343424242414141383838373634343434333333313029292928282727262525242323232322191816141412101010101088654221
| 001| 002| 003| 004| 005| 006| 007| 008| 009| 010| 011| 012| 013| 014| 015| 016| 017| 018| 019| 020| 021| 022| 023| 023| 023| 026| 026| 028| 028| 030| 031| 031| 031| 034| 035| 035| 035| 038| 038| 040| 040| 042| 042| 044| 044| 046| 047| 047| 047| 047| 051| 051| 053| 054| 055| 056| 057| 057| 059| 060| 060| 060| 063| 064| 064| 066| 067| 068| 069| 069| 071| 071| 073| 074| 074| 076| 076| 078| 079| 080| 081| 082| 082| 084| 085| 085| 087| 088| 089| 089| 089| 092| 092| 094| 094| 096| 096| 098| 098| 098| 098| 102| 102| 102| 105| 106| 106| 108| 109| 110| 110| 112| 113| 113| 113| 116| 116| 118| 118| 118| 118| 118| 123| 123| 125| 125| 127| 128| 128| 130| 131| 131| 133| 134| 135| 136| 136| 138| 139| 139| 139| 142| 143| 143| 145| 146| 147| 148| 149| 150| 151| 152| 152| 154| 154| 156| 156| 156| 156| 156| 161| 161| 163| 164| 164| 164| 167| 168| 169| 169| 169| 172| 173| 174| 174| 176| 176| 178| 179| 180| 181| 181| 181| 184| 185| 185| 185| 188| 188| 190| 190| 192| 192| 192| 195| 195| 195| 198| 198| 198| 201| 201| 201| 204| 204| 204| 207| 208| 209| 209| 209| 209| 213| 213| 213| 216| 217| 218| 218| 218| 221| 221| 223| 223| 225| 226| 226| 228| 229| 229| 229| 229| 233| 234| 235| 236| 237| 237| 239| 240| 240| 240| 240| 240| 245| 245| 247| 248| 249| 250| 250| 252
0 50 100 150 200
Organization Pos. Cat. Total score
■ 1 - Company Profile and Business Model■ 2 - Policy and Results■ 3 - Management Approach■ 4 - Relevance■ 5 - Clarity■ 6 - Reliability■ 7 - Responsiveness■ 8 - Coherence
Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal 5
0 50 100 150 200
Aan de Stegge Holding B.V.SHV Holdings N.V.
Citco Bank Nederland N.V.Scholten Awater
Janssen De Jong Groep B.V.Kramp Groep B.V.Home Credit B.V.
Cefetra B.V.Van Wijnen Groep N.V.
Tauw Groep BVEuretco B.V.
Brocacef HoldingA-Ware Food Group B.V.
Constellium N.V.VDL Groep
Kiadis Pharma N.V.IMC Trading
Audax B.V.ESPERITE
Horedo/RensaLouis Dreyfus
Koninklijke Brill N.V.Flow Traders N.V.
de Persgroep Nederland B.V.NXP Semiconductors Netherlands B.V.
HDI-Gerling Verzekeringen N.V.Cimpress
MonutaDe Goudse N.V.
Action Service & DistributieUltra-Centrifuge Ned. N.V.
AerCap Holdings N.V.TMF Group Holding B.V.
Nieuwe Steen invNeways Electronics International N.V.
Oranjewoud N.V.CZAV
Open UniversiteitFagron
AMG Advanced Metallurg. Gr. NVHeerema Marine Contractors Holding Nederland B.V.
DOC KaasCentric Holding B.V.
APGDelta N.V.
Zorg en Zekerheid GroepVION Holding N.V.
Value8Blokker Holding B.V.
O.W.M. DSW Zorgverzekeraar UADura Vermeer Groep
Broekhuis HoldingYarden Holding B.V.
Van Leeuwen Buizen Groep B.VDPA GROUP
Propertize B.V.Kardan N.V.
Credit Europe Bank N.V.Vrije Universiteit
Lucas Bols N.V.DAS Nederlandse Rechtsbijstand Verzekeringmaatschappij N.V.
Refresco Holding B.V.Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen
Erasmus Universiteit Ro�erdamCoöperatie Univé U.A.
The Royal Bank of ScotlandKoninklijke Coöperatie Cosun U.A.
Euronext N.V.Robeco Groep N.V.
TomTom N.V.GALAPAGOS
Batenburg Techniek N.V.Airbus Group N.V.
NyenrodeICT Automatisering
OCILeids Universitair Medisch Centrum
VUmcNedap N.V.
Stichting EspriaCoöperatie AVEBE U.A.
The Greenery B.V.ONVZ Ziektekostenverzekeraar N.V.
BinckbankAcademisch Medisch Centrum
Maastricht UMC+Eurocommercial Properties
Erasmus MCA.S. Watson Health & Beauty Benelux B.V.
Farm Frites Beheer B.V.GrandVision N.V.
Fugro NVUniversiteit van Tilburg
Universiteit van AmsterdamTechnische Universiteit Eindhoven
Technische Universiteit Del�Holland Colours N.V.
BE Semiconductor Indus. N.V.Amsterdam Commodities N.V.
Royal Reesink N.V.Aalberts Industries N.V.
KAS BANK N.V.VvAA groep B.V.
Ballast Nedam N.V.Vastned Retail N.V.
Dela Coöperatie U.A.Ingka Holding B.V.
LeasePlan Corporation N.V.Brab. Ontw. Maatschappij N.V.
Allianz Nederland Groep N.V.PGGM
Universiteit UtrechtUMC Utrecht
ForFarmers N.V.Unica Groep B.V.
Tele2 Netherlands Holding N.V.Forbo Flooring B.V.
Koninklijke Coöperatieve Bloemenveiling FloraHolland U.A.Coop Holding
Damen Shipyards Group N.V.Brunel International N.V.
Vebego International N.V.Unibail Rodamco
Core Laboratories N.V.IHC Merwede Holding B.V.
Universiteit LeidenGemalto N.V.
Vos Logistics Beheer B.V.Stern Groep N.V.
Van OordStichting Exploitatie Nederlandse Staatsloterij
DOW Benelux B.V.CoMore
Agri�rm Group B.V.Thales Nederland
Beter Bed Holding N.V.Wereldhave Manag. Holding B.V.
GVB AmsterdamAperam
Atradius N.V.PLUS Holding B.V.
Universiteit TwenteHolland Casino
Universiteit MaastrichtNidera B.V.
USG People N.V.ASM International N.V.
HEMAKoninklijke Vopak N.V.
Koninklijke Ten Cate N.V.Rijksuniversiteit Groningen
Sligro Food Group N.V.Delta Lloyd Groep
Arcadis N.V.Waterweg Wonen
Wolters Kluwer N.V.Vreugdenhil Groep B.V.
Royal Dutch ShellOntwikkelingsmaatschappij Oost Nederland NV
TNT ExpressDeloi�e Holding B.V.
Royal HaskoningDHVRegionale Ontwikkelingsmaatschappij InnovationQuarter B.V.
Beelen Groep B.V.RELX Group N.V.
Accell GroupSUEZ Recycling & Recovery Netherlands B.V.
Jumbo Groep Holding B.V.Perfe�i v. Melle
KPMG N.V.Bidvest Deli XL
Bavaria N.V.Corbion N.V.
Universitair Medisch Centrum GroningenTBI Holdings
Joh. Mourik & Co. Holding B.V.Coöperatie VGZ U.A.
RadboudumcOrdina N.V.
Industriebank LIOF N.V.VimpelCom Ltd.
Eneco Holding N.V.Triodos Bank N.V.
TNORandstad Holding N.V.
Zeeman Groep B.V.TMG - Telegraaf Media Groep
ProRail B.V.ASML
GasTerra B.V.TKH Group N.V.
Kendrion N.V.ASR Nederland N.V.
Albron Nederland B.V.Wageningen UR
CZ groepVan Gansewinkel Groep
Ernst & Young NederlandVanDrie Group
De Nederlandsche Bank N.V.SBM O¢shore
NIBC Bank N.V.Westland Infra
Q-Park NVKoninklijke FrieslandCampina N.V.
EBNKoninklijke Boskalis Westminster N.V.
Facilicom Services GroupAchmeaN.V. HVC
Menzis Holding B.V.PostNL
NN GROUPVivat Verzekeringen
MNNederlandse Waterschapsbank NV
COVRA NVEnexis Holding N.V.
ANWB B.V.NV NOM Investerings- en Ontwikkelingsmaatschappij voor Noord-Nederland
Koninklijke Wessanen N.V.Holding Nationale Goede Doelen Loterijen N.V.
PricewaterhouseCoopersRoyal Ahold
Rockwool Benelux HoldingVolkerWessels
TenneT Holding B.V.SNS Bank N.V.
AKZO Nobel N.V.Air France - KLM
HeijmansAegon N.V.ING GroepVitens N.V.
Bank Ned. Gemeenten N.V.Havenbedrijf Ro�erdam N.V.
Koninklijke Philips N.V.Siemens Nederland
VodafoneNederlandse Financierings-Maatschappij voor Ontwikkelingslanden NV
Van Lanschot BankiersRabobank
ABN AMRO Group N.V.KPN
Heineken N.V.DSM N.V.
Royal BAM GroupNederlandse Gasunie N.V.
Unilever N.V.NS
Schiphol GroupAlliander N.V.
LEAD
ERS
FOLLO
WER
SFO
LLOW
ERS
PELOTO
NPELO
TON
PELOTO
NLA
GG
AR
DS
199198197193192191189189189188188187187186186186186186186186186185184184184183183182182181180180180179178178178177177176176175175174174173172172172172171171170169168167166166165164164164163161161160159157156156154154153152152151151150148146145144144143142142141140137137137136136135135134134131131131131130130130129126126125124120120118116116116115115114114114114114112112111111110106106105104104103101999898969595959490908988868584838280807878777777777776767574747470686666666362616160605958575353535150505047474545444444434343424242414141383838373634343434333333313029292928282727262525242323232322191816141412101010101088654221
| 001| 002| 003| 004| 005| 006| 007| 008| 009| 010| 011| 012| 013| 014| 015| 016| 017| 018| 019| 020| 021| 022| 023| 023| 023| 026| 026| 028| 028| 030| 031| 031| 031| 034| 035| 035| 035| 038| 038| 040| 040| 042| 042| 044| 044| 046| 047| 047| 047| 047| 051| 051| 053| 054| 055| 056| 057| 057| 059| 060| 060| 060| 063| 064| 064| 066| 067| 068| 069| 069| 071| 071| 073| 074| 074| 076| 076| 078| 079| 080| 081| 082| 082| 084| 085| 085| 087| 088| 089| 089| 089| 092| 092| 094| 094| 096| 096| 098| 098| 098| 098| 102| 102| 102| 105| 106| 106| 108| 109| 110| 110| 112| 113| 113| 113| 116| 116| 118| 118| 118| 118| 118| 123| 123| 125| 125| 127| 128| 128| 130| 131| 131| 133| 134| 135| 136| 136| 138| 139| 139| 139| 142| 143| 143| 145| 146| 147| 148| 149| 150| 151| 152| 152| 154| 154| 156| 156| 156| 156| 156| 161| 161| 163| 164| 164| 164| 167| 168| 169| 169| 169| 172| 173| 174| 174| 176| 176| 178| 179| 180| 181| 181| 181| 184| 185| 185| 185| 188| 188| 190| 190| 192| 192| 192| 195| 195| 195| 198| 198| 198| 201| 201| 201| 204| 204| 204| 207| 208| 209| 209| 209| 209| 213| 213| 213| 216| 217| 218| 218| 218| 221| 221| 223| 223| 225| 226| 226| 228| 229| 229| 229| 229| 233| 234| 235| 236| 237| 237| 239| 240| 240| 240| 240| 240| 245| 245| 247| 248| 249| 250| 250| 252
0 50 100 150 200
Organization Pos. Cat. Total score
■ 1 - Company Profile and Business Model■ 2 - Policy and Results■ 3 - Management Approach■ 4 - Relevance■ 5 - Clarity■ 6 - Reliability■ 7 - Responsiveness■ 8 - Coherence
Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal6
0 50 100 150 200
Aan de Stegge Holding B.V.SHV Holdings N.V.
Citco Bank Nederland N.V.Scholten Awater
Janssen De Jong Groep B.V.Kramp Groep B.V.Home Credit B.V.
Cefetra B.V.Van Wijnen Groep N.V.
Tauw Groep BVEuretco B.V.
Brocacef HoldingA-Ware Food Group B.V.
Constellium N.V.VDL Groep
Kiadis Pharma N.V.IMC Trading
Audax B.V.ESPERITE
Horedo/RensaLouis Dreyfus
Koninklijke Brill N.V.Flow Traders N.V.
de Persgroep Nederland B.V.NXP Semiconductors Netherlands B.V.
HDI-Gerling Verzekeringen N.V.Cimpress
MonutaDe Goudse N.V.
Action Service & DistributieUltra-Centrifuge Ned. N.V.
AerCap Holdings N.V.TMF Group Holding B.V.
Nieuwe Steen invNeways Electronics International N.V.
Oranjewoud N.V.CZAV
Open UniversiteitFagron
AMG Advanced Metallurg. Gr. NVHeerema Marine Contractors Holding Nederland B.V.
DOC KaasCentric Holding B.V.
APGDelta N.V.
Zorg en Zekerheid GroepVION Holding N.V.
Value8Blokker Holding B.V.
O.W.M. DSW Zorgverzekeraar UADura Vermeer Groep
Broekhuis HoldingYarden Holding B.V.
Van Leeuwen Buizen Groep B.VDPA GROUP
Propertize B.V.Kardan N.V.
Credit Europe Bank N.V.Vrije Universiteit
Lucas Bols N.V.DAS Nederlandse Rechtsbijstand Verzekeringmaatschappij N.V.
Refresco Holding B.V.Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen
Erasmus Universiteit Ro�erdamCoöperatie Univé U.A.
The Royal Bank of ScotlandKoninklijke Coöperatie Cosun U.A.
Euronext N.V.Robeco Groep N.V.
TomTom N.V.GALAPAGOS
Batenburg Techniek N.V.Airbus Group N.V.
NyenrodeICT Automatisering
OCILeids Universitair Medisch Centrum
VUmcNedap N.V.
Stichting EspriaCoöperatie AVEBE U.A.
The Greenery B.V.ONVZ Ziektekostenverzekeraar N.V.
BinckbankAcademisch Medisch Centrum
Maastricht UMC+Eurocommercial Properties
Erasmus MCA.S. Watson Health & Beauty Benelux B.V.
Farm Frites Beheer B.V.GrandVision N.V.
Fugro NVUniversiteit van Tilburg
Universiteit van AmsterdamTechnische Universiteit Eindhoven
Technische Universiteit Del�Holland Colours N.V.
BE Semiconductor Indus. N.V.Amsterdam Commodities N.V.
Royal Reesink N.V.Aalberts Industries N.V.
KAS BANK N.V.VvAA groep B.V.
Ballast Nedam N.V.Vastned Retail N.V.
Dela Coöperatie U.A.Ingka Holding B.V.
LeasePlan Corporation N.V.Brab. Ontw. Maatschappij N.V.
Allianz Nederland Groep N.V.PGGM
Universiteit UtrechtUMC Utrecht
ForFarmers N.V.Unica Groep B.V.
Tele2 Netherlands Holding N.V.Forbo Flooring B.V.
Koninklijke Coöperatieve Bloemenveiling FloraHolland U.A.Coop Holding
Damen Shipyards Group N.V.Brunel International N.V.
Vebego International N.V.Unibail Rodamco
Core Laboratories N.V.IHC Merwede Holding B.V.
Universiteit LeidenGemalto N.V.
Vos Logistics Beheer B.V.Stern Groep N.V.
Van OordStichting Exploitatie Nederlandse Staatsloterij
DOW Benelux B.V.CoMore
Agri�rm Group B.V.Thales Nederland
Beter Bed Holding N.V.Wereldhave Manag. Holding B.V.
GVB AmsterdamAperam
Atradius N.V.PLUS Holding B.V.
Universiteit TwenteHolland Casino
Universiteit MaastrichtNidera B.V.
USG People N.V.ASM International N.V.
HEMAKoninklijke Vopak N.V.
Koninklijke Ten Cate N.V.Rijksuniversiteit Groningen
Sligro Food Group N.V.Delta Lloyd Groep
Arcadis N.V.Waterweg Wonen
Wolters Kluwer N.V.Vreugdenhil Groep B.V.
Royal Dutch ShellOntwikkelingsmaatschappij Oost Nederland NV
TNT ExpressDeloi�e Holding B.V.
Royal HaskoningDHVRegionale Ontwikkelingsmaatschappij InnovationQuarter B.V.
Beelen Groep B.V.RELX Group N.V.
Accell GroupSUEZ Recycling & Recovery Netherlands B.V.
Jumbo Groep Holding B.V.Perfe�i v. Melle
KPMG N.V.Bidvest Deli XL
Bavaria N.V.Corbion N.V.
Universitair Medisch Centrum GroningenTBI Holdings
Joh. Mourik & Co. Holding B.V.Coöperatie VGZ U.A.
RadboudumcOrdina N.V.
Industriebank LIOF N.V.VimpelCom Ltd.
Eneco Holding N.V.Triodos Bank N.V.
TNORandstad Holding N.V.
Zeeman Groep B.V.TMG - Telegraaf Media Groep
ProRail B.V.ASML
GasTerra B.V.TKH Group N.V.
Kendrion N.V.ASR Nederland N.V.
Albron Nederland B.V.Wageningen UR
CZ groepVan Gansewinkel Groep
Ernst & Young NederlandVanDrie Group
De Nederlandsche Bank N.V.SBM O¢shore
NIBC Bank N.V.Westland Infra
Q-Park NVKoninklijke FrieslandCampina N.V.
EBNKoninklijke Boskalis Westminster N.V.
Facilicom Services GroupAchmeaN.V. HVC
Menzis Holding B.V.PostNL
NN GROUPVivat Verzekeringen
MNNederlandse Waterschapsbank NV
COVRA NVEnexis Holding N.V.
ANWB B.V.NV NOM Investerings- en Ontwikkelingsmaatschappij voor Noord-Nederland
Koninklijke Wessanen N.V.Holding Nationale Goede Doelen Loterijen N.V.
PricewaterhouseCoopersRoyal Ahold
Rockwool Benelux HoldingVolkerWessels
TenneT Holding B.V.SNS Bank N.V.
AKZO Nobel N.V.Air France - KLM
HeijmansAegon N.V.ING GroepVitens N.V.
Bank Ned. Gemeenten N.V.Havenbedrijf Ro�erdam N.V.
Koninklijke Philips N.V.Siemens Nederland
VodafoneNederlandse Financierings-Maatschappij voor Ontwikkelingslanden NV
Van Lanschot BankiersRabobank
ABN AMRO Group N.V.KPN
Heineken N.V.DSM N.V.
Royal BAM GroupNederlandse Gasunie N.V.
Unilever N.V.NS
Schiphol GroupAlliander N.V.
LEAD
ERS
FOLLO
WER
SFO
LLOW
ERS
PELOTO
NPELO
TON
PELOTO
NLA
GG
AR
DS
199198197193192191189189189188188187187186186186186186186186186185184184184183183182182181180180180179178178178177177176176175175174174173172172172172171171170169168167166166165164164164163161161160159157156156154154153152152151151150148146145144144143142142141140137137137136136135135134134131131131131130130130129126126125124120120118116116116115115114114114114114112112111111110106106105104104103101999898969595959490908988868584838280807878777777777776767574747470686666666362616160605958575353535150505047474545444444434343424242414141383838373634343434333333313029292928282727262525242323232322191816141412101010101088654221
| 001| 002| 003| 004| 005| 006| 007| 008| 009| 010| 011| 012| 013| 014| 015| 016| 017| 018| 019| 020| 021| 022| 023| 023| 023| 026| 026| 028| 028| 030| 031| 031| 031| 034| 035| 035| 035| 038| 038| 040| 040| 042| 042| 044| 044| 046| 047| 047| 047| 047| 051| 051| 053| 054| 055| 056| 057| 057| 059| 060| 060| 060| 063| 064| 064| 066| 067| 068| 069| 069| 071| 071| 073| 074| 074| 076| 076| 078| 079| 080| 081| 082| 082| 084| 085| 085| 087| 088| 089| 089| 089| 092| 092| 094| 094| 096| 096| 098| 098| 098| 098| 102| 102| 102| 105| 106| 106| 108| 109| 110| 110| 112| 113| 113| 113| 116| 116| 118| 118| 118| 118| 118| 123| 123| 125| 125| 127| 128| 128| 130| 131| 131| 133| 134| 135| 136| 136| 138| 139| 139| 139| 142| 143| 143| 145| 146| 147| 148| 149| 150| 151| 152| 152| 154| 154| 156| 156| 156| 156| 156| 161| 161| 163| 164| 164| 164| 167| 168| 169| 169| 169| 172| 173| 174| 174| 176| 176| 178| 179| 180| 181| 181| 181| 184| 185| 185| 185| 188| 188| 190| 190| 192| 192| 192| 195| 195| 195| 198| 198| 198| 201| 201| 201| 204| 204| 204| 207| 208| 209| 209| 209| 209| 213| 213| 213| 216| 217| 218| 218| 218| 221| 221| 223| 223| 225| 226| 226| 228| 229| 229| 229| 229| 233| 234| 235| 236| 237| 237| 239| 240| 240| 240| 240| 240| 245| 245| 247| 248| 249| 250| 250| 252
Organization Pos. Cat. Total score
Companies in the top 21 with the same rounded off scores, that received the same score were ranked based on a difference in decimal points. Which were ultimately determined and awarded by the Panel of Experts
0 50 100 150 200
■ 1 - Company Profile and Business Model■ 2 - Policy and Results■ 3 - Management Approach■ 4 - Relevance■ 5 - Clarity■ 6 - Reliability■ 7 - Responsiveness■ 8 - Coherence
Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal 7
Content1 The Transparency Benchmark Ladder 2
2 Preface 8
3 About this report, the Crystal Prize and the Transparency Benchmark 10
3.1 The Crystal Prize 113.2 The Transparency Benchmark 113.2.1 Goal 113.2.2 Criteria 113.2.3 The participating companies 123.2.4 Boundary of publicly available accounting information 133.2.5 Methodology 143.2.6 Panel of Experts and the Crystal Jury 15
4 This year’s winners 164.1 The jury report 164.2 The winners 18
5 What stands out? 215.1 Category comparison 215.2 Criteria comparison 225.3 Materiality 275.4 Sector comparison 305.4.1 Banking and insurance 315.4.2 Construction and maritime 32
5.4.3 Consumer products 335.4.4 Services 345.4.5 Energy, oil and gas 355.4.6 Trading 365.4.7 Industrial products 375.4.8 Media and communications 385.4.9 Pharmaceuticals 395.4.10 Retail 405.4.11 Technology 415.4.12 Transport 425.4.13 Universities and Medical Centers 435.4.14 Real Estate 445.4.15 Food and Beverage 455.4.16 Other 465.5 Companies with zero scores 475.6 Corporate responsibility reporting in practice 48
6 Theme: UN Sustainable Development Goals 536.1 What are the SDGs? 536.2 Why are the SDGs established? 546.3 Analysis of the SDGs in the Transparency Benchmark 2016 556.4 How to implement the SDGs 566.5 Opportunities and challenges 586.6 Best practices 59
7 Appendices 617.1 New participating companies 617.2 Dutch companies with an international group report 637.3 Foreign Public Interest Entities (PIE) 647.4 Companies with zero points awarded 65
Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal8
2 PrefaceThe Transparency Benchmark is an annual study on the content and quality of corporate social responsibility reports of the largest companies in the Netherlands. Both private sector companies as well as governmental institutions are included within the research group. The research group consists of a total of 512 companies. This booklet contains the results of the Transparency Benchmark 2016, assessing companies’ disclosures for the reporting year 2015. It is unique that the Dutch government is able to provide this amount of detailed insights into how companies are taking the lead in providing information regarding their corporate responsibility, whether it is in an integrated manner or via a separate corporate responsibility report.
The Transparency Benchmark is not just a study; rather, from the outset in 2004, it has served as a practical tool of the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs to stimulate self-initiative in the business world. This is consistent with the unique self-regulation policies we know in the Netherlands. The Transparency Benchmark is but one of the means available to foster corporate responsibility and therefore should not be seen in isolation from other related measures in place by the government.
The Transparency Benchmark reflects the current societal developments. As such its focus has slightly shifted from purely social themes to providing comprehensive understanding of value creation of the economic, environmental and social aspects of business. Moreover, the company’s prospects of their value creation on the short-, medium- and long-term has become an essential part of the Transparency Benchmark. This requires companies to provide insight not only into their operational results, but information regarding the business model, integration of the strategy, governance structure, management approach, resources dependencies and organizational adaptability to dynamic environments is also crucial. Due to this more integrated focus, the required transparency provides insight in those aspects that are most relevant for a company.
The Transparency Benchmark also reflects the developments regarding corporate responsibility reporting, such as the Dutch Accounting Standard Board (DASB), RJ 400, the RJ “Handreiking maatschappelijke verslaggeving”, the Global Reporting Initiative, the value chain transpa-rency responsibilities by the SER and other trends regarding integrated reporting. Although these reporting guidelines have been developed over the last years, the legal requirements for corporate responsibility reporting are fairly limited. However, as of 2017, regulation regarding transpa-rency on non-financial information and diversity in the management report will be sharpened for public interest companies. Based on the revisions of the corporate governance code, there is increased demand for more transparency regarding diversity. Companies reporting in line with the criteria of the Transparency Benchmark usually already include these legally required disclosures in their reports. In that way the Transparency Benchmark stimulates companies to timely adapt to the latest legal requirements.
Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal 9
The strength of the Transparency Benchmark lies in the fact that not only the content is reviewed, but the quality of the information included in the report is also assessed. As a result, the benchmark is able to minimize the chance that companies adopt a checklist mentality due to the detailed questionnaire. The Transparency Benchmark makes use of a dynamic online platform to provide companies with insight into their scores on the most relevant aspects of transparency, their performance vis-à-vis other companies inside and outside their sector, and ultimately potential improvement points. Investors and other users are thereby able to see at a glance which companies are most transparent.
In 2013, approximately 50% of the companies within the research group, indicated that the Transparency Benchmark had a positive impact on the content and quality of their corporate responsibility reporting. On the other hand, we see that the Transparency Benchmark is still unable to motivate a large and important group of companies, which still obtain a low score. With the stricter regulations regarding corporate responsibi-lity information entering into force in 2017, we hope that the companies on the lower end of the benchmark are set in motion, particularly if it comes hand in hand with the aforementioned focus shift in reporting.
The results of this year show us that the average score has increased significantly compared to previous years. More information is included in the reports and also the quality of the information has improved. We have seen that some companies already integrated the Sustainable Development Goals within their annual reports. Gradually more information regarding long-term value creation, governance structures and remuneration is provided by the companies within the research group.
We can be proud of the CR reporting quality of the of Dutch companies and I hope that the Transparency Benchmark remains able to trigger companies to continuously improve their CR reporting.
Dr. Nancy Kamp-Roelands RA MAFormer chairwoman of the Panel of Experts Transparency Benchmark
Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal10
3 About this report, the Crystal Prize and the Transparency Benchmark
This booklet contains the results of the Transparency Benchmark 2016, including all the relevant information concerning the Benchmark. The report has been kept as short and concise as possible, with an emphasis on the results and most noteworthy insights from the Transparency Benchmark 2016.
In this chapter we will provide an in-depth background of the Crystal Prize and the Transparency Benchmark.
In chapter 4 you are able to read the jury report and this chapter provides insight into the considerations by the jury to determine the winners of this year.
Chapter 5 provides insight into the results of the participating companies, based on multiple analyses. These comparisons provide insight into the results on the following levels: category, criteria, sector and zero-scores. Additionally this chapter also contains the analysis on corporate responsibility reporting based on additional questions within the self-assessment tool.
Chapter 6 is about the Sustainable Development Goals, launched by the United Nations in 2015. These 17 Sustainable Development Goals are generally regarded as the successors of the Millennium Development Goals, and are already embraced by several multinationals and included in the annual reports.
Finally, chapter 7 includes the appendices regarding the New participating companies, Dutch companies with an international group report, Foreign Public Interest Entities (PIE) and Companies with zero points awarded.
Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal 11
3.1 The Crystal Prize
The Crystal Prize is the award for best CSR report that has been established by the Ministry of Economic Affairs in cooperation with the Dutch Professional Association of Accountants (NBA) in 2010. The Crystal aims to be the most important price for CSR reporting and is awarded on the basis of the Transparency Benchmark ranking. The jury, consisting of Ms. Drs Monika Milz, MBA (Chairwoman) and professor dr. Leen Paape RA RO CIA, selected this year’s winner of the Crystal Prize among the three highest-ranked companies. Besides the Crystal Prize the jury also awards the Highest Climber Award and the award for Most Innovative Report.
3.2 The Transparency Benchmark
3.2.1 GoalThe Transparency Benchmark aims to provide an opinion on the content and quality of external reporting on corporate responsibility issues. To this end, the publically available accounting information of the largest Dutch companies is reviewed against 40 criteria related to corporate responsibility aspects of the companies and their operations. The Transparency Benchmark does not explicitly give an opinion on the actual performance of companies. A high ranking on the Transparency Benchmark does not imply that there are no controversies regarding corporate responsibility. By being transparent and communicating in an open way, companies show their vulnerability and can engage with stakeholders in a meaningful way. This dialogue could eventually lead to organizational changes if needed.
3.2.2 CriteriaThe criteria of the Transparency Benchmark are in line with the latest international guidelines and developments, such as the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), 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. The criteria have been divided into two categories: content-related (three criteria subcategories) and quality-re-lated (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 subcategory (see figure).
This year, some criteria have been refined to enhance the comprehensibility and reduce room for interpretation. The criteria can be found in the document Criteria 2016 on the website of the Transparency Benchmark
Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal12
Content-oriented Framework of Standards 1001. Company and Business model 33 2. Policy and Results 34 3. Management approach 33
1A. Profile and value chain 10 2A. Policy and (self-im posed) obligations 5 3A. Governance and remuneration
10
1B. Proces of value chain 10 2B. Objectives 5 3B. Steering and Control 8
1C. Analysis f the operating context (including risks and opportunities)
8 2C. Economic aspects of business practice
8 2D. Environmental aspects business practice
8 2E. Social aspects of business practice
8 3C. Future expectations 5
1D. Strategic context 5 3D. Reporting criteria 10
Quality-oriented Framework of Standards 1004. Relevance 20 5. Claerness 20 6. Reliability 20 7. Responsiveness 20 8. Coherence 20
Materiality 8 Claerness 6 Accuracy, Completeness and true view
17 Focus on stakeholders
13 Strategic focus 5
Scope and demarcation 6 Conciseness 4 Prudence 3 Contribution to social debate
2 Contextual coherence 6
Timeliness 6 Insightfull 7 Audacity 5 Integration 6
Accesibility 3 Comparability 3
3.2.3 The participating companiesThe participants group was developed by incorporating the following different categories: • Public Interest Entities (PIE’s) with more than 500 employees • Companies listed in Amsterdam’s stock exchange • Companies with substantial activities in the Netherlands related to revenue and/or number of employees • (Partly) State-owned organizations• Universities and University Medical Centers (UMC) • Large companies (more than 250 employees) that 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 512 companies (compared to 485 in 2015). 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).
Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal 13
Dutch companies with an International group reportA company 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 EU directive proposal on non-financial reporting. This means that information on the environment, social and labour-related issues, human rights, anti-corruption, bribery, and diversity on the board should be included in the annual report. For these companies a separate overview was prepared, without a benchmark. These companies receive no score. In total, 26 of the 512 companies participated in the group arrangement. A list of these companies are included in the appendix. A company 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.
Public Interest Entities (PIE) that are not active in the NetherlandsJust like previous year, this year Public Interest Entities are included in the research group for the Transparency Benchmark. This group is based on control statements by accountants that are authorized to perform audits at Public Interest Entities. Not all accountant offices are authorized to perform these audits. If an accountant office is authorized to perform such an assurance engagement they need to publish a list in their transparency report with all Public Interest Entities they are engaged with. Based on these lists the Public Interest Entities with 500 employees or more are selected for the Transparency Benchmark. In contrast to previous years, this year we found that six organizations, which are marked as Public Interest Entities, are not active in the Netherlands. Of these six companies, three companies participated within the international group report regulation. The other three organizations did not comply with the criteria of the group arrangement. These companies will be included in a separate list in the appendix.
3.2.4 Boundary of publicly available accounting informationThe scores on the Transparency Benchmark are awarded based on the publicly available reports over the reporting year 2015. 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. Additionally, the report should be published periodically and focused on accounting information of the reporting year 2015 (ended in 2015). Only reporting information published before the 1st of July 2016 has been included in the Transparency Benchmark.
Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal14
3.2.5 MethodologyAll participating companies are invited to screen the quality of their own report by using the online self-assessment. By using the online self-assessment companies gain insight in the strengths and weaknesses of their own report. The self-assessments have been assessed and evaluated by a team of independent researchers.
Participating companies were able to use the e-tool; a web application with multiple processes. The overall process consists of the six following steps: • The self-assessment: companies assess their own information based on the criteria of the Transparency Benchmark. This year 160 companies
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, a company 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.
• Panel Assessment: The 21 highest scoring participants were also separately evaluated by the Panel of Experts. The reports of these companies have been assessed based on so-called ‘panel criteria’ In previous years the Panel only evaluated the top 20 of the Transparency Benchmark. This year however one additional company is included in the evaluation due to their communication with the Panel of Experts. The ‘panel criteria’ can be found in the appendix of the criteria 2016, to be downloaded from the website of the Transparency Benchmark (www.transparantiebenchmark.nl/en).
• Winner of the Crystal Prize’: The Jury ultimately determines the winner of the ‘Crystal Prize’. Next to the Crystal Prize, the Jury awards the company that addresses transparency in corporate responsibility reporting in the most creative and innovative manner and awards the price to the fastest climber on the Transparency Benchmark ladder.
Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal 15
3.2.6 Panel of Experts and the Crystal JuryThe Panel of Experts reviews the quality of the assessments and communicates with companies that had comments regarding their final score. Additionally, the Panel of Experts assesses the top 21 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 compa-nies for the Crystal Prize, 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: • Chairwoman: Ms. Theresa Fogelberg, Deputy Chief Executive at Global Reporting Initiative;• Vice Chairman: Mr. Giuseppe van der Helm chairman Tax Justice Network, former managing director VBDO;• Mr. André Nijhof professor “Sustainable Business and Stewardship” at the Center for Entrepreneurship, Governance and Stewardship at
Nyenrode; • Mr. Gijs Droge, managing director Stichting Milieukeur (SKM)• Mr. Marhijn Visser, Secretary International Economic Affairs at VNO-NCW - MKB-Nederland; • Ms. Maria van der Heijden, managing director at MVO Nederland; • Ms. Charlotte Linnebank, founder and Executive director at Stichting Questionmark and QM intelligence BV;• Mr. Gerhard Schuil, Manager Research & Professional Services at SOMO;• Ms. Erika Marseille, member of the counsel of the Foundation for Annual Reporting;• Mr. Paul Hurks, director international affairs at The Royal Netherlands Institute of Chartered Accountants• Mr. Ralph Thurm, director and founder of the consultancy firm AHEADahead.
The jury selects the winner of the Crystal Prize out of the three nominated reports. The jury provides an explanation for their decision in the jury report. In 2016, the jury adopted, similar to last year, the criteria: ‘show who you are’ in choosing the winner out of the top 3 companies. In addition, the jury determines the winners of the other 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 Prize consists of the following members:Chairwoman: Ms. Monika R. MilzMember: Mr. Leen Paape
Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal16
4 This year’s winners4.1 The jury report
2016 is the thirteenth year of the Transparency Benchmark, and the seventh year of the Crystal Prize. The amount of participating companies as well as the average score have increased this year. It is also a year characterized by a range of new developments, on a national and international level, regarding transparent reporting.
Trends and outlookOn January 1st, 2016, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) were officially launched. These 17 goals provide guidance for global efforts in the field of sustainable development, in which private sector around the world assume a significant role. Some companies have included the SDGs in their 2015 annual reports. The jury encourages this development and hopes more companies will be prepared to provide insight into their contribution to the SDGs in 2016.
At the end of 2016 the EU Directive regarding transparency on non-financial information and diversity will come into effect for large public interest entities. This directive asks companies to provide more insight into non-financial information and the policies of the company.
Finally, on December 8th, 2016, the renewed Corporate Governance Code (CGC) will be presented to the Ministry of Economic Affairs. The commission designing the CGC has put long-term value creation at the center of the new developed code. Sustainability, addressing risks and opportunities and considering stakeholder opinions are of great importance. The commission aligned the code with recent developments regarding (transparency on) non-financial aspects of business.
The jury acknowledges that an integrated approach regarding corporate responsibility, where the company’s management supports an inte-grated strategy, is applied by increasingly more Dutch companies. Non-financial objectives are more often integrated within the business strategy. Also, the way in which companies included non-financial objectives in their reports has positively developed over the past year. Companies’ reports reflect a stronger focus on how they add value, and how they impact society. The Transparency Benchmark 2016 shows that the those criteria related to the company’s business model received the highest scores. It is encouraging to see that 80% of the companies in the ‘Peloton’ group have included corporate responsibility objectives in their reports, compared to 71% last year.
Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal 17
The next step in raising a company’s awareness of its societal impact, is a focus on the long-term. Sustainability means that companies should make an effort to sustain this planet and create value for society for the long-term. Sometimes complex dilemma’s present themselves such as: how can value be created when maximum capacity has been reached? This future-oriented approach is not commonplace within the reporting landscape. Some pioneers, including the winner of this year’s Crystal Prize, have been able to take first steps in this regard.
Another noteworthy development is the concept of continuous reporting. Stakeholders gain insight into the most up to date financial and non-financial information, therefore stakeholders stay better informed regarding the results of a company throughout the year, which contrasts with an annual report by which stakeholders are updated annually. As of June 2016, Vodafone started to implement continuous reporting, integrating their website and their news portal, and providing their stakeholders with quarterly updates on their financial and non-financial results. The jury commends this initiative.
The jury sees that the general level of reporting improved over the years. This is confirmed by this year’s Transparency Benchmark results. The average score has increased with 5 points (from 99 in 2015, to 104 in 2016). For the first time, the number of participating companies exceeds 500 companies. In the top 21, a positive development is also visible: the winner obtained 199 out of 200 points, and the lowest score in the top 21 is 186, compared to 177 last year. In short: the bar has been raised and every point can make a difference. Therefor the top 3 has changed signifi-cantly compared to previous year.
However, challenges remain. According to the jury, reporting on companies’ supply chains deserves more attention. Stakeholders demand more insight into the global activities of multinational companies, especially when these activities take place in countries with significant social and environmental risks. The winner of this year’s innovation price is a positive exception, elaborating extensively on their supply chain activities across different countries.
In the eyes of the jury, the step towards reporting on organizational weaknesses is even more crucial. Only a few companies are transparent and honest regarding their own weaknesses vis-a-vis peers. The same applies for addressing and communicating on dilemmas: every company is faced with dilemmas, but not every company is transparent on these aspects. These considerations have been the starting point for the jury’s assessment of this year.
Introduction jury themeDriving business means dealing with ethical and other dilemma’s on a strategic as well as operational level. The intention to address dilemmas affecting all stakeholder interests is not sufficient to embed these dilemmas within a company. Embedding ethical business practice in the daily operations, and being transparent about it, requires a vision and a strategy regarding sustainable and ethical business and an operational policy that is in line with this vision and strategy.
Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal18
For that reason the jury of the Crystal Prize reviewed how companies deal with, institutionalize, and transparently communicate on ethical and other dilemmas.
4.2 The winners
The jury is commissioned with the task to determine the ultimate winner of the awards accompanying the Benchmark. In this responsibility,they are supported by the Panel of Experts of the Transparency Benchmark when making content-related considerations. The jury is gratefulto 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: Universitair Medisch Centrum Groningen (UMCG)The highest climber in the Transparency Benchmark 2015 is the UMCG. The organization obtained 36 points in total in the 2015 benchmark. With a total of 148 points obtained this year, the UMCG climbed from rank 197th last year to number 79 in 2016. A raking improvement of 118 positions.
The biggest difference between the annual report 2014 and 2015 is that in 2014, the UMCG published a financial statement and separate annual reports on research and education, quality and safety and environment. In 2015, the UMCG has decided to combine these reports into one integrated document in order to improve the transparency and comprehensibility. The annual report 2015 was the first report, published by the UMCG, based on the Global Reporting Initiative G4 guidelines.
The way the UMCG provides insight into their model of value creation is unique in its sector. This model provides the stakeholders with insight into the input, activities, output and impact of the UMCG. Additionally, the UMCG included a materiality matrix for the first time in 2015, based on internal and external stakeholder meetings. In 2015, the UMCG included objectives in terms of quality and safety, regional cooperation and the complexity of patient care for the first time.
The Award for Most Innovative Report: Heineken N.V.Heineken N.V. has chosen to present their model of value creation in an innovative and clear manner. In both the annual report as well as in the sustainability report 2015, the value creation model constitutes the basis of the report. Compared to other companies, Heineken has contextua-lized the value creation model within their supply chain model. In the overview ‘From Barley to Bar’ the reader is able to follow the whole process from the production of the raw materials until the consumption at the bar. Heineken specifies the sources of their raw materials and provide insights into the origin of the different capitals geografically. Heineken’s report distinguishes itself from other reports, by also mentio-ning the dilemmas in high-risk countries.
Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal 19
Moreover, Heineken is also one of the first Dutch companies that included the SDGs in their report. Heineken has linked their strategic themes to the different SDGs, thereby presenting their responsibilities, and placing their performance in a broader social context.
The Crystal Prize, the main award of the Transparency Benchmark After the assessment by the Panel of Experts, the jury selects this year’s winner of the Crystal Prize among the three highest-ranked companies. It is striking that the top 3 of the Transparency Benchmark 2016 consist of three government participations active in the Dutch infrastructure sector (in alphabetical order): Alliander, the NS and the Schiphol Group. A surprising result, especially considering the great sector diversity and the size of the companies within the top 21. The jury is aware that government participations have an exceptional position that differs from the commer-cial context in which privately owned operate. The jury hopes that the results of this year can lead to an exchange of ideas between government participations and privately owned companies.
Government participations are distinctive compared to private companies due to the public interest in these companies. These organizations are privatized by the government and are still finding their place in the market. As such, they need to maintain a government perspective on the one hand and adopt the business perspective on the other. This can lead to controversies, as is the example with ProRail. It is the jury’s opinion that the way in which controversies and dilemmas are presented in the report constitutes an important factor to winning the Crystal Prize. This has led to the jury theme of this year – how do companies deal with (ethical) dilemmas – and this has been especially relevant for the judging process of the top 3.
The integrated report of NS provides considerable insight into the issues and dilemmas the NS has faced. From the very first page NS provides an overview of the most relevant events in 2015. In addition, they take responsibility for the issues they did not manage properly. Painful issues are openly discussed: the Boards of Directors and the Supervisory Board are conscious of what went wrong and what should be improved. NS also provides the reader insight into certain dilemmas, for example investments versus dividend. Furthermore, NS distinguished itself by the clear way in which they integrated their corporate responsibility results in the annual report
Despite the aforementioned positive points, the jury concludes that the report is particularly focused on the past. In the report there is not much attention for the long-term vision of NS. Also, the fact that NS only briefly describes its foreign activities is taken into account by the jury. Therefore NS is ranked third.
Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal20
The Schiphol Group is ranked second. In its annual report, the airport discusses a number of concrete dilemmas, in which Schiphol mentions its own point of view. These dilemmas have been presented not only with a focus on the current situation, but Schiphol has also included a future outlook on the position of the airport in de upcoming years. The jury admires the accessible design and the way in which Schiphol provided insight in the process of value creation. This is the reason Schiphol Group won the award of most innovative report last year.
Schiphol could improve its report by including specific objectives, and by going into more detail regarding the relationship between its own performance and the societal context in which Schiphol operates. This could be achieved by linking the results to relevant SDGs.
Winner Crystal Prize 2016The jury presents the Crystal Prize 2016 to Alliander N.V.. Even more than the other two nominees, Alliander provides insight into their most relevant dilemmas. In the annual report, Alliander describes that the Board of Directors and the Supervisory Board openly discuss their corporate responsibilities and the dilemmas connected to these responsibilities. Particularly praiseworthy is the fact that Alliander is explicitly focused on the long-term. Questions are being explicitly highlighted on the limits of expansion, and other ways of long-term value creation are being explored. In doing so, Alliander is a frontrunner in the eyes of jury, especially when noting the organization’s objective to become climate neutral in 2023.
Alliander’s report shows that the organization is not only transparent about their results regarding corporate responsibilities, but also includes its stakeholders within the decision making process. The annual report starts with an overview of its most important stakeholders and this then clearly forms the basis of the report. It is remarkable that the stakeholders which are closest to the organization have the most impact on the material themes. Acknowledging this innovative way to focus on society, the jury is pleased to reward Alliander with the Crystal Prize.
Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal 21
5 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 companies that obtained a score on the Transparency Benchmark (252 companies).
5.1 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% 70%
Coherence
Responsiveness
Reliability
Clearness
Relevance
Quality-oriented criteria
Management Approach
Policy and Results
Company Pro�le and Business Model
Content-oriented criteria
Total scoreCompared to last year we see that the amount of points obtained by the companies has increased. Last year the companies gathered 49,6% of the maximum amount of points, this year it increased to 52,2%. The average scores of the companies has therefore increased from 99 points to 104 points.
When looking at the different categories it is notable that the top 3 best scoring categories relative to last year did not change. Although the top 3 remained the same, the percentage of the obtained points did increase for all three categories. The top 3 lowest scoring categories changed compared to last year. Just like last year the category reliability is the lowest scoring categorie. The score for the category Responsiveness has decreased from 50% to 49%. This is also the only category where the total amount of points has decreased compared to last year and that is the reason that this category is new in the top 3 lowest scoring categories.
Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal22
5.2 Criteria comparison
The next pages will provide more information on the criteria of the Transparency Benchmark 2016. The table below indicates the criteria with the best and lowest scores obtained by the participating companies. The highest and lowest scoring criteria are the same criteria as in 2014 and 2015. Even the order in which both top 3’s are ranked is the same as last year. This table is then followed by an overview of the most relevant and remarkable results of the Transparency Benchmark 2016. The graphs included in this overview present the average scores along the organizational classification of the Transparency Benchmark Ladder (leaders, followers, peloton and laggards). Comparison with last year’s scores is made possible by including the 2015 results. Moreover, based on a complementary in-depth analysis, the texts accompanying each graph highlight further observations of this year’s results, which are not directly derived from the graphs themselves.
TOP 3 HIGHEST SCORING CRITERIA 2016 TOP 3 LOWEST SCORING CRITERIA 2016
Score & Criteria Explanation criteria Score & Criteria Explanation criteria
87% of the companies achieved the maximum score concerning criterion 13
Complete understanding of the organizational structure
68% of the companies 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
82% of the companies achieved the maximum score on criterion 1
General information about the company, a quantitative summary of the company’s profile (amount of employees, amount of supplied goods/ services, etc.)
60% of the companies has obtained the minimum score concerning criterion 31
Subject matter experts or stakeholders have not been invited to express their opinion in the report itself (e.g. quotes have not been included)
65% of the companies 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
58% of the companies has obtained the minimum score concerning criterion 40
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 (62% of maximum attainable score) 1. Reliability (27% of maximum attainable score)
2. Clarity (61% of maximum attainable score) 2. Responsiveness (49% of maximum attainable score)
3. Management Approach (55% of maximum attainable score) 3. Policy and Results (51% of maximum attainable score)
Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal 23
60% of the companies reports on the value chain in which it operates (compared to 69% in 2015).
Despite the fact that the percentage of companies that report on the value chain has decreased, the percentage of companies that obtained
the maximum score for this criterion has increased from 22% to 34%. The full score can be obtained by providing an explanation about the main corporate social responsibilities 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 100Laggards
Peloton
Followers
Leaders
Total 2015
Total 2016 60%
69%
100%
98%
9%
54%
91%
46%
2%
0%
31%
40%
Yes No
Business Model
0 20 40 60 80 100Laggards
Peloton
Followers
Leaders
Total 2015
Total 2016 97%
96%
100%
100%
89%
97%
11%
3%
0%
0%
4%
3%
Yes No
In total 97% of the companies reports on their business model (compared to 96% in 2015). Only 8 companies did not obtain a score for this criterion. Despite the fact that almost all participating companies obtained a score, only 31% received the maximum score. In order to receive the maximum amount of points a company should provide insight in their business model and clarify their model of value creation. In addition, a SWOT-analysis should be available as well as a graphical representation of the business model. Category: Organization and Business Model
Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal24
Business Strategy
0 20 40 60 80 100Laggards
Peloton
Followers
Leaders
Total 2015
Total 2016 86%
86%
100%
100%
23%
94%
77%
6%
0%
0%
14%
14%
Yes No This year 86% of the companies provided an explanation on their business strategy. The percentage is similar with last year. However the percentage of companies that obtained the maximum score decreased from 55% in 2015 to 53% this year. These companies 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
In 2016 77% of the companies formulated objectives concerning corporate responsibility. This is an increase
of 3% compared to last year. Although the percentage of companies with a score increased, the percentage of companies with the maximum amount of points has decreased compared to last year.
Last year 29% of the companies obtained the maximum amount of points, this year only 26% obtained this maximum. In order to obtain
the maximum amount of points a company has to provide quantitative targets and link them with the material aspects.
Category: Policy and results
Objectives
0 20 40 60 80 100Laggards
Peloton
Followers
Leaders
Total 2015
Total 2016 77%
74%
100%
100%
14%
80%
86%
20%
0%
0%
26%
23%
Yes No
Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal 25
32% of the companies have included a statement of an independent third party in the corporate responsibility
report (compared to 33% in 2015). Compared to last year the amount of companies with the maximum
amount of points increased from 11 to 13 companies. These 13 companies have included an assurance statement providing reasonable assurance regarding at least the most relevant part of the
corporate responsibility report. Category: Reliability
0 20 40 60 80 100Laggards
Peloton
Followers
Leaders
Total 2015
Total 2016 32%
33%
100%
80%
0%
14%
100%
86%
20%
0%
67%
68%
Yes No
Third-party Assurance
0 20 40 60 80 100Laggards
Peloton
Followers
Leaders
Total 2015
Total 2016 75%
74%
100%
11%
78%
89%
22%
0%
100% 0%
26%
25%
Yes No
Stakeholder Engagement In 2016 75% indicate how they engage their stakeholders in the strategy, policy and activities of the company. This is a slight increase to last year.The percentage of companies that obtained the maximum score increased from 17% tot 27%. Meaning more companies activily engaged with their stakholders and included the highest boardlevel within that dialogue. Besides that, these companies used the input of their stakeholders in relation to their strategy and objectives. Category: Responsiveness
Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal26
53% of the companies has provided insight in the issues and dilemmas faced by the management. This is a
significant decrease compared to last year when 67% of the companies received a score for this criterion.
The reason of this decrease can be found in the reformulation of this criterion compared to last year. It is not sufficient anymore to only
provide insight in the challenges. Also the percentage of companies with a maximum score has decreased from 38% to 30%. In order to
receive the maximum score an companies should provide an explana-tion regarding the issues and dilemmas and include these as indepen-
dent sections within their report. Category: Responsiveness
0 20 40 60 80 100Laggards
Peloton
Followers
Leaders
Total 2015
Total 2016 53%
67%
100%
9%
46%
91%
54%
0%
88% 12%
33%
47%
Yes No
Issues and Dilemmas
Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal 27
5.3 Materiality
Internationally, the subject of materiality within reporting has been receiving 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-finan-cial information clearly structured and relevant for users, companies need to focus on those subjects, which are of most material importance to their own business and the users of the report. The next pages provide insight in the conclusions related to the criteria about materiality.
0 20 40 60 80 100Laggards
Peloton
Followers
Leaders
Total 2015
Total 2016 76%
72%
100%
14%
80%
86%
20%
0%
100% 0%
28%
24%
Yes No
Materiality I: General
In 2016 the percentage of companies reporting about their material themes has increased from 72% to 76%. The percentage of companies that provides full insight in their material themes increased from 38% to 46%. This indicates that almost half of the companies provide insight in their most relevant and strategic themes and that they made them graphically visible. Category: Organization and business model
The formulation of criteria 22 has been changed compared to last year. In order to receive the maximum
score last year, it was necessary to solely report on the material themes. After last year’s evaluation it is decided
to remove this sub criteria from the self-assessment. Due to this change in the criteria, an increase of companies receiving
points for this criteria is visible (from 61% in 2015 to 63% in 2016). This also caused an increase of companies obtaining the maximum score
for this criteria. This has increased from 37% to 55%.Category: Relevance 0 20 40 60 80 100
Laggards
Peloton
Followers
Leaders
Total 2015
Total 2016 63%
61%
100%
3%
59%
97%
41%
0%
100% 0%
39%
37%
Yes No
Materiality II: Relevance
Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal28
0 20 40 60 80 100Laggards
Peloton
Followers
Leaders
Total 2015
Total 2016 78%
100%
23%
80%
77%
20%
0%
100% 0%
22%
74% 26%
Yes No
Materiality III: Environmental AspectsThis year 78% report about their material environmental aspects of their business practice, this is an increase of 4% compared to last year. In total 16 companies obtained the maximum amount of points for 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). Last year only 6 companies received the maximum amount of points for this criterion. Category: Policy and results
This year 82% report about their material social aspects of their business practice, this is an increase of 6%
compared to last year. In total 17 companies obtained the maximum amount of points for
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). Last year only 7 companies received the maximum amount of points for this criterion.
Category: Policy and results0 20 40 60 80 100
Laggards
Peloton
Followers
Leaders
Total 2015
Total 2016 82%
100%
26%
86%
74%
14%
0%
100% 0%
18%
76% 24%
Yes No
Materiality IV: Social Aspects
Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal 29
Monetary valueA large number of companies 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 companies (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 to the same as the monetary value of a social or environmental effect. Monetizing the impact of training and education on employees, (future) employers and society are examples of such a monetary value.
Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal30
5.4 Sector comparison
The participating companies of the Transparency Benchmark have been divided into 16 different sectors (similar to last year). The companies that could not be included in a specific sector form the sector ‘other’, a total of 23 companies.
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 2016
Percentage zero scores 2016 Just like last year the Transport sector has the highest
average score with 163 points, this is an increase of 7 points.
The average score of all companies has increased from 99 points to 104 points. There are substantial differences between the scores of the different sectors. An illustrative example of this is the difference of in total 133 points between the transport sector and the pharmaceuticals industry. In addition, it is noticeable that some sectors consist majorly of companies with a zero score. For example, although in the consumer products sector the average is 104 points, 79% of the companies in this sector received a zero score. The real estate sector on the other hand, only achieves an average score of 102 points. However, all companies have achieved a positive score in this sector.
This year, 69 new companies have been added to the Transparency Benchmark. Only these 69 companies are considered as new participants within the sectors.
Banking and insurance 121 3%
Construction and maritime 107 38%
Consumer products 104 79%
Services 103 32%
Energy, oil and gas 135 38%
Trading 57 77%
Industrial products 97 66%
Media and communications 75 42%
Other 51 74%
Pharmaceuticals 30 43%
Retail 103 68%
Technology 117 62%
Transport 163 61%
Universities and Medical Centres
90 0%
Real estate 102 0%
Food and beverage 105 49%
Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal 31
5.4.1 Banking and insurance
0 50 100 150 200
RFS Holland Holding B.V.Citco Bank Nederland N.V.
HDI-Gerling Verzekeringen N.V.De Goudse N.V.
Zorg en Zekerheid GroepO.W.M. DSW Zorgverzekeraar UA
Credit Europe Bank N.V.DAS Ned. Rechtsbijstand Verzekeringmaatschappij N.V.
Coöperatie Univé U.A.The Royal Bank of Scotland
Robeco Groep N.V.ONVZ Ziektekostenverzekeraar N.V.
BinckbankKAS BANK N.V.
VvAA groep B.V.Allianz Nederland Groep N.V.
Atradius N.V.Delta Lloyd Groep
Coöperatie VGZ U.A.Triodos Bank N.V.
ASR Nederland N.V.CZ groep
De Nederlandsche Bank N.V.NIBC Bank N.V.
AchmeaMenzis Holding B.V.
NN GROUPVivat Verzekeringen
Nederlandse Waterschapsbank NVSNS Bank N.V.
Aegon N.V.ING Groep
Bank Ned. Gemeenten N.V.Ned. Financierings-Maatschappij voor Ontwikkelingslanden NV
Van Lanschot BankiersRabobank
ABN AMRO Group N.V. 188188187187186186186
184178177
176175
174171170
166164
156151
131116
908382
6666
5150
474443
4137
2725
20
Number of companies 37
Number of companies with zero score 1
Number of companies with a score 36
Average score (exl. companies with zero score) 121
Percentage of companies with zero score 3%
Number of new participants 4
The banking and insurance sector scored, similar to last year, above average with an average score of 121 points. This is a significant increase compared to last year when the average score was only 108 points.
Last year 2 companies received a zero score, this year only 1 company received this score. Triodos Bank N.V. is the best scoring new participant within this sector with a score of 156.
Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal32
5.4.2 Construction and maritime
0 50 100 150 200Wavin N.V.
SPIE Nederland B.V.Peterson Control Union Group B.V.
Mota-Engil Africa N.V.Koninklijke Wagenborg
Hurks groepGustoMSC Investments B.V.
CRH Nederland B.V.Brihold B.V.
Bluewater Holding B.V.A. Hakpark B.V.
Aan de Stegge Holding B.V.Janssen De Jong Groep B.V.
Van Wijnen Groep N.V.Oranjewoud N.V.
Dura Vermeer GroepBallast Nedam N.V.
Unica Groep B.V.Damen Shipyards Group N.V.
IHC Merwede Holding B.V.Van Oord
Beelen Groep B.V.TBI Holdings
Joh. Mourik & Co. Holding B.V.SBM O�shore
Koninklijke Boskalis Westminster N.V.VolkerWessels
HeijmansRoyal BAM Group 191
185183
173171
151150
137112
106103
9684
4130
105
000000
100000
Number of companies 29
Number of companies with zero score 11
Number of companies with a score 18
Average score (exl. companies with zero score) 107
Percentage of companies with zero score 38%
Number of new participants 4
This year, the construction and maritime sector obtained an above-average score of 107 points. This is a decrease compared to last year when the average score was 110. This is the second consecutive year the average score has decreased.
None of the new participants within this sector have obtained a score.
Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal 33
5.4.3 Consumer products
0 50 100 150 200WE Europe B.V.
Van den Ban Autobanden B.V.WE Europe B.V.
Van den Ban Autobanden B.V.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.
Darling International NL Holdings B.V.Canon Europa N.V.
Bose ProductsApollo Vredestein B.V.
Action Service & DistributieTomTom N.V.Accell GroupUnilever N.V. 193
14153
2700000000000000000
Number of companies 19
Number of companies with zero score 15
Number of companies with a score 4
Average score (exl. companies with zero score) 104
Percentage of companies with zero score 79%
Number of new participants 1
Last year the average score of this sector was 133 points, this year it decreased to 104 points. This is mainly caused by the fact that more companies received a score and this lowered the average score (last year only 3 companies received points).
The sector consumer products is the sector with the highest percentage of companies with a zero score: 79%. Although this is still the highest percentage, it is a decrease compared to last year when 86% of the companies received a zero score.
Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal34
5.4.4 Services
0 50 100 150 200Xylem Water Solutions Nederland B.V.
United Parcel Service Nederland B.V.Unit 4 N.V.
TP Vision Europe B.V.Sweco Nederland BV
Oracle Nederland B.V.Omron Europe B.V.
Manpower Nederland B.V.Loyens & Loe N.V.
Holiday Holding Ro�erdam B.V.Hametha B.V.
Equens SEDiversey Europe Operations B.V.
CWT B.V.Corendon Holding B.V.
CGI Nederland B.V.Brand Loyalty Group B.V.
Booking.com B.V.BEE Holding B.V.
BCD Travel HoldingAmlin Europe N.V.
Adecco Nederland Holding B.V.Accenture B.V.
Home Credit B.V.Tauw Groep BV
IMC TradingFlow Traders N.V.
MonutaTMF Group Holding B.V.
Nieuwe Steen invCentric Holding B.V.
APGValue8
Broekhuis HoldingYarden Holding B.V.
DPA GROUPPropertize B.V.
Euronext N.V.ICT Automatisering
Stichting EspriaFugro NV
Dela Coöperatie U.A.LeasePlan Corporation N.V.
Brab. Ontw. Maatschappij N.V.PGGM
Vebego International N.V.Brunel International N.V.
Stichting Exploitatie Nederlandse StaatsloterijCoMore
Holland CasinoUSG People N.V.
Arcadis N.V.Ontwikkelingsmaatschappij Oost Nederland NV
Deloi�e Holding B.V.Royal HaskoningDHV
Regionale Ontwikkelingsmaatschappij InnovationQuarter B.V.SUEZ Recycling & Recovery Netherlands B.V.
KPMG N.V.Ordina N.V.
Industriebank LIOF N.V.Randstad Holding N.V.
Van Gansewinkel GroepErnst & Young Nederland
Q-Park NVFacilicom Services Group
N.V. HVCMN
COVRA NVANWB B.V.
NV NOM Investerings- en Ontwikkelingsmaatschappij voor Noord-NederlandHolding Nationale Goede Doelen Loterijen N.V.
PricewaterhouseCoopers 181180180179
178177
175174
172168
167157
153152
144142
137137
136135
131126
120114114
104104
9490
8986
7662
5950
43
4242
4138
3434
2929
2326
1610
800000000000000000000000
Number of companies 72
Number of companies with zero score 23
Number of companies with a score 49
Average score (exl. companies with zero score) 103
Percentage of companies with zero score 32%
Number of new participants 12
The service sector has the highest number of participating companies, in total there are 72 companies included in this sector. The average score is just below the overall average, but has increased compared to last year (from 94 to 103 points).
About one third of the companies has a zero score in this sector.
SUEZ Recycling & Recovery Netherlands B.V. is the best new participant within this sector with a score of 142 points.
Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal 35
5.4.5 Energy, oil and gas
0 50 100 150 200Yara Sluiskil B.V.
TOTAL Nederland N.V.Oilinvest (Netherlands) B.V.
Kuwait Petroleum B.V.Esso Benelux B.V.
EFR Nederland B.V.De Nederlandse Energie Maatschappij B.V.
Argos Group Holding B.V.Ultra-Centrifuge Ned. N.V.
Heerema Marine Contractors Holding Nederland B.V.Delta N.V.
Core Laboratories N.V.Royal Dutch Shell
Eneco Holding N.V.GasTerra B.V.
Westland InfraEBN
Enexis Holding N.V.TenneT Holding B.V.
Nederlandse Gasunie N.V.Alliander N.V. 199
192183
178172172
163154
135106
3634
2800000000
Number of companies 21
Number of companies with zero score 8
Number of companies with a score 13
Average score (exl. companies with zero score) 135
Percentage of companies with zero score 38%
Number of new participants 1
The energy, oil and gas sector has achieved a higher average score than last year. Last year, the sector achieved an average score of 129 points, while this year the average score has increased to 135 points.
The top 3 within this sector remained the same, however Alliander N.V., as winner of the Crystal Prize, is the company with the highest score.
Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal36
5.4.6 Trading
0 50 100 150 200Wensink Automotive B.V.
Trimble Europe B.V.Transm. and Engineer. Services Netherl.
Toshiba Medical Systems Europe B.V.Roba
RLG Europe B.V.PP Groep Katwijk B.V.
Oxbow Netherlands Coöperatieve U.A.N.V. Deli MaatschappijMCB International B.V.
Interfood HoldingHexion B.V.
Hager-Minnema-Hu�en Beheer B.V.H.J. Heinz Supply Chain Europe B.V.
Fondel Holding B.V.Eastman Chemical B.V.
Dutch Flower Group B.V.Copaco Nederland B.V.
Coöperatieve Vereniging Beko U.A.Brokking's Beheer B.V.
Brenntag Nederland B.V.Beheer- en Beleggingsmaatschappij Zandbergen B.V.
Baker Hughes (Nederland) B.V.SHV Holdings N.V.
Scholten AwaterCefetra B.V.
Amsterdam Commodities N.V.Royal Reesink N.V.
Koninklijke Coöperatieve Bloemenveiling FloraHolland U.A.Nidera B.V. 125
998078
842
000000
00
0000
000000
00000
Number of companies 30
Number of companies with zero score 23
Number of companies with a score 7
Average score (exl. companies with zero score) 57
Percentage of companies with zero score 77%
Number of new participants 15
De sector trading has an average score of 57 points. This is a significant decrease compared to last year when the average score was 75 points.
The number of companies within this sector that received a score has increased from 4 to 7 companies. The sector trading is the sector with the highest number of new participants (15 companies in total).
Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal 37
5.4.7 Industrial products
0 50 100 150 200Yanmar Europe
Voestalpine Automotive Netherlands Holding B.V.Tetra Laval Holdings B.V.
Terberg Group B.V.Tata Steel Nederland B.V.
Synbra Holding B.V.Stork
SIHI Group B.V.Schoeller Allibert Holding B.V.
SABIC International Holdings B.V.Rockwell Automation B.V.P.L. v. Merksteijn Hold. B.V.
Otra N.V.Nedfast Holding B.V.
Maasland N.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.
Hertel Holding B.V.Fokker Technologies Group B.V.
FlowserveEnviem Holding B.V.
Denso Int. Europe B.V.Denkavit Internationaal B.V.
De Hoop Terneuzen B.V.Caldic B.V.
C. den Braven Beheer B.V.Bosal Nederland B.V.B. Braun Medical B.V.
Avery Dennison Materials Nederland B.V.Ardagh Group Netherlands B.V.
ArcelorMittal Netherlands B.V.Air Products Nederland B.V.Ace Innovation Holding B.V.
ABB B.V.Kramp Groep B.V.Brocacef HoldingConstellium N.V.
AMG Advanced Metallurg. Gr. NVVan Leeuwen Buizen Groep B.V
Batenburg Techniek N.V.OCI
Nedap N.V.Holland Colours N.V.
Aalberts Industries N.V.Forbo Flooring B.V.DOW Benelux B.V.
AperamKoninklijke Ten Cate N.V.
Corbion N.V.Kendrion N.V.
Rockwool Benelux HoldingAKZO Nobel N.V.
Koninklijke Philips N.V.DSM N.V. 189
186184
182164
146130
116114
9880
6177
6053
4233
1210
60
0000
0
000000000000000000000000000000000
Number of companies 59
Number of companies with zero score 39
Number of companies with a score 20
Average score (exl. companies with zero score) 97
Percentage of companies with zero score 66%
Number of new participants 8
Last year the sector industrial products obtained an average score of 97 points, this has remained the same. The number of companies with a zero score is the highest in this sector: as many as 39 companies received a zero score.
Holland Colours N.V. is the best new participant within this sector with 77 points.
Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal38
5.4.8 Media and communications
0 50 100 150 200Stichting Nederlandse Publieke Omroep
Sanoma Magazines B.V.
Koninklijke Wegener N.V.
Global City Holdings N.V.
Chios Investments B.V.
Audax B.V.
Koninklijke Brill N.V.
de Persgroep Nederland B.V.
Cimpress
Wolters Kluwer N.V.
RELX Group N.V.
TMG - Telegraaf Media Groep 160140
13425
2323
1800000
Number of companies 12
Number of companies with zero score 5
Number of companies with a score 7
Average score (exl. companies with zero score) 75
Percentage of companies with zero score 42%
Number of new participants 1
The average score of the sector media and communications is 75 points. This is an increase compared to last year when the average score was only 66 points. All companies within this sector have obtained a higher score than last year.
Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal 39
5.4.9 Pharmaceuticals
0 50 100 150 200Merck Sharp & Dohme B.V.
Alliance Boots B.V.A&D Pharma Holdings N.V.
Kiadis Pharma N.V.ESPERITE
FagronGALAPAGOS 53
3319
14000
Number of companies 7
Number of companies with zero score 3
Number of companies with a score 4
Average score (exl. companies with zero score) 30
Percentage of companies with zero score 43%
Number of new participants 1
Just as last year the pharmaceuticals sector has the lowest amount of participants as well as the lowest average score. The average score has decreased from 34 to 30 points.
Just as last year GALAPAGOS is the company with the highest score within this sector: 53.
Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal40
5.4.10 Retail
0 50 100 150 200Yamaha Motor Europe N.V.
Tesla Motors Netherlands B.V.St. Clair/ De Bijenkorf
SPAR Holding B.V.Scotch & Soda N.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.
Mercedes-Benz Nederland B.V.Maxeda Nederland B.V.
MarkeurLohomij B.V.
Inter-Sprint BandenIntergamma B.V.
Hoogvliet B.V.Foot Locker Europe B.V.
ECCO EMEA B.V.Detailresult Groep N.V.
Deen Holding Hoorn B.V.Coolblue Holding B.V.
Cnova N.V.BMW Nederland B.V.
B & S International B.V.AS Adventure Holding B.V.
Euretco B.V.Blokker Holding B.V.
A.S. Watson Health & Beauty Benelux B.V.GrandVision N.V.
Ingka Holding B.V.Coop Holding
Stern Groep N.V.Beter Bed Holding N.V.
PLUS Holding B.V.HEMA
Jumbo Groep Holding B.V.Zeeman Groep B.V.
Royal Ahold 182159
142
118115
112101
8876
7438
129
10
0
000
0000
0
00000000000000
00
00
Number of companies 40
Number of companies with zero score 27
Number of companies with a score 13
Average score (exl. companies with zero score) 103
Percentage of companies with zero score 68%
Number of new participants 8
The retail sector has obtained a significantly higher average score in comparison with last year. Last year the sector had an average score of 85 points, this has been increased to 103 point.
Although the average score has significantly increased, the number of companies that received a zero score has increased from 60% to 68%.
Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal 41
5.4.11 Technology
0 50 100 150 200Xerox Investments Europe
Tech Data Nederland B.V.Sensata Technol. Holding N.V.
SAP Nederland B.V.Samsung Electronics Benelux B.V.
Saba Statia Cable Sysytem B.V.Ricoh Europe SCM B.V.
Plantronics B.V.Nokia Solutions and Networks B.V.
Liberty Global Holding B.V.KYOCERA Document Solutions Europe B.V.
Juniper Networks International B.V.Ingram Micro
Huawei Technologies Coöperatief U.A.Hewle�-Packard The Hague B.V.
Fujitsu Technology Solutions (Holding) B.V.Epson Europe B.V.
Dell Global B.V.Cisco Systems International B.V.
Chemours Netherlands B.V.Boston Scienti�c Int. B.V.
ALTICEAcer Europe B.V.
VDL GroepNXP Semiconductors Netherlands B.V.Neways Electronics International N.V.
BE Semiconductor Indus. N.V.Tele2 Netherlands Holding N.V.
Gemalto N.V.Thales Nederland
ASM International N.V.VimpelCom Ltd.
ASMLTKH Group N.V.
Siemens NederlandVodafone
KPN 189186186
164161
154126
114111
9878
2924
14
00
00
0000000000000000000
Number of companies 37
Number of companies with zero score 23
Number of companies with a score 14
Average score (exl. companies with zero score) 117
Percentage of companies with zero score 62%
Number of new participants 3
The average score of the technology sector has increased from 101 points to 117 points.
Last year this sector had 14 new participants, this year there are only 3 new participants. None of these new participants received a score this year.
Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal42
5.4.12 Transport
0 50 100 150 200Vroon O�shore B.V.
Universal Cargo LogisticsThomas Cook Nederland B.V.
Stolt TankersSamskip
Raben Netherlands BVHandelsveem Beheer
Gaiwin B.V.Ewals Holdings B.V.
Eur. Container Terminals B.V.EEA Helicopter Operations B.V.
DAF Trucks N.V.Connexxion
Catom Enterprises B.V.Vos Logistics Beheer B.V.
GVB AmsterdamTNT Express
ProRail B.V.PostNL
Air France - KLMHavenbedrijf Ro�erdam N.V.
NSSchiphol Group 198
197186
184176
161
111
136116
00000000000000
Number of companies 23
Number of companies with zero score 14
Number of companies with a score 12
Average score (exl. companies with zero score) 122
Percentage of companies with zero score 61%
Number of new participants 0
Just like in the last two years the transport sector has the highest average score. Last year the average score was 156 points, this has increased to 163 point.
Besides the highest average score, this is the only sector where all companies received more than 100 points.
Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal 43
5.4.13 Universities and Medical Centers
0 50 100 150 200Open UniversiteitVrije Universiteit
Radboud Universiteit NijmegenErasmus Universiteit Ro�erdam
NyenrodeLeids Universitair Medisch Centrum
VUmcAcademisch Medisch Centrum
Maastricht UMC+Erasmus MC
Universiteit van TilburgUniversiteit van Amsterdam
Technische Universiteit EindhovenTechnische Universiteit Del�
Universiteit UtrechtUMC Utrecht
Universiteit LeidenUniversiteit Twente
Universiteit MaastrichtRijksuniversiteit Groningen
Universitair Medisch Centrum GroningenRadboudumc
TNOWageningen UR 166
156152
148130
124
95
120110
9577777777
747068
6160
58474544
33
Number of organizations 24
Number of organizations with zero score 0
Number of organizations with a score 17
Average score (exl. organizations with zero score) 127
Percentage of organizations with zero score 0%
Number of new participants 0
The sector Universities and Medical Centers has an average score of 90, compared to a score of 73 in 2015.
Last year one of the universities did receive a zero score, this year none of the organizations received a zero score. The Universitair Medisch Centrum Groningen is the fastest climber of the Transparency Benchmark 2016. Last year the company received 36 points, this year the company obtained 148 points.
Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal44
5.4.14 Real Estate
0 50 100 150 200Eurocommercial Properties
Vastned Retail N.V.
Unibail Rodamco
Wereldhave Manag. Holding B.V.
Waterweg Wonen 131
115
105
85
74
Number of companies 5
Number of companies with zero score 0
Number of companies with a score 5
Average score (exl. companies with zero score) 102
Percentage of companies with zero score 0%
Number of new participants 0
The real estate sector has an average score of 102 points. This is an increase compared to last year when the average score was 96 point.
Together with the sector Universities and Medical Centers these are the only two sectors without an company with a zero score.
Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal 45
5.4.15 Food and Beverage
0 50 100 150 200Van Rooi Meat B.V.
Theobroma B.V.Plukon Food Group
Paridaans en Liebregts B.V.NVDU Acquisition B.V.
Milkiland N.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.JACOBS DOUWE EGBERTS B.V.
IMCD Holding B.V.Hoogwegt Groep B.V.
H.L. Barentz B.V.Glencore Grain B.V.
Cargill B.V.Bakkersland Groep B.V.
Admidex B.V.Addasta Holding B.V.2 Sisters Europe B.V.
A-Ware Food Group B.V.CZAV
DOC KaasVION Holding N.V.
Lucas Bols N.V.Refresco Holding B.V.
Koninklijke Coöperatie Cosun U.A.Coöperatie AVEBE U.A.
The Greenery B.V.Farm Frites Beheer B.V.
ForFarmers N.V.Agri�rm Group B.V.
Sligro Food Group N.V.Vreugdenhil Groep B.V.
Perfetti v. MelleBidvest Deli XL
Bavaria N.V.Albron Nederland B.V.
VanDrie GroupKoninklijke FrieslandCampina N.V.
Koninklijke Wessanen N.V.Vitens N.V.
Heineken N.V. 189186
180172
169
134143144145
165
131114
9575
66
5063
4544
3834
3110
0000000000000000000000
Number of companies 45
Number of companies with zero score 22
Number of companies with a score 23
Average score (exl. companies with zero score) 105
Percentage of companies with zero score 49%
Number of new participants 3
With an average score of 105 points the companies within the sector food and beverage slightly improved its performance compared to last year when it obtained an average score of 104 point.
Almost half of the companies within this sector have received a zero score.
Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal46
5.4.16 Other
0 50 100 150 200Vroegop Ruhe & Co. B.V.
Shine 1 B.V.Optiver Holding B.V.
O�ce Depot InternationalNetApp & Manufacturing
MosadexMediq
Koninklijke Distill. Dirkzwager B.V.Hyva Group B.V.
Elopak B.V.De Kon. Nederlandse Munt N.V.
Dajesh B.V.Clondalkin Industries B.V.
Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V.Center Parcs Europe N.V.
British American Tobacco International (Holdings) B.V.Advanced Travel Partners Nederland B.V.
Horedo/RensaLouis Dreyfus
AerCap Holdings N.V.Kardan N.V.
Airbus Group N.V.Koninklijke Vopak N.V. 130
5743
282322
00000000000000000
Number of companies 23
Number of companies with zero score 17
Number of companies with a score 6
Average score (exl. companies with zero score) 51
Percentage of companies with zero score 74%
Number of new participants 2
Compared to last year the category other received a significantly lower score than last year. Last year the companies within this category received an average score of 91 points, this year they only obtained an average of 51 points.
Both the number of companies with a zero score as the percentage of companies with a zero score remained the same, simply the scores of the companies are lower compared to last year.
Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal 47
5.5 Companies with zero scores
The category of companies with zero scores consists of companies that are included in the participants group but did not achieve a score (0-score). A company 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 company 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.
Overview zero scores 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Total number of participants 469 473 460 409* 461* 483*
Total of companies with zero score 236 242 200 165* 216* 231
Percentage of companies with zero score 50,32% 51,16% 43,48% 40,34% 46,85% 47,83%
* Companies who have participated with their group report are excluded.
The Ministry aims to reduce the group of companies with zero scores. By organising workshops and approaching companies to fill in the self-assessment, we have aimed to reduce the amount of companies with a zero score. Unfortunately, this year the percentage companies with zero scores increased from 47% to 48%. The main reason for this increase is that 69 new companies have been added to the participants group of the Transparency Benchmark in 2016. From previous years we have learned that companies participating for the first time on the Transparency Benchmark, are more likely to receive a zero score. Of the 69 companies, 44 obtained a zero score, 19 had a positive score, 3 companies partici-pated in the group report arrangement and 3 companies are listed as Public Interest Entity without activities in the Netherlands.
Most companies with a zero score can be found in the Industrial products sector: a total of 39 companies. However, the percentage of companies with a zero score is highest in the Consumer products sector (79%). Of all companies listed on the Amsterdam’s stock exchange (73), only three companies have a zero score. Although companies with a zero score are not visible on the Transparency Benchmark Ladder, obtaining a zero score is not an indication that a company is not sustainable, it is only an indication that the company is not transparent about its sustainability policies.
Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal48
5.6 Corporate responsibility reporting in practice
The participating companies 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%
20162015
21%
2%9%
33%
8%
28%
24%
1%6%
33%
8%
29%
Seperate CR ReportOther Relevant InformationNoneIntegrated Report - OtherIntegrated Report - IIRCFinancial Report
Type of Report(Analysis based on 245 (2015) and 252 (2016) respondents)
Compared to last year, the number of respondents who indicated that they have some form of Integrated Reporting in place remained exactly the same with 41%. Of those reports, 8% is based on the framework for Integrated Reporting of the IIRC (International Integrated Reporting Council).
This year, 21% published a separate CSR report, this is a decrease compared to last year. The percentage of companies that only publish a financial report has decreased to 28%.
The biggest difference is in the percentage of compa-nies that state not to publish a report, this increased from 6% to 9%.
Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal 49
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
20162015
51%
49%
51%
49%
NoYes
Use of GRI Guidelines(Analysis based on 245 (2015) and 252 (2016) respondents)
0%
10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
20162015
G4 coreG4 comprehensiveG3.1G3.0
48%
18%
26%
8%
64%
21%11%4%
GRI Version Used(Analysis based on 120 (2015) and 124 (2016) respondents)
Just as last year almost half of the companies uses the guidelines of the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) to compose the annual reports.
The use of the GRI 3.1 and the GRI 3.0 version has significantly decreased compared to last year from 34% to 15%. This can be 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 48% to 64% and GRI G4 Comprehensive from 18% to 21%. This shows that the majority of companies follow the development of the GRI guidelines and are committed to meet these new standards.
Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal50
Use of Internationally Recognized Frameworks(Analysis based on 73 (2015) and 89 (2016) respondents)
32%
43%
25%
19%
3% 1%4% 2%
21% 19%25%
31%
18% 17%
20152016
0%5%
10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%
OtherNo use of framework
for reporting
ISO 26000SustainabilityAccounting
Standards Board
EMASCarbonDisclosure
Project
InternationalIntegratedReporting
Council (IIRC)framework
In addition to the use of the GRI guidelines (see above), 43% of the companies indicate that they make use of the framework for integrated reporting by the IIRC, this is an increase of 11%. The fact that the framework for integrated reporting by the IIRC is used more often explains the fact that the other frameworks are used less often. Only 19% of the companies indicate that they use the Carbon Disclosure Project as a framework, compared to 25% last year. The same trend is visible by the frameworks from EMAS (decrease of 2%), SASB (decrease of 2%) and ISO 26000 (decrease of 2%). This indicates that the IIRC-framework is adopted by most companies and together with the GRI-framework will form the reporting landscape regarding corporate responsibility.
Compared to last year the percentage of companies that indicates they used other frameworks also decreased, from 18% to 17%. It is remarkable that the only category, together with the IIRC framework that increased is the category where there has not been made us of a framework for reporting.
Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal 51
Most important challenges in the process of CR reporting(Analysis based on 99 (2015) and 126 (2016) respondents)
50%
29%
19%
44%
6%
18%
51%
33%
13%
48%
3%
21%
20152016
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
OtherLack ofappropriateknowledge/
expertise in theelaboration
of a CR report
The elaborationof the report is
moretimeconsuming
than initiallyexpected
The report isnot considered
a key point
Di�culties withthe interpretation
of externalguidelines
Data collectionwithin the
organization iscomplex
Most of the respondents indicate the biggest challenges during the process of reporting can be found inside their own company, identifying in particular those related to data collection (51%) and time investment (48%). Besides that we see that less companies indicate that the report is not considered a key (decrease from 19% to 13%). This is a positive development and can be seen as one of the most important goals for the Transparency Benchmark.
Also more companies indicate that the possess more appropriate knowledge and expertise to elaborate a CR report (decrease from 6% to 3%). and a lack of priority (19%).
On the other hand, the number of respondents who expressed difficulties in interpreting external guidelines increased from 29% to 33%.
Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal52
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
20162015
Fully implemented OECD guidelines
Used OECD guidelines as astarting point in the elaborationof the code of conduct andcorporate governance
Familiar with OECD guidelines, but not implemented
Not familiar with the OECD guidelines
Use of OECD Guidelines(Analysis based on 71 (2015) and 106 (2016) respondents)
16%
14%
42%
28%
11%
14%
44%
31%
Of the companies that answered this question, 44% apply the OECD guidelines for International Enterprises to some extent: while 28% use the guidelines only as the basis for their Code of Conduct and Corporate Governance Code, 16% have fully implemented the OECD guidelines. On the other hand, 42% of the companies indicated that, although they are familiar with the OECD guidelines, they have not integrated in their company policies. This is a slight decrease compared to last year. Finally, 14% of the companies indicated they are not familiar with the OECD guidelines, this percentage is the same as last year.
Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal 53
6 Theme: UN Sustainable Development Goals6.1 What are the SDGs?
The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are, developed by the United Nations, in cooperation with governments and the private sector. The SDGs consists of 17 objectives which express the shared ambitions for the world’s further development. The objectives are broadly formulated, from climate change and the availability of quality education, to the elimination of hunger, and the eradication of inequality and poverty. The SDGs constitute a shared vision of companies and governments worldwide to take concrete and effective actions in order to shape the world of tomorrow.
The different SDG objectives consist of multiple sub targets that should help companies to concretize their impact. These sub targets could also serve as a source of inspiration for companies with an ambition to have a positive contribution to society, but who are not able to identify the SDG on which they could have the most impact. The targets diverse in structure to allow companies from different sectors, as well as both service- and production companies to contribute to the same goals.
Moreover, for every SDG multiple Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) have been identified. These KPIs could be used by companies to monitor their performance or used as examples for companies which
have not yet included non-financial KPIs in their management dashboard. A distinct feature of the SDGs, in contrast to other reporting guidelines, is the inclusion of a goal focused on profitability (SDG 8 – Decent Work & Economic Growth) which recognizes
“Ours can be the first generation to end poverty – and the last generation to address climate change before it is too late.”Ban Ki-moon - Secretary General United Nations
Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal54
companies’ core competencies, i.e. selling products or services. This reflects the United Nations’ approach to economic activities as an enabler of future development and acknowledge economic activity as one of the preconditions for a healthy private sector.
6.2 Why are the SDGs established?
Within the international business community guidelines have been developed for diverse issues such as quality management systems, gover-nance codes and reporting guidelines. These rules and guidelines enable the business community to improve their performance allow for comparison with other companies, customers and suppliers. So as to facilitate a comparison between the efforts of different companies in the field of corporate responsibility, the United Nations and the finance ministers of the G8 countries established the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in 2005. These eight objectives where aimed at solving the most pressing world problems at the time, for example the elimination of HIV/AIDS and provision of maternity care for women all over the world.
With the rising urgency of climate change, and the increasing impact of companies on society, the MDGs where replaced in September 2015 by the Sustainable Development Goals, thereby broadening the scope of goals and subjects encompassed by the SDGs. The replacement of the MDGs by the SDGs results on the one hand from the (partially) achievement of the MDGs and on the other hand a lack of a universal language in which companies are able to express their impact on society and the environment. While one company was focusing on job creation in developing countries, other companies focused on equal rights for women, basic education for everyone or reducing the CO2 emissions. The SDGs have been designed broad enough so that any company wherever in the world they may be located can now focus on the shared agenda, by incorporating one or multiple SDGs within their strategy. By embedding the SDGs in its strategy a company can then report on their progress towards such SDGs.
“With the presentation of the SDGs, the UN has again made a valuable contribution to the debate regarding sustainability reporting and taken a substantial step towards a global equal level playing field on sustainable development for all companies.
The SDGs can give direction to define the purpose of a company. Purpose is like the derivative of ‘license to operate’, it is not whether you deliver enough to compensate for what you take, it is whether you tackle the problems that humanity and our earth faces in a way that makes business sense.”
Jan Peter Balkenende - Partner EY, Professor Erasmus University Rotterdam and former Prime minister of the Netherlands.
Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal 55
The SDGs provide guidance for companies to increase their positive impact and to mitigate their negative impacts. They also offer opportunities to collaborate with stakeholders and intensify and strengthen the relationship between companies and their stakeholders. After all, the shared objective and vision is clear. From a macro-economic perspective, the problems this planet is facing cannot be solved without the contribution of the business community. The business community does not only have an impact on trends like global warming, loss of biodiversity and scarcity of raw materials, vice versa these trends have an impact on the performance and continuity of the business community.
6.3 Analysis of the SDGs in the Transparency Benchmark 2016
This year, the e-tool of the self-assessment incorporated a question regarding the SDGs. The question prompted companies to indicate the extent to which they were acquainted with the Sustainable Development Goals. An analysis of the answers provided reveals the following:
Companies were given the opportunity to check multiple possible answers regarding the questions on the SDGs. In total, 127 companies answered the question, and 132 answers where given.
Hundred different companies stated that they are acquainted with the SDGs. Of these 100, almost 50% indicated that not only are they acquainted with the SDGs, but they have also taken the first steps to adopt them or have the ambition to do so. About 12% pointed out that despite being aware of the SDGs, they have trouble espousing and aligning them with their organizational strategy. Some of the companies that indicated an ambition to start working with the SDGs also expressed difficulties in translating the SDGs into their corporate strategy. The main takeaway of this question is that the majority of the companies is acquainted with the SDGs. However, while some frontrunners seem to already be able, or willing to work with the SDGs, the primary difficulty lies in the practical translation of the SDGs to business strategies. In order to
0
10
20
30
40
I am not familiarwith the SDGs
We are familiar withthe SDGs but haveno ambitions to adopt SDGs in the near future
We are familiar withthe SDGs but we havetrouble adopting and
aligning the SDGswith our company
strategy
We are familiar withthe SDGs and we havetaken (the �rst) steps
towards adopting SDGs
We are failiar withthe SDGs and we
have the ambitions to start working with
the SDGs
Use of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)(Analysis based on 127 respondents)
3233
15
29
23
Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal56
0 40 80 120 160
We are familiar with the SDGs and we have the ambitions to start working with the SDGs
We are familiar with the SDGs and we havetaken (the �rst) steps towards adopting SDGs
We are familiar with the SDGs but we havetrouble adopting and aligning
the SDGs with our company strategy
We are familiar with the SDGs but haveno ambitions to adopt SDGs in the near future
I am not familiar with the SDGs 100
120
139
124
149
Average scores of organizations with di erent answers
provide these companies with more guidance regarding the possible use of the SDGs we’ve dedicated one subchapter to the implementation of the SDGs. Next to looking at the general picture we have also zoomed into the top 20 of the Transparency Benchmark, which provided contrasting insights. Within the top 20, 40% indicated to be familiar with the SDGs and having the ambition to start working with them. Furthermore, 47% stated that they have already taken first steps towards their adoption in practice. None of the companies in the top 20 indicated not being aware of the SDGs, or not having any ambition to adopt them.
Finally, we have looked at the average scores of the companies, provinding some answer to this specific question. What we can derive from this is that those companies indicating familiarity with the SDGs and stating to at least have the ambition to start working with them, obtained a higher average score than companies that indicated that they are not familiar with the SDGs, or do not have the ambition to adopt them in the near future. What stands out even more is that companies that indicated that they have the ambition to adopt the SDG’s obtained a higher average score than the companies that indicated that they already adopted the SDGs.
Analysis SDGs leaders Transparency Benchmark ladder(In total 15 out of the 20 leaders have answered the questions regarding the SDGs)
40%
47%
13%We are familiar with the SDGs and we have the ambitions to start working with the SDGs
We are familiar with the SDGs and we have taken (the �rst) steps towards adopting SDGs
We are familiar with the SDGs but we have trouble adopting and aligning the SDGs with our company strategy
We are familiar with the SDGs but have no ambitions to adopt SDGs in the near future
I am not familiar with the SDGs
Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal 57
6.4 How to implement the SDGs
As mentioned before, although the SDGs, derive from the MDGs they have a broader variety of impact areas. The number of objectives has more than doubled and the challenges they address have been selected based on their increased importance. At first glance this suggests also an increased complexity. Therefore, and especially for the business community, the UN set up SDG 17 (Partnership for the goals) to encourage collaboration between companies and governments in order to give meaning to the SDGs and potentiate their success. Many companies have already integrated corporate responsibility, value creation and realised impact within their reporting. Albeit valuable, this could also make it challenging to integrate the SDGs as yet another component. In order to provide companies with more insight in how the SDGs could be embedded into the corporate strategy, the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, the UN Global Compact and the Global Reporting Initiative established the SDG Compass. The SDG Compass includes a roadmap which facilitates the integration of the SDGs into the existing reporting frameworks, for more information on the SDG Compass see: http://sdgcompass.org/.
1. Understanding the SDGsAs a first step, companies are assisted in familiarizing themselves with the SDGs.
2. Defining PrioritiesTo seize the most important business opportunities presented by the SDGs and reduce risks, companies are encouraged to define their priorities based on an assessment of their positive and negative, current and potential impact on the SDGs across their value chains.
3. Setting goalsGoal setting is critical to business success and helps foster shared priorities and better performance across the company. By aligning company goals with the SDGs, the leadership can demonstrate its commitment to sustainable development
4. IntegratingIntegrating sustainability into the core business and governance, and embedding sustainable development targets across all functions within the company, is key to achieving set goals. To pursue shared objectives or address systemic challenges, companies increasingly engage in partner-ships across the value chain, within their sector or with governments and civil society company.
5. Reporting & communicating The SDGs enable companies to report information on sustainable development performance using common indicators and a shared set of priorities. The SDG Compass encourages companies to build the SDGs into their communication and reporting with stakeholders.
Analysis SDGs leaders Transparency Benchmark ladder(In total 15 out of the 20 leaders have answered the questions regarding the SDGs)
40%
47%
13%We are familiar with the SDGs and we have the ambitions to start working with the SDGs
We are familiar with the SDGs and we have taken (the �rst) steps towards adopting SDGs
We are familiar with the SDGs but we have trouble adopting and aligning the SDGs with our company strategy
We are familiar with the SDGs but have no ambitions to adopt SDGs in the near future
I am not familiar with the SDGs
Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal58
6.5 Opportunities and challenges
In contrast to many other guidelines, the SDGs provide opportunities, especially for companies without experience in CR reporting, due to their nature and structure. Each SDG has been designed following a specific structure (objectives – targets – KPIs), whereby inexperienced companies are able to begin with an empty ‘canvas’ and then select those SDGs most relevant for their company. In this way, it is possible to create an integrated vision within your company regarding the SDGs in with relative ease. Nonetheless, a company should select the most appropriate method for identifying its material topics that can then be associated with one or multiple SDGs.
For companies with a better understanding of CR reporting, it can be challenging to bridge the gap between their current reporting structure and a proper implementation of the SDGs. Material topics that are measurable for a company (such as CO2 emissions), can be translated to one of the SDGs more easily. This exercise becomes more complex for companies that have long focused on providing as clear an image as possible of their individual material themes, resulting in
wide and very specific range of the associated KPIs. In such cases a company might want to think about restructuring such fragmented pieces of information to subsequently regroup them under the most relevant SDG. This is a challenge that may be faced by most leaders. The success of the SDGs depends on the extent to which the business community adopts them in their daily operations. The SDGs can inspire companies to set targets on sustainable development. By setting specific, measurable and timely non-financial targets a company can improve their business success and it helps to foster shared priorities and better performance across the company. By aligning company goals with the SDGs, the leadership can demonstrate its commitment to sustainable development. Due to the fact that more and more companies are committing themselves to the SDGs, it becomes more valuable for other companies to report on the SDGs. By using the SDGs as a communal language companies are able to compare and distinguish themselves with and from other companies.
“The principle of common but differentiated responsibilites is the bedrock of our enterprise for a sustainable world”
Narendra Modi - Indian Prime Minister
Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal 59
6.6 Best practices
Although the SDGs have been introduced as of last year, there are some pioneering companies that already adopted the SDGs within their corporate strategies. In this chapter we will provide insight into ways these companies have adopted the SDGs and translated them into their business- or value creation models.
The company in the first example identified its material themes and then linked them to the corresponding SDGs. Rather than including the complete set of SDGs in its model, this company has opted for linking only those SDGs most relevant to its material topics. Moreover, some SDG’s (For example SDG 8 – Decent Work & Economic Growth) are linked to more than one material topic, meaning that multiple material topics can have impact, positive or negative, on one indivi-dual SDG simultaneously.
The second example illustrates a more pragmatic approach to SDGs commitments. This company has selected 5 SDGs and chose the most relevant sub targets linked to each of the SDGs. For some of these targets the companies has then identified the impact they could and/or aim to have. The selected targets were adopted by the company as the means to contribute to the SDGs.
Although the direct link with material topics or the strategy is not made clear by this company, this approach also has a couple of advantages. This company is able to provide a clear insight into the direct impact of the company on these particular targets. This can be made very concrete and can be elaborated on a strategic level. Another advantage is the fact that the progress on these targets is very easy to monitor by stakeholders, due to the fact that the ambitions regarding the targets are very clear.
The company in the third and last example has chosen to link the SDGs with the different business units. This has advantages when the different business units are spread across different geographical regions. Every business unit is able to establish their own SDG agenda and will be able to investigate their local impact on the selected SDGs.
Example 1: The SDGs linked to material themes
Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal60
Finding the right balance between providing information and summarizing the relevant SDGs, can be challenging for many companies. Altogether, the SDGs help form an international ambition or a shared vision in which companies are able to shape their impact on this planet, without losing the legitimacy of companies out of sight.
Example 2: Selection of the SDGs and the impact on these SDGs by the company
Example 3: A selection of relevant SDGs per business unit
Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal 61
7 Appendices7.1 New participating companies
In 2013 the Ministry of Economic Affairs has decided to expand the research group of the Transparency Benchmark every year, with the ultimate goal to include the 600 largest companies of the Netherlands. In 2016 this has resulted in in 69 new participants, of which 2 companies partici-pated voluntary this year. The table below shows the new participants and in which sector they operate.
New Participant Sector
Air Products Nederland B.V. Industrial products
AS Adventure Holding B.V. Retail
B. Braun Medical B.V. Industrial products
Baker Hughes (Nederland) B.V. Trading
Batenburg Techniek N.V. Industrial products
BEE Holding B.V. Services
Beheer- en Beleggingsmaatschappij Zandbergen B.V.
Trading
Brand Loyalty Group B.V. Services
Brenntag Nederland B.V. Trading
Brihold B.V. Construction and maritime
Brokking's Beheer B.V. Trading
Cefetra B.V. Trading
Chios Investments B.V. Media and communications
Citco Bank Nederland N.V. Banking and insurance
New Participant Sector
CNH Industrial N.V. Industrial products
Cnova N.V. Retail
Constellium N.V. Industrial products
Coolblue Holding B.V. Retail
Coöperatieve Vereniging Beko U.A. Trading
Corendon Holding B.V. Services
CWT B.V. Services
Dajesh B.V. Other
Darling International NL Holdings B.V. Consumer products
DAS Nederlandse Rechtsbijstand Verzekeringmaatschappij N.V.
Banking and insurance
Deen Holding Hoorn B.V. Retail
Diversey Europe Operations B.V. Services
Eastman Chemical B.V. Trading
ECCO EMEA B.V. Retail
Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal62
New Participant Sector
Euronext N.V. Services
Flow Traders N.V. Services
Fokker Technologies Group B.V. Industrial products
Fondel Holding B.V. Trading
Fortuna Entertainment Group N.V. Other
GrandVision N.V. Retail
GustoMSC Investments B.V. Construction and maritime
H.J. Heinz Supply Chain Europe B.V. Trading
Hametha B.V. Services
Holland Colours N.V. Industrial products
Home Credit B.V. Services
Regionale Ontwikkelingsmaatschappij InnovationQuarter B.V.
Services
Juniper Networks International B.V. Technology
Kiadis Pharma N.V. Pharmaceuticals
Koninklijke Coöperatieve Bloemenveiling FloraHolland U.A.
Trading
Lucas Bols N.V. Real estate
Nord Gold N.V. Other
Oilinvest (Netherlands) B.V. Energy, oil and gas
Ovostar Union N.V. Retail
Paridaans en Liebregts B.V. Real estate
Peterson Control Union Group B.V. Construction and maritime
PP Groep Katwijk B.V. Trading
Qiagen N.V. Pharmaceuticals
RLG Europe B.V. Trading
New Participant Sector
Royal Reesink N.V. Trading
Saba Statia Cable Sysytem B.V. Technology
SAP Nederland B.V. Technology
Schoeller Allibert Holding B.V. Industrial products
Scotch & Soda N.V. Retail
Shine 1 B.V. Other
STMicroelectronics N.V. Industrial products
SUEZ Recycling & Recovery Netherlands B.V.
Services
Tauw Groep BV Services
Tesla Motors Netherlands B.V. Retail
Trimble Europe B.V. Trading
Triodos Bank N.V. Banking and insurance
Van Rooi Meat B.V. Real estate
VvAA groep B.V. Banking and insurance
Wensink Automotive B.V. Trading
VvAA groep B.V. Banken & Verzekeraars
Wensink Automotive B.V. Handelsmaatschappij
Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal 63
7.2 Dutch companies with an international group report
Companies in the participants group, which are part of a multinational company and do not provide public accounting information on the Dutch activities were placed in the category ‘companies with zero scores’ until 2013. This classification was based on the consideration that if a company 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 company. As of 2013, it is possible for these companies to choose a separate arrangement. According to this special arrangement these companys are not displayed on the ranking of the Transparency Benchmark. Instead, these companies 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 fulfil at least a minimum amount of criteria. These criteria can be found on the website of the Transparency Benchmark (www.transparantiebenchmark.nl/en). A company will be included in the Transparency benchmark as an company with zero score if the company fails to fulfil the required criteria for the arrangement concerning the international group report. In total 26 companies (2015: 24 companies) participated in the group report arrangement.
Companies
Abbott Healthcare Products B.V.
ASICS Europe B.V.
Astellas B.V.
Atos Origin Nederland B.V.
BASF Nederland B.V.
BP Nederland Holdings B.V.
Capgemini N.V.
CNH Industrial N.V.
Coca-Cola Ent. Nederl. B.V.
Ericsson Holding Int. B.V.
Essent
GDF Suez
IBM Nederland BV
Companies
Koninklijke Grolsch N.V.
Metro Distributie Nederland B.V.
Neste Netherlands B.V.
Nestlé Nederland B.V.
Nike Eur. Operat. Neth. B.V.
Nord Gold N.V.
Nuon Energie N.V.
Sodexo Nederland B.V.
STMicroelectronics N.V.
Teijin Aramid B.V.
T-Mobile
TUI Nederland
Uniper Benelux
Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal64
7.3 Foreign Public Interest Entities (PIE)
The Autoriteit Financiële Markten (AFM) in the Netherlands indicates Public Interest Entities as follows: “A public interest entity is an organization or institution whose size or function for the social and economic markets is of such a nature that an inadequate executed regulatory audit of the financial accounts can have a substantial influence on the trust of the public function of an assurance report”. The following organizations are marked as PIE’s: legal entities located in the Netherlands with securities are traded on a regulated market, this includes banks with domiciled in the Netherlands, credit institutions based in the Netherlands, insurers based in the Netherlands and organizations which are appointed as PIE’s by the government.
Opposite of previous years, this year we found that six organizations, which are marked as Public Interest Entities, are not active in the Netherlands. These organizations are based in the Netherlands but their shares are not traded on the Dutch stock exchange. Of these six organizations, three companies participated within the international group arrangement. The other three organizations did not comply with the criteria of the group arrangement. These companies are included in the overview below, they will not receive a Benchmark score.
Foreign Public Interest Entities
Fortuna Entertainment Group N.V.
Ovostar Union N.V.
Qiagen N.V.
Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal 65
Companies
Connexxion
Coolblue Holding B.V.
Coöperatieve Vereniging Beko U.A.
Copaco Nederland B.V.
Corendon Holding B.V.
CRH Nederland B.V.
CWT B.V.
DAF Trucks N.V.
Dajesh B.V.
Darling International NL Holdings B.V.
De Hoop Terneuzen B.V.
De Kon. Nederlandse Munt N.V.
De MandemakersGroep Holding B.V.
De Nederlandse Energie Maatschappij B.V.
Deen Holding Hoorn B.V.
Dell Global B.V.
Denkavit Internationaal B.V.
Denso Int. Europe B.V.
Detailresult Groep N.V.
Diversey Europe Operations B.V.
Dutch Flower Group B.V.
Eastman Chemical B.V.
Companies
ECCO EMEA B.V.
EEA Helicopter Operations B.V.
EFR Nederland B.V.
Elopak B.V.
Enviem Holding B.V.
Epson Europe B.V.
Equens SE
Esso Benelux B.V.
Eur. Container Terminals B.V.
Ewals Holdings B.V.
Flowserve
Fokker Technologies Group B.V.
Fondel Holding B.V.
Foot Locker Europe B.V.
FUJIFILM Europe B.V.
Fujitsu Technology Solutions (Holding) B.V.
Gaiwin B.V.
Glencore Grain B.V.
Global City Holdings N.V.
GustoMSC Investments B.V.
H.J. Heinz Supply Chain Europe B.V.
H.L. Barentz B.V.
7.4 Companies with zero points awarded
This year are 213 companies categorized as ‘companies with zero score’.
Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal66
Companies
Hager-Minnema-Hutten Beheer B.V.
Hametha B.V.
Handelsveem Beheer
Hertel Holding B.V.
Hewlett-Packard The Hague B.V.
Hexion B.V.
Hitachi Machinery N.V.
Holiday Holding Rotterdam B.V.
Honeywell Netherl. Hold. B.V.
Hoogvliet B.V.
Hoogwegt Groep B.V.
Huawei Technologies Coöperatief U.A.
Hunter Douglas N.V.
Huntsman Investments (Netherlands) B.V.
Hurks groep
Hyva Group B.V.
IMCD Holding B.V.
Inalfa Roof Systems Group B.V.
Ingram Micro
Interfood Holding
Intergamma B.V.
International Flavors & Fragrances I.F.F. (Nederland) B.V.
Inter-Sprint Banden
INVISTA B.V.
Companies
JACOBS DOUWE EGBERTS B.V.
Juniper Networks International B.V.
Koninklijke De Heus B.V.
Koninklijke Distill. Dirkzwager B.V.
Koninklijke Wagenborg
Koninklijke Wegener N.V.
Koninklijke Zeelandia Groep B.V.
Kuehne + Nagel N.V.
Kuwait Petroleum B.V.
KYOCERA Document Solutions Europe B.V.
Lekkerland Beheer
Liberty Global Holding B.V.
Loders Croklaan Group B.V.
Lohomij B.V.
Loyens & Loeff N.V.
LyondellBasell Industries N.V.
Maasland N.V.
Manpower Nederland B.V.
Markeur
Mars Nederland B.V.
Maxeda Nederland B.V.
MCB International B.V.
Mead Johnson B.V.
Meatpoint B.V.
Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal 67
Companies
Mediq
Mercedes-Benz Nederland B.V.
Merck Sharp & Dohme B.V.
Milkiland N.V.
Mitsubishi Motors Europe B.V.
Mosadex
Mota-Engil Africa N.V.
N.V. Deli Maatschappij
Nedfast Holding B.V.
NetApp & Manufacturing
Nokia Solutions and Networks B.V.
NVDU Acquisition B.V.
Office Depot International
Oilinvest (Netherlands) B.V.
Omron Europe B.V.
Optiver Holding B.V.
Oracle Nederland B.V.
Otra N.V.
Oxbow Netherlands Coöperatieve U.A.
P.L. v. Merksteijn Hold. B.V.
Paridaans en Liebregts B.V.
Peterson Control Union Group B.V.
Peugeot Nederland N.V.
PGA Nederland N.V.
Companies
Philip Morris Holland B.V.
Plantronics B.V.
Plukon Food Group
Poiesz Beheer B.V.
Pon Holdings B.V.
PP Groep Katwijk B.V.
Raben Netherlands BV
Remeha Group B.V.
Retailcom Beheer B.V.
RFS Holland Holding B.V.
Ricoh Europe SCM B.V.
RLG Europe B.V.
Roba
Rockwell Automation B.V.
Saba Statia Cable Sysytem B.V.
SABIC International Holdings B.V.
Samskip
Samsung Electronics Benelux B.V.
Sanoma Magazines B.V.
SAP Nederland B.V.
Schoeller Allibert Holding B.V.
Scotch & Soda N.V.
Sensata Technol. Holding N.V.
Shine 1 B.V.
Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal68
Companies
SIHI Group B.V.
Smartwares B.V.
SPAR Holding B.V.
SPIE Nederland B.V.
St. Clair/ De Bijenkorf
Stichting Nederlandse Publieke Omroep
Stolt Tankers
Stork
Swarovski (Europe) Holding B.V.
Sweco Nederland BV
Synbra Holding B.V.
Tata Steel Nederland B.V.
Tech Data Nederland B.V.
Terberg Group B.V.
Tesla Motors Netherlands B.V.
Tetra Laval Holdings B.V.
Theobroma B.V.
Thomas Cook Nederland B.V.
Toshiba Medical Systems Europe B.V.
TOTAL Nederland N.V.
TP Vision Europe B.V.
Transm. and Engineer. Services Netherl.
Trimble Europe B.V.
Unit 4 N.V.
Companies
United Parcel Service Nederland B.V.
Universal Cargo Logistics
Van den Ban Autobanden B.V.
Van Rooi Meat B.V.
Voestalpine Automotive Netherlands Holding B.V.
Vroegop Ruhe & Co. B.V.
Vroon Offshore B.V.
Wavin N.V.
WE Europe B.V.
Wensink Automotive B.V.
Xerox Investments Europe
Xylem Water Solutions Nederland B.V.
Yamaha Motor Europe N.V.
Yanmar Europe
Yara Sluiskil B.V.
This is a publication of
the Ministry of Economic Affairs, The Hague.
Do you have any comments or feedback?
Please send your 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 Affairs and
the Netherlands Institute for Chartered Accountants (NBA)
Project team 2016:
EZ: Saskia Böttcher, Rob Overkleeft
NBA: Paul Hurks
www.transparantiebenchmark.nl/en
Directorate-General for Enterprise & Innovation
Bezuidenhoutseweg 73
Postbus 20401
2500 EK | ’s-Gravenhage
Internet: www.rijksoverheid.nl/ez
November 2016 | Publication-nr. 96469