Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Transparency Benchmark 2017The Crystal 2017
In cooperation with the Netherlands Institute of Chartered Accountants (NBA)
Transparency Benchmark 2017 The Crystal 2017 1
Transparency Benchmark 2017The Crystal 2017
In cooperation with the Netherlands Institute of Chartered Accountants (NBA)
Transparency Benchmark 2017 The Crystal 20172
1 The Transparency Benchmark LadderThe Transparency Benchmark Ladder provides an overview of the total scores of the participating organizations, including the sub scores concerning 8 different criteria categories. The organizations that are included in the Transparency Benchmark are ranked in five different groups: Frontrunners, Followers, Peloton, Laggards and organizations with zero scores.
Category Transparency ladder 2017 Ranking positions
Leaders 001 - 021
Followers 022 - 070
Peloton 071 - 225
Laggards 226 - 253
Organizations with zero scores 254 - 477
Transparency Benchmark 2017 The Crystal 2017 3
■ 1 - Company and Business model ■ 2 - Policy and results ■ 3 - Management approach ■ 4 - Relevance ■ 5 - Clearness ■ 6 - Reliability ■ 7 - Responsiveness ■ 8 - Coherence
The Transparency Benchmark Ladder
0 50 100 150 200
Copaco Nederland B.V.Detailresult Groep N.V.
Van Leeuwen Buizen Groep B.VSchoeller Allibert Holding B.V.
SHV Holdings N.V.Van Wijnen Groep N.V.
Scholten AwaterCitco Bank Nederland N.V.
MonutaHoredo/Rensa
IMC TradingThe Royal Bank of Scotland
FagronKiadis Pharma N.V.
Sif Holding N.V.Kramp Groep B.V.
VDL GroepOranjewoud N.V.Brocacef Holding
Janssen De Jong Groep B.V.Takeaway.com N.V.
TMF Group Holding B.V.Home Credit B.V.
HDI-Gerling Verzekeringen N.V.Koninklijke Ten Cate N.V.
Constellium N.V.Vimetco N.V.
ProbiodrugDe Goudse N.V.
Audax B.V.Catom Enterprises B.V.
Zorg en Zekerheid GroepValue8
EXOR N.V.AerCap Holdings N.V.
de Persgroep Nederland B.V.Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen
Open UniversiteitAPG
Delta N.V.O.W.M. DSW Zorgverzekeraar UAErasmus Universiteit Ro�erdam
Intertrust N.V.Broekhuis Holding
X5 Retail Group N.V.Action Service & Distributie
Ultra-Centrifuge Ned. N.V.Avans Hogeschool
GALAPAGOSCimpress
CZAVCoöperatie Univé U.A.
Kardan N.V.MCB International B.V.
Batenburg Techniek N.V.Heerema Marine Contractors Holding Nederland B.V.
Credit Europe Bank N.V.Hurks groepDPA GROUP
Nieuwe Steen invBlokker Holding B.V.
Hoogvliet B.V.WDP
Neways Electronics International N.V.Euronext N.V.
VUmcBasic-Fit N.V.
Koninklijke Grolsch N.V.DAS Nederlandse Rechtsbijstand Verzekeringmaatschappij N.V.
Caldic B.V.Yarden Holding B.V.
Coolblue Holding B.V.Universiteit van Tilburg
Nedap N.V.Binckbank
Lucas Bols N.V.Stichting Espria
Koninklijke Coöperatie Cosun U.A.Nyenrode
Vrije UniversiteitAirbus Group N.V.Unica Groep B.V.
Flow Traders N.V.Louis Dreyfus
Academisch Medisch CentrumUniversiteit van Amsterdam
AMG Advanced Metallurg. Gr. NVMaastricht UMC+
ALTICEDura Vermeer Groep
OCILeasePlan Corporation N.V.
Centric Holding B.V.Forbo Flooring B.V.
ICT AutomatiseringRefresco Group N.V.
Eurocommercial PropertiesONVZ Ziektekostenverzekeraar N.V.
A.S. Watson Health & Beauty Benelux B.V.Tata Steel Nederland B.V.
TomTom N.V.Coöperatie AVEBE U.A.
Ballast Nedam N.V.Technische Universiteit Del�
Aalberts Industries N.V.Leids Universitair Medisch Centrum
Robeco Institutional Asset Management B.V.SPIE Nederland B.V.
The Greenery B.V.Tele2 Netherlands Holding N.V.Amsterdam Commodities N.V.
Universiteit UtrechtErasmus MC
Wi�eveen+BosBavaria N.V.
Stichting Exploitatie Nederlandse StaatsloterijSTMicroelectronics N.V.
Ingka Holding B.V.Beter Bed Holding N.V.
Damen Shipyards Group N.V.Farm Frites Beheer B.V.
Fugro N.V.BE Semiconductor Indus. N.V.
AperamUniversiteit Twente
Holland CasinoVos Logistics Beheer B.V.
ForFarmers N.V.Coop Holding
Universiteit LeidenBrunel International N.V.
Vebego International N.V.Van Oord
IHC Merwede Holding B.V.Universiteit Maastricht
Unibail RodamcoThales Nederland
PGGMRenewi
Ontwikkelingsmaatschappij Oost Nederland NVVION Holding N.V.
Wereldhave Manag. Holding B.V.Koninklijke Vopak N.V.
Gemalto N.V.PLUS Holding B.V.
Stern Groep N.V.Royal HaskoningDHV
Sligro Food Group N.V.Royal Dutch Shell
Agri�rm Group B.V.Deloi�e Holding B.V.
Vastned Retail N.V.VvAA groep B.V.
Rijksuniversiteit GroningenHEMA
ANWB B.V.Jumbo Groep Holding B.V.
GVB AmsterdamAccell Group
Plukon Food GroupWolters Kluwer N.V.
Perfe�i v. MelleRegionale Ontwikkelingsmaatschappij InnovationQuarter B.V.
BidfoodAtradius N.V.
RadboudumcKas Bank N.V.
SUEZ Recycling & Recovery Netherlands B.V.Arcadis N.V.
GrandVision N.V.Vreugdenhil Groep B.V.Industriebank LIOF N.V.
RELX Group N.V.VimpelCom Ltd.
Royal FloraHollandASM International N.V.
Dela Coöperatie U.A.Zeeman Groep B.V.
Corbion N.V.UMC Utrecht
TNOTriodos Bank N.V.
TMG - Telegraaf Media GroepKPMG N.V.
Universitair Medisch Centrum GroningenRandstad Holding N.V.
Wageningen University & ResearchASML
NIBC Bank N.V.GasTerra B.V.
Brab. Ontw. Maatschappij N.V.Koninklijke FrieslandCampina N.V.
Koninklijke Ahold Delhaize N.V.VanDrie Group
Coöperatie VGZ U.A.ProRail B.V.
MNQ-Park NV
JuvaTBI Holdings
Facilicom Services GroupTKH Group N.V.
CZ groepN.V. HVC
Holding Nationale Goede Doelen Loterijen N.V.Koninklijke Wessanen N.V.
SBM O¢shoreASR Nederland N.V.
Koninklijke Boskalis Westminster N.V.NV NOM Investerings- en Ontwikkelingsmaatschappij voor Noord-Nederland
Ordina N.V.Albron Nederland B.V.
Vivat VerzekeringenAir France - KLM
VolkerWesselsMenzis Holding B.V.
Kendrion N.V.NN GROUP
AchmeaHeineken N.V.
PricewaterhouseCoopersAegon N.V.
PostNLEBN
Unilever N.V.Nederlandse Waterschapsbank NV
Delta Lloyd GroepDe Nederlandsche Bank N.V.
Koninklijke Philips N.V.Ernst & Young Nederland
COVRA NVING Groep
Bank Ned. Gemeenten N.V.Philips Lighting N.V.
de Volksbank N.V.Enexis Holding N.V.
HeijmansAKZO Nobel N.V.
Nederlandse Financierings-Maatschappij voor Ontwikkelingslanden NVDSM N.V.
RabobankKPN
Vitens N.V.ABN AMRO Group N.V.Van Lanschot Bankiers
Nederlandse Gasunie N.V.TenneT Holding B.V.
NSHavenbedrijf Ro�erdam N.V.
Siemens NederlandSchiphol Group
Alliander N.V.Royal BAM Group
LEAD
ERS
FOLLO
WER
SFO
LLOW
ERS
PELOTO
NPELO
TON
PELOTO
NLA
GG
AR
DS
199198197196195195194194193193192191191191191190189188188188188187187187187186185185185185184184184183183183182180180179179179178178178177176176175175175174173173173172172171171171169168168168165165164163162161161159159159159156156155154152152152152147146146146144143143142141139139138137137136135134134133133132132131131131131130129128128128127124123122122120119119118118117117115114114112112112112108108105105102101100999892919088888887868585838382817975747372727271717170696969696963636161605959595857575656555554545352524847464646464645454444444443434242424242404039393837363434343333303028282626262525242422212120191918168777444332
| 001| 002| 003| 004| 005| 006| 007| 008| 009| 010| 011| 012| 013| 014| 015| 016| 017| 018| 019| 020| 021| 022| 022| 022| 022| 026| 027| 027| 027| 027| 031| 031| 031| 034| 034| 034| 037| 038| 038| 040| 040| 040| 043| 043| 043| 046| 047| 047| 049| 049| 049| 052| 053| 053| 053| 056| 056| 058| 058| 058| 061| 062| 062| 062| 065| 065| 067| 068| 069| 070| 070| 072| 072| 072| 072| 076| 076| 078| 079| 080| 080| 080| 080| 084| 085| 085| 085| 088| 089| 089| 091| 092| 093| 093| 095| 096| 096| 098| 099| 100| 100| 102| 102| 104| 104| 106| 106| 106| 106| 110| 111| 112| 112| 112| 115| 116| 117| 118| 118| 120| 121| 121| 123| 123| 125| 125| 127| 128| 128| 130| 130| 130| 130| 134| 134| 136| 136| 138| 139| 140| 141| 142| 143| 144| 145| 146| 146| 146| 149| 150| 151| 151| 153| 153| 155| 156| 157| 158| 159| 160| 161| 161| 161| 164| 164| 164| 167| 168| 168| 168| 168| 168| 173| 173| 175| 175| 177| 178| 178| 178| 181| 182| 182| 184| 184| 186| 186| 188| 188| 190| 191| 191| 193| 194| 195| 195| 195| 195| 195| 200| 200| 202| 202| 202| 202| 206| 206| 208| 208| 208| 208| 208| 213| 213| 215| 215| 217| 218| 219| 220| 220| 220| 223| 223| 225| 225| 227| 227| 229| 229| 229| 232| 232| 234| 234| 236| 237| 237| 239| 240| 240| 242| 243| 244| 245| 245| 245| 248| 248| 248| 251| 251| 253
0 50 100 150 200
Organization Pos. Cat. Total score
Transparency Benchmark 2017 The Crystal 20174
■ 1 - Company and Business model ■ 2 - Policy and results ■ 3 - Management approach ■ 4 - Relevance ■ 5 - Clearness ■ 6 - Reliability ■ 7 - Responsiveness ■ 8 - Coherence
0 50 100 150 200
Copaco Nederland B.V.Detailresult Groep N.V.
Van Leeuwen Buizen Groep B.VSchoeller Allibert Holding B.V.
SHV Holdings N.V.Van Wijnen Groep N.V.
Scholten AwaterCitco Bank Nederland N.V.
MonutaHoredo/Rensa
IMC TradingThe Royal Bank of Scotland
FagronKiadis Pharma N.V.
Sif Holding N.V.Kramp Groep B.V.
VDL GroepOranjewoud N.V.Brocacef Holding
Janssen De Jong Groep B.V.Takeaway.com N.V.
TMF Group Holding B.V.Home Credit B.V.
HDI-Gerling Verzekeringen N.V.Koninklijke Ten Cate N.V.
Constellium N.V.Vimetco N.V.
ProbiodrugDe Goudse N.V.
Audax B.V.Catom Enterprises B.V.
Zorg en Zekerheid GroepValue8
EXOR N.V.AerCap Holdings N.V.
de Persgroep Nederland B.V.Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen
Open UniversiteitAPG
Delta N.V.O.W.M. DSW Zorgverzekeraar UAErasmus Universiteit Ro�erdam
Intertrust N.V.Broekhuis Holding
X5 Retail Group N.V.Action Service & Distributie
Ultra-Centrifuge Ned. N.V.Avans Hogeschool
GALAPAGOSCimpress
CZAVCoöperatie Univé U.A.
Kardan N.V.MCB International B.V.
Batenburg Techniek N.V.Heerema Marine Contractors Holding Nederland B.V.
Credit Europe Bank N.V.Hurks groepDPA GROUP
Nieuwe Steen invBlokker Holding B.V.
Hoogvliet B.V.WDP
Neways Electronics International N.V.Euronext N.V.
VUmcBasic-Fit N.V.
Koninklijke Grolsch N.V.DAS Nederlandse Rechtsbijstand Verzekeringmaatschappij N.V.
Caldic B.V.Yarden Holding B.V.
Coolblue Holding B.V.Universiteit van Tilburg
Nedap N.V.Binckbank
Lucas Bols N.V.Stichting Espria
Koninklijke Coöperatie Cosun U.A.Nyenrode
Vrije UniversiteitAirbus Group N.V.Unica Groep B.V.
Flow Traders N.V.Louis Dreyfus
Academisch Medisch CentrumUniversiteit van Amsterdam
AMG Advanced Metallurg. Gr. NVMaastricht UMC+
ALTICEDura Vermeer Groep
OCILeasePlan Corporation N.V.
Centric Holding B.V.Forbo Flooring B.V.
ICT AutomatiseringRefresco Group N.V.
Eurocommercial PropertiesONVZ Ziektekostenverzekeraar N.V.
A.S. Watson Health & Beauty Benelux B.V.Tata Steel Nederland B.V.
TomTom N.V.Coöperatie AVEBE U.A.
Ballast Nedam N.V.Technische Universiteit Del�
Aalberts Industries N.V.Leids Universitair Medisch Centrum
Robeco Institutional Asset Management B.V.SPIE Nederland B.V.
The Greenery B.V.Tele2 Netherlands Holding N.V.Amsterdam Commodities N.V.
Universiteit UtrechtErasmus MC
Wi�eveen+BosBavaria N.V.
Stichting Exploitatie Nederlandse StaatsloterijSTMicroelectronics N.V.
Ingka Holding B.V.Beter Bed Holding N.V.
Damen Shipyards Group N.V.Farm Frites Beheer B.V.
Fugro N.V.BE Semiconductor Indus. N.V.
AperamUniversiteit Twente
Holland CasinoVos Logistics Beheer B.V.
ForFarmers N.V.Coop Holding
Universiteit LeidenBrunel International N.V.
Vebego International N.V.Van Oord
IHC Merwede Holding B.V.Universiteit Maastricht
Unibail RodamcoThales Nederland
PGGMRenewi
Ontwikkelingsmaatschappij Oost Nederland NVVION Holding N.V.
Wereldhave Manag. Holding B.V.Koninklijke Vopak N.V.
Gemalto N.V.PLUS Holding B.V.
Stern Groep N.V.Royal HaskoningDHV
Sligro Food Group N.V.Royal Dutch Shell
Agri�rm Group B.V.Deloi�e Holding B.V.
Vastned Retail N.V.VvAA groep B.V.
Rijksuniversiteit GroningenHEMA
ANWB B.V.Jumbo Groep Holding B.V.
GVB AmsterdamAccell Group
Plukon Food GroupWolters Kluwer N.V.
Perfe�i v. MelleRegionale Ontwikkelingsmaatschappij InnovationQuarter B.V.
BidfoodAtradius N.V.
RadboudumcKas Bank N.V.
SUEZ Recycling & Recovery Netherlands B.V.Arcadis N.V.
GrandVision N.V.Vreugdenhil Groep B.V.Industriebank LIOF N.V.
RELX Group N.V.VimpelCom Ltd.
Royal FloraHollandASM International N.V.
Dela Coöperatie U.A.Zeeman Groep B.V.
Corbion N.V.UMC Utrecht
TNOTriodos Bank N.V.
TMG - Telegraaf Media GroepKPMG N.V.
Universitair Medisch Centrum GroningenRandstad Holding N.V.
Wageningen University & ResearchASML
NIBC Bank N.V.GasTerra B.V.
Brab. Ontw. Maatschappij N.V.Koninklijke FrieslandCampina N.V.
Koninklijke Ahold Delhaize N.V.VanDrie Group
Coöperatie VGZ U.A.ProRail B.V.
MNQ-Park NV
JuvaTBI Holdings
Facilicom Services GroupTKH Group N.V.
CZ groepN.V. HVC
Holding Nationale Goede Doelen Loterijen N.V.Koninklijke Wessanen N.V.
SBM O¢shoreASR Nederland N.V.
Koninklijke Boskalis Westminster N.V.NV NOM Investerings- en Ontwikkelingsmaatschappij voor Noord-Nederland
Ordina N.V.Albron Nederland B.V.
Vivat VerzekeringenAir France - KLM
VolkerWesselsMenzis Holding B.V.
Kendrion N.V.NN GROUP
AchmeaHeineken N.V.
PricewaterhouseCoopersAegon N.V.
PostNLEBN
Unilever N.V.Nederlandse Waterschapsbank NV
Delta Lloyd GroepDe Nederlandsche Bank N.V.
Koninklijke Philips N.V.Ernst & Young Nederland
COVRA NVING Groep
Bank Ned. Gemeenten N.V.Philips Lighting N.V.
de Volksbank N.V.Enexis Holding N.V.
HeijmansAKZO Nobel N.V.
Nederlandse Financierings-Maatschappij voor Ontwikkelingslanden NVDSM N.V.
RabobankKPN
Vitens N.V.ABN AMRO Group N.V.Van Lanschot Bankiers
Nederlandse Gasunie N.V.TenneT Holding B.V.
NSHavenbedrijf Ro�erdam N.V.
Siemens NederlandSchiphol Group
Alliander N.V.Royal BAM Group
LEAD
ERS
FOLLO
WER
SFO
LLOW
ERS
PELOTO
NPELO
TON
PELOTO
NLA
GG
AR
DS
199198197196195195194194193193192191191191191190189188188188188187187187187186185185185185184184184183183183182180180179179179178178178177176176175175175174173173173172172171171171169168168168165165164163162161161159159159159156156155154152152152152147146146146144143143142141139139138137137136135134134133133132132131131131131130129128128128127124123122122120119119118118117117115114114112112112112108108105105102101100999892919088888887868585838382817975747372727271717170696969696963636161605959595857575656555554545352524847464646464645454444444443434242424242404039393837363434343333303028282626262525242422212120191918168777444332
| 001| 002| 003| 004| 005| 006| 007| 008| 009| 010| 011| 012| 013| 014| 015| 016| 017| 018| 019| 020| 021| 022| 022| 022| 022| 026| 027| 027| 027| 027| 031| 031| 031| 034| 034| 034| 037| 038| 038| 040| 040| 040| 043| 043| 043| 046| 047| 047| 049| 049| 049| 052| 053| 053| 053| 056| 056| 058| 058| 058| 061| 062| 062| 062| 065| 065| 067| 068| 069| 070| 070| 072| 072| 072| 072| 076| 076| 078| 079| 080| 080| 080| 080| 084| 085| 085| 085| 088| 089| 089| 091| 092| 093| 093| 095| 096| 096| 098| 099| 100| 100| 102| 102| 104| 104| 106| 106| 106| 106| 110| 111| 112| 112| 112| 115| 116| 117| 118| 118| 120| 121| 121| 123| 123| 125| 125| 127| 128| 128| 130| 130| 130| 130| 134| 134| 136| 136| 138| 139| 140| 141| 142| 143| 144| 145| 146| 146| 146| 149| 150| 151| 151| 153| 153| 155| 156| 157| 158| 159| 160| 161| 161| 161| 164| 164| 164| 167| 168| 168| 168| 168| 168| 173| 173| 175| 175| 177| 178| 178| 178| 181| 182| 182| 184| 184| 186| 186| 188| 188| 190| 191| 191| 193| 194| 195| 195| 195| 195| 195| 200| 200| 202| 202| 202| 202| 206| 206| 208| 208| 208| 208| 208| 213| 213| 215| 215| 217| 218| 219| 220| 220| 220| 223| 223| 225| 225| 227| 227| 229| 229| 229| 232| 232| 234| 234| 236| 237| 237| 239| 240| 240| 242| 243| 244| 245| 245| 245| 248| 248| 248| 251| 251| 253
0 50 100 150 200
Organization Pos. Cat. Total score
Transparency Benchmark 2017 The Crystal 2017 5
■ 1 - Company and Business model ■ 2 - Policy and results ■ 3 - Management approach ■ 4 - Relevance ■ 5 - Clearness ■ 6 - Reliability ■ 7 - Responsiveness ■ 8 - Coherence
0 50 100 150 200
Copaco Nederland B.V.Detailresult Groep N.V.
Van Leeuwen Buizen Groep B.VSchoeller Allibert Holding B.V.
SHV Holdings N.V.Van Wijnen Groep N.V.
Scholten AwaterCitco Bank Nederland N.V.
MonutaHoredo/Rensa
IMC TradingThe Royal Bank of Scotland
FagronKiadis Pharma N.V.
Sif Holding N.V.Kramp Groep B.V.
VDL GroepOranjewoud N.V.Brocacef Holding
Janssen De Jong Groep B.V.Takeaway.com N.V.
TMF Group Holding B.V.Home Credit B.V.
HDI-Gerling Verzekeringen N.V.Koninklijke Ten Cate N.V.
Constellium N.V.Vimetco N.V.
ProbiodrugDe Goudse N.V.
Audax B.V.Catom Enterprises B.V.
Zorg en Zekerheid GroepValue8
EXOR N.V.AerCap Holdings N.V.
de Persgroep Nederland B.V.Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen
Open UniversiteitAPG
Delta N.V.O.W.M. DSW Zorgverzekeraar UAErasmus Universiteit Ro�erdam
Intertrust N.V.Broekhuis Holding
X5 Retail Group N.V.Action Service & Distributie
Ultra-Centrifuge Ned. N.V.Avans Hogeschool
GALAPAGOSCimpress
CZAVCoöperatie Univé U.A.
Kardan N.V.MCB International B.V.
Batenburg Techniek N.V.Heerema Marine Contractors Holding Nederland B.V.
Credit Europe Bank N.V.Hurks groepDPA GROUP
Nieuwe Steen invBlokker Holding B.V.
Hoogvliet B.V.WDP
Neways Electronics International N.V.Euronext N.V.
VUmcBasic-Fit N.V.
Koninklijke Grolsch N.V.DAS Nederlandse Rechtsbijstand Verzekeringmaatschappij N.V.
Caldic B.V.Yarden Holding B.V.
Coolblue Holding B.V.Universiteit van Tilburg
Nedap N.V.Binckbank
Lucas Bols N.V.Stichting Espria
Koninklijke Coöperatie Cosun U.A.Nyenrode
Vrije UniversiteitAirbus Group N.V.Unica Groep B.V.
Flow Traders N.V.Louis Dreyfus
Academisch Medisch CentrumUniversiteit van Amsterdam
AMG Advanced Metallurg. Gr. NVMaastricht UMC+
ALTICEDura Vermeer Groep
OCILeasePlan Corporation N.V.
Centric Holding B.V.Forbo Flooring B.V.
ICT AutomatiseringRefresco Group N.V.
Eurocommercial PropertiesONVZ Ziektekostenverzekeraar N.V.
A.S. Watson Health & Beauty Benelux B.V.Tata Steel Nederland B.V.
TomTom N.V.Coöperatie AVEBE U.A.
Ballast Nedam N.V.Technische Universiteit Del�
Aalberts Industries N.V.Leids Universitair Medisch Centrum
Robeco Institutional Asset Management B.V.SPIE Nederland B.V.
The Greenery B.V.Tele2 Netherlands Holding N.V.Amsterdam Commodities N.V.
Universiteit UtrechtErasmus MC
Wi�eveen+BosBavaria N.V.
Stichting Exploitatie Nederlandse StaatsloterijSTMicroelectronics N.V.
Ingka Holding B.V.Beter Bed Holding N.V.
Damen Shipyards Group N.V.Farm Frites Beheer B.V.
Fugro N.V.BE Semiconductor Indus. N.V.
AperamUniversiteit Twente
Holland CasinoVos Logistics Beheer B.V.
ForFarmers N.V.Coop Holding
Universiteit LeidenBrunel International N.V.
Vebego International N.V.Van Oord
IHC Merwede Holding B.V.Universiteit Maastricht
Unibail RodamcoThales Nederland
PGGMRenewi
Ontwikkelingsmaatschappij Oost Nederland NVVION Holding N.V.
Wereldhave Manag. Holding B.V.Koninklijke Vopak N.V.
Gemalto N.V.PLUS Holding B.V.
Stern Groep N.V.Royal HaskoningDHV
Sligro Food Group N.V.Royal Dutch Shell
Agri�rm Group B.V.Deloi�e Holding B.V.
Vastned Retail N.V.VvAA groep B.V.
Rijksuniversiteit GroningenHEMA
ANWB B.V.Jumbo Groep Holding B.V.
GVB AmsterdamAccell Group
Plukon Food GroupWolters Kluwer N.V.
Perfe�i v. MelleRegionale Ontwikkelingsmaatschappij InnovationQuarter B.V.
BidfoodAtradius N.V.
RadboudumcKas Bank N.V.
SUEZ Recycling & Recovery Netherlands B.V.Arcadis N.V.
GrandVision N.V.Vreugdenhil Groep B.V.Industriebank LIOF N.V.
RELX Group N.V.VimpelCom Ltd.
Royal FloraHollandASM International N.V.
Dela Coöperatie U.A.Zeeman Groep B.V.
Corbion N.V.UMC Utrecht
TNOTriodos Bank N.V.
TMG - Telegraaf Media GroepKPMG N.V.
Universitair Medisch Centrum GroningenRandstad Holding N.V.
Wageningen University & ResearchASML
NIBC Bank N.V.GasTerra B.V.
Brab. Ontw. Maatschappij N.V.Koninklijke FrieslandCampina N.V.
Koninklijke Ahold Delhaize N.V.VanDrie Group
Coöperatie VGZ U.A.ProRail B.V.
MNQ-Park NV
JuvaTBI Holdings
Facilicom Services GroupTKH Group N.V.
CZ groepN.V. HVC
Holding Nationale Goede Doelen Loterijen N.V.Koninklijke Wessanen N.V.
SBM O¢shoreASR Nederland N.V.
Koninklijke Boskalis Westminster N.V.NV NOM Investerings- en Ontwikkelingsmaatschappij voor Noord-Nederland
Ordina N.V.Albron Nederland B.V.
Vivat VerzekeringenAir France - KLM
VolkerWesselsMenzis Holding B.V.
Kendrion N.V.NN GROUP
AchmeaHeineken N.V.
PricewaterhouseCoopersAegon N.V.
PostNLEBN
Unilever N.V.Nederlandse Waterschapsbank NV
Delta Lloyd GroepDe Nederlandsche Bank N.V.
Koninklijke Philips N.V.Ernst & Young Nederland
COVRA NVING Groep
Bank Ned. Gemeenten N.V.Philips Lighting N.V.
de Volksbank N.V.Enexis Holding N.V.
HeijmansAKZO Nobel N.V.
Nederlandse Financierings-Maatschappij voor Ontwikkelingslanden NVDSM N.V.
RabobankKPN
Vitens N.V.ABN AMRO Group N.V.Van Lanschot Bankiers
Nederlandse Gasunie N.V.TenneT Holding B.V.
NSHavenbedrijf Ro�erdam N.V.
Siemens NederlandSchiphol Group
Alliander N.V.Royal BAM Group
LEAD
ERS
FOLLO
WER
SFO
LLOW
ERS
PELOTO
NPELO
TON
PELOTO
NLA
GG
AR
DS
199198197196195195194194193193192191191191191190189188188188188187187187187186185185185185184184184183183183182180180179179179178178178177176176175175175174173173173172172171171171169168168168165165164163162161161159159159159156156155154152152152152147146146146144143143142141139139138137137136135134134133133132132131131131131130129128128128127124123122122120119119118118117117115114114112112112112108108105105102101100999892919088888887868585838382817975747372727271717170696969696963636161605959595857575656555554545352524847464646464645454444444443434242424242404039393837363434343333303028282626262525242422212120191918168777444332
| 001| 002| 003| 004| 005| 006| 007| 008| 009| 010| 011| 012| 013| 014| 015| 016| 017| 018| 019| 020| 021| 022| 022| 022| 022| 026| 027| 027| 027| 027| 031| 031| 031| 034| 034| 034| 037| 038| 038| 040| 040| 040| 043| 043| 043| 046| 047| 047| 049| 049| 049| 052| 053| 053| 053| 056| 056| 058| 058| 058| 061| 062| 062| 062| 065| 065| 067| 068| 069| 070| 070| 072| 072| 072| 072| 076| 076| 078| 079| 080| 080| 080| 080| 084| 085| 085| 085| 088| 089| 089| 091| 092| 093| 093| 095| 096| 096| 098| 099| 100| 100| 102| 102| 104| 104| 106| 106| 106| 106| 110| 111| 112| 112| 112| 115| 116| 117| 118| 118| 120| 121| 121| 123| 123| 125| 125| 127| 128| 128| 130| 130| 130| 130| 134| 134| 136| 136| 138| 139| 140| 141| 142| 143| 144| 145| 146| 146| 146| 149| 150| 151| 151| 153| 153| 155| 156| 157| 158| 159| 160| 161| 161| 161| 164| 164| 164| 167| 168| 168| 168| 168| 168| 173| 173| 175| 175| 177| 178| 178| 178| 181| 182| 182| 184| 184| 186| 186| 188| 188| 190| 191| 191| 193| 194| 195| 195| 195| 195| 195| 200| 200| 202| 202| 202| 202| 206| 206| 208| 208| 208| 208| 208| 213| 213| 215| 215| 217| 218| 219| 220| 220| 220| 223| 223| 225| 225| 227| 227| 229| 229| 229| 232| 232| 234| 234| 236| 237| 237| 239| 240| 240| 242| 243| 244| 245| 245| 245| 248| 248| 248| 251| 251| 253
0 50 100 150 200
Organization Pos. Cat. Total score
Transparency Benchmark 2017 The Crystal 20176
0 50 100 150 200
Copaco Nederland B.V.Detailresult Groep N.V.
Van Leeuwen Buizen Groep B.VSchoeller Allibert Holding B.V.
SHV Holdings N.V.Van Wijnen Groep N.V.
Scholten AwaterCitco Bank Nederland N.V.
MonutaHoredo/Rensa
IMC TradingThe Royal Bank of Scotland
FagronKiadis Pharma N.V.
Sif Holding N.V.Kramp Groep B.V.
VDL GroepOranjewoud N.V.Brocacef Holding
Janssen De Jong Groep B.V.Takeaway.com N.V.
TMF Group Holding B.V.Home Credit B.V.
HDI-Gerling Verzekeringen N.V.Koninklijke Ten Cate N.V.
Constellium N.V.Vimetco N.V.
ProbiodrugDe Goudse N.V.
Audax B.V.Catom Enterprises B.V.
Zorg en Zekerheid GroepValue8
EXOR N.V.AerCap Holdings N.V.
de Persgroep Nederland B.V.Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen
Open UniversiteitAPG
Delta N.V.O.W.M. DSW Zorgverzekeraar UAErasmus Universiteit Ro�erdam
Intertrust N.V.Broekhuis Holding
X5 Retail Group N.V.Action Service & Distributie
Ultra-Centrifuge Ned. N.V.Avans Hogeschool
GALAPAGOSCimpress
CZAVCoöperatie Univé U.A.
Kardan N.V.MCB International B.V.
Batenburg Techniek N.V.Heerema Marine Contractors Holding Nederland B.V.
Credit Europe Bank N.V.Hurks groepDPA GROUP
Nieuwe Steen invBlokker Holding B.V.
Hoogvliet B.V.WDP
Neways Electronics International N.V.Euronext N.V.
VUmcBasic-Fit N.V.
Koninklijke Grolsch N.V.DAS Nederlandse Rechtsbijstand Verzekeringmaatschappij N.V.
Caldic B.V.Yarden Holding B.V.
Coolblue Holding B.V.Universiteit van Tilburg
Nedap N.V.Binckbank
Lucas Bols N.V.Stichting Espria
Koninklijke Coöperatie Cosun U.A.Nyenrode
Vrije UniversiteitAirbus Group N.V.Unica Groep B.V.
Flow Traders N.V.Louis Dreyfus
Academisch Medisch CentrumUniversiteit van Amsterdam
AMG Advanced Metallurg. Gr. NVMaastricht UMC+
ALTICEDura Vermeer Groep
OCILeasePlan Corporation N.V.
Centric Holding B.V.Forbo Flooring B.V.
ICT AutomatiseringRefresco Group N.V.
Eurocommercial PropertiesONVZ Ziektekostenverzekeraar N.V.
A.S. Watson Health & Beauty Benelux B.V.Tata Steel Nederland B.V.
TomTom N.V.Coöperatie AVEBE U.A.
Ballast Nedam N.V.Technische Universiteit Del�
Aalberts Industries N.V.Leids Universitair Medisch Centrum
Robeco Institutional Asset Management B.V.SPIE Nederland B.V.
The Greenery B.V.Tele2 Netherlands Holding N.V.Amsterdam Commodities N.V.
Universiteit UtrechtErasmus MC
Wi�eveen+BosBavaria N.V.
Stichting Exploitatie Nederlandse StaatsloterijSTMicroelectronics N.V.
Ingka Holding B.V.Beter Bed Holding N.V.
Damen Shipyards Group N.V.Farm Frites Beheer B.V.
Fugro N.V.BE Semiconductor Indus. N.V.
AperamUniversiteit Twente
Holland CasinoVos Logistics Beheer B.V.
ForFarmers N.V.Coop Holding
Universiteit LeidenBrunel International N.V.
Vebego International N.V.Van Oord
IHC Merwede Holding B.V.Universiteit Maastricht
Unibail RodamcoThales Nederland
PGGMRenewi
Ontwikkelingsmaatschappij Oost Nederland NVVION Holding N.V.
Wereldhave Manag. Holding B.V.Koninklijke Vopak N.V.
Gemalto N.V.PLUS Holding B.V.
Stern Groep N.V.Royal HaskoningDHV
Sligro Food Group N.V.Royal Dutch Shell
Agri�rm Group B.V.Deloi�e Holding B.V.
Vastned Retail N.V.VvAA groep B.V.
Rijksuniversiteit GroningenHEMA
ANWB B.V.Jumbo Groep Holding B.V.
GVB AmsterdamAccell Group
Plukon Food GroupWolters Kluwer N.V.
Perfe�i v. MelleRegionale Ontwikkelingsmaatschappij InnovationQuarter B.V.
BidfoodAtradius N.V.
RadboudumcKas Bank N.V.
SUEZ Recycling & Recovery Netherlands B.V.Arcadis N.V.
GrandVision N.V.Vreugdenhil Groep B.V.Industriebank LIOF N.V.
RELX Group N.V.VimpelCom Ltd.
Royal FloraHollandASM International N.V.
Dela Coöperatie U.A.Zeeman Groep B.V.
Corbion N.V.UMC Utrecht
TNOTriodos Bank N.V.
TMG - Telegraaf Media GroepKPMG N.V.
Universitair Medisch Centrum GroningenRandstad Holding N.V.
Wageningen University & ResearchASML
NIBC Bank N.V.GasTerra B.V.
Brab. Ontw. Maatschappij N.V.Koninklijke FrieslandCampina N.V.
Koninklijke Ahold Delhaize N.V.VanDrie Group
Coöperatie VGZ U.A.ProRail B.V.
MNQ-Park NV
JuvaTBI Holdings
Facilicom Services GroupTKH Group N.V.
CZ groepN.V. HVC
Holding Nationale Goede Doelen Loterijen N.V.Koninklijke Wessanen N.V.
SBM O¢shoreASR Nederland N.V.
Koninklijke Boskalis Westminster N.V.NV NOM Investerings- en Ontwikkelingsmaatschappij voor Noord-Nederland
Ordina N.V.Albron Nederland B.V.
Vivat VerzekeringenAir France - KLM
VolkerWesselsMenzis Holding B.V.
Kendrion N.V.NN GROUP
AchmeaHeineken N.V.
PricewaterhouseCoopersAegon N.V.
PostNLEBN
Unilever N.V.Nederlandse Waterschapsbank NV
Delta Lloyd GroepDe Nederlandsche Bank N.V.
Koninklijke Philips N.V.Ernst & Young Nederland
COVRA NVING Groep
Bank Ned. Gemeenten N.V.Philips Lighting N.V.
de Volksbank N.V.Enexis Holding N.V.
HeijmansAKZO Nobel N.V.
Nederlandse Financierings-Maatschappij voor Ontwikkelingslanden NVDSM N.V.
RabobankKPN
Vitens N.V.ABN AMRO Group N.V.Van Lanschot Bankiers
Nederlandse Gasunie N.V.TenneT Holding B.V.
NSHavenbedrijf Ro�erdam N.V.
Siemens NederlandSchiphol Group
Alliander N.V.Royal BAM Group
LEAD
ERS
FOLLO
WER
SFO
LLOW
ERS
PELOTO
NPELO
TON
PELOTO
NLA
GG
AR
DS
199198197196195195194194193193192191191191191190189188188188188187187187187186185185185185184184184183183183182180180179179179178178178177176176175175175174173173173172172171171171169168168168165165164163162161161159159159159156156155154152152152152147146146146144143143142141139139138137137136135134134133133132132131131131131130129128128128127124123122122120119119118118117117115114114112112112112108108105105102101100999892919088888887868585838382817975747372727271717170696969696963636161605959595857575656555554545352524847464646464645454444444443434242424242404039393837363434343333303028282626262525242422212120191918168777444332
| 001| 002| 003| 004| 005| 006| 007| 008| 009| 010| 011| 012| 013| 014| 015| 016| 017| 018| 019| 020| 021| 022| 022| 022| 022| 026| 027| 027| 027| 027| 031| 031| 031| 034| 034| 034| 037| 038| 038| 040| 040| 040| 043| 043| 043| 046| 047| 047| 049| 049| 049| 052| 053| 053| 053| 056| 056| 058| 058| 058| 061| 062| 062| 062| 065| 065| 067| 068| 069| 070| 070| 072| 072| 072| 072| 076| 076| 078| 079| 080| 080| 080| 080| 084| 085| 085| 085| 088| 089| 089| 091| 092| 093| 093| 095| 096| 096| 098| 099| 100| 100| 102| 102| 104| 104| 106| 106| 106| 106| 110| 111| 112| 112| 112| 115| 116| 117| 118| 118| 120| 121| 121| 123| 123| 125| 125| 127| 128| 128| 130| 130| 130| 130| 134| 134| 136| 136| 138| 139| 140| 141| 142| 143| 144| 145| 146| 146| 146| 149| 150| 151| 151| 153| 153| 155| 156| 157| 158| 159| 160| 161| 161| 161| 164| 164| 164| 167| 168| 168| 168| 168| 168| 173| 173| 175| 175| 177| 178| 178| 178| 181| 182| 182| 184| 184| 186| 186| 188| 188| 190| 191| 191| 193| 194| 195| 195| 195| 195| 195| 200| 200| 202| 202| 202| 202| 206| 206| 208| 208| 208| 208| 208| 213| 213| 215| 215| 217| 218| 219| 220| 220| 220| 223| 223| 225| 225| 227| 227| 229| 229| 229| 232| 232| 234| 234| 236| 237| 237| 239| 240| 240| 242| 243| 244| 245| 245| 245| 248| 248| 248| 251| 251| 253
Organization Pos. Cat. Total score
* Organizations in the top 21 with the same rounded off scores, that received the same score were ranked based on a difference in decimal points. This is the result of the review by the Panel of Experts.
■ 1 - Company and Business model ■ 2 - Policy and results ■ 3 - Management approach ■ 4 - Relevance ■ 5 - Clearness ■ 6 - Reliability ■ 7 - Responsiveness ■ 8 - Coherence
0 50 100 150 200
Transparency Benchmark 2017 The Crystal 2017 7
Inhoud1 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 organizations 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 164.1.1 Jury theme: the role of the supervisory board in corporate social
responsibility 164.2 The winners 174.2.1 The fastest climber: VION Holding N.V. 174.2.2 The most innovative annual report: ABN AMRO Group N.V. 174.2.3 The Crystal Prize, the Transparency Benchmark’s main prize 184.2.4 Winner of the Crystal Prize 2017 19
5 What stands out? 205.1 Trend analysis 2014 – 2017 205.2 Value chain 225.3 Materiality and stakeholder involvement 315.4 Assurance 38
5.5 Sector comparison 415.5.1 Banking and insurance 425.5.2 Construction and maritime 435.5.3 Consumer products 445.5.4 Services 455.5.5 Energy, oil and gas 465.5.6 Trading 475.5.7 Industrial products 485.5.8 Media and communications 495.5.9 Pharmaceuticals 505.5.10 Retail 515.5.11 Technology 525.5.12 Transport 535.5.13 Universities and Medical Centers 545.5.14 Real Estate 555.5.15 Food and Beverage 565.5.16 Other 575.6 Organizations with zero scores 585.7 Corporate responsibility reporting in practice 59
6 First analysis EU-Directive on non-financial information and diversity and the Natural Capital Protocol 65
6.1 Initial analysis 666.2 Research group 666.3 Procedure 676.4 Results of analysis relating to directive on diversity information 686.5 Results of analysis relating to the directive on non-financial information 696.6 Results of baseline measurement relating to natural capital protocol 71
7 Appendices 737.1 New participating organizations 737.2 Dutch organizations with an international group report 747.3 Foreign Public Interest Entities (PIE) 757.4 Organizations with zero points awarded 76
Transparency Benchmark 2017 The Crystal 20178
2 PrefaceWe are pleased to present to you the results of the 2017 Transparency Benchmark for the reporting year 2016. The Transparency Benchmark provides insight into the degree of transparency in corporate responsibility reporting at the 500 largest organizations in the Netherlands. The Crystal, established by the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy in cooperation with the Netherlands Institute of Chartered Accountants (NBA), is the prize for the most transparent reporting. The Crystal prize aims to be the leading prize for CSR reporting in the Netherlands and is awarded to the organization whose corporate responsibility report is placed first in the Transparency Benchmark ranking. Besides the main prize, the fastest climber also receives a prize, as does the organization that applies the most creative and innovative approach to providing transparency on its impact on society. It is important to realize clearly that the outcomes provide a measure of transparency in reporting, not an evaluation of the specific CSR activities or results.
Corporate responsibility reporting and transparency are increasingly important to justifying the existence of organizations. Shareholders, investors, consumers, interest groups and businesses want to be able to form a proper opinion of organizations’ sustainability performance and added social value. Accordingly, they are increasingly interested in non-financial and forward-looking information on the strategy, governance, earnings model, value creation, and the relevant related risks, including financial risks. That relevance is increased by virtue of the financial consequences and the urgency of, for instance ‘Nederland Circulair 2050’ as well international developments such as the climate goals (Paris Agreement) and the UN Sustainable Development Goals.
These elements of information are aimed at increasing organizations’ accountability and involvement. Growing numbers of organizations are aware of this. There is a great deal of data and its volume is expanding, partly as a result of applying technological innovations. This data needs to be increasingly viewed within its holistic context, in a CSR report, management report or integrated report.
There are numerous, often voluntary, reporting systems for non-financial information. But the role of regulation is growing, in a national as well as European context. With effect from January 1, 2018, large Dutch organizations (PIEs) are required to report on environmental matters, social matters, human rights, fraud/corruption and diversity (EU Directive on Non-Financial Information). The new Dutch Corporate Governance Code focuses on long-term value creation and requires the supervisory board to play a greater part in achieving it. However, regulation often lags behind issues and dilemmas that are topical in organizations’ CSR practice. That disparity calls for creativity informed by a dialogue with stakeholders, partly because standardization of reporting on non-financial information is still work in progress. Such standardization is important for ensuring that more organizations report their non-financial performance.
Transparency Benchmark 2017 The Crystal 2017 9
These developments mean it is necessary to guard against excessively detailed or complex reporting frameworks that detract from their straightforward application and practical usefulness, not least because they may in turn lead to incorrect interpretations by preparers, verifiers and users. The principal qualitative requirements for reporting are comprehensibility, relevance, reliability and comparability. Standard-setters for non-financial information are increasingly aware of the need to arrive at a more coherent approach to a principle-based reporting system premised on these characteristics, which provides room for exercising professional judgement. The NBA supports the international initiative of the Corporate Reporting Dialogue. Driven by a need in the market, the principal standard-setters are collaborating in this platform to stimulate convergence of the goals, scope and content of reporting systems. This also includes standards-setters for financial information.
As the importance of reporting non-financial information increases, the relevance of the reliability of that information also increases. Society needs to be able to rely on information regarding organizations’ CSR performance and long-term value creation. Unverifiable information leads to uncertainties for society. The accountancy sector continually focuses on the objective auditability requirement of new or amended reporting standards and/or interpretations. Accountants are tasked with a significant social responsibility in that connection and aim to promote the use of reporting in this way.
The Transparency Benchmark is an outstandingly suitable medium for identifying and interpreting developments in reporting and assurance practice with a view to creating a platform for intensified collaboration of all stakeholders on promoting relevant and practicable reporting. The Transparency Benchmark is clearly about more than just measuring organizations’ individual scores. Overarching as well as sector-specific trends are highly important in the context outlined here and therefore also included in this publication (also see chapter 5 on this).
With this publication on the 2016 reporting year, the Transparency Benchmark has once again shown that it is a relevant instrument for fostering dialogue with all stakeholders on developments concerning reporting, transparency and CSR policy. Through it, we are stimulating CSR reporting by a greater number of organizations; for the NBA, this exemplifies how auditors can serve the public interest in practice.
Pieter Jongstra RAChair of the Netherlands Institute of Chartered Accountants
Transparency Benchmark 2017 The Crystal 201710
3 About this report, the Crystal Prize and the Transparency Benchmark
This booklet contains the results of the Transparency Benchmark 2017, 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 2017.
In this chapter we will provide an in-depth background of the Crystal Prize and the Transparency Benchmark.
Chapter 4 is the Jury report, which provides insight into the considerations of the Jury to determine the winners of this year.
The content of chapter 5 has been changed compared to previous years. This chapter focuses on three key themes that have been high on the agenda of the participants of the Transparency Benchmark in recent years. These themes are: the value chain, materiality and stakeholder engagement and the assurance of non-financial information. For these three themes we looked at the trends and developments regarding corporate social responsibility reporting. After the general insight in the trends and developments an analysis on the scores over the past four years has been conducted. Furthermore we also included some ‘good practices’ related to the different themes. As in previous years the chapter includes the sector results and provides additional information regarding the organizations with a zero score. Finally this chapter also contains the analysis on corporate responsibility reporting based on additional questions within the self-assessment tool.
Chapter 6 contains a first analysis regarding the EU-directive on non-financial information, diversity policies and the Natural Capital Protocol and how these guidelines implemented within the reporting of the relevant organizations.
Finally, chapter 7 includes the appendices regarding the new participating organizations, Dutch organizations with an international group report, foreign Public Interest Entities (PIE) and organizations with zero points awarded.
Transparency Benchmark 2017 The Crystal 2017 11
3.1 The Crystal Prize
The Crystal Prize is the award for the most transparent CSR report that has been established by the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy 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), Mr. Professor Dr. Martin Hoogendoorn RA and Ms. Drs Petri Hofsté RA selected this year’s winner of the Crystal Prize. 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 organizations is reviewed against 40 criteria related to corporate responsibility aspects of the organizations and their operations. The Transparency Benchmark does not explicitly give an opinion on the actual performance of organizations. 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, organizations 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-related (five criteria subcategories). A maximum of 200 points can be scored; 100 points for content and quality respectively. The total score can be calculated by adding the total score obtained for both content and quality. The maximum amount of points varies per 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 2017 on the website of the Transparency Benchmark.
* Compared to previous years the Panel of Experts submitted a Top 4 to the Jury instead of a Top 3. The scores at the top of the Transparency Benchmark were so close together that it was decided to submit an additional report to the Jury for evaluation.
Transparency Benchmark 2017 The Crystal 201712
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 organizationsThe participants group was developed by incorporating the following different categories: • Public Interest Entities (PIE’s) with more than 500 employees • Organizations listed in Amsterdam’s stock exchange • Organizations with substantial activities in the Netherlands related to revenue and/or number of employees • (Partly) State-owned organizations• Universities and University Medical Centers (UMC) • Large organizations (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 consists of 505 organizations (compared to 512 in 2016). The list of new participating organizations can be found in the Appendix. The entire participation protocol can be downloaded from the website of the Transparency Benchmark (https://www.transparantiebenchmark.nl/en).
Transparency Benchmark 2017 The Crystal 2017 13
Dutch organizations with an international group reportAn organization may be excluded from participation in the Transparency Benchmark when it is a subsidiary and the report of the parent organization meets the guidelines of the EU directive on non-financial information and diversity. This means that information regarding environmental, social and labour-related issues, human rights, and anti-corruption, bribery, and diversity aspects should be included in the annual report. For these organizations a separate overview was prepared, without a benchmark. These organizations receive no score. In total, 24 of the 505 organizations participated in the group arrangement. A list of these organizations are included in the appendix. An organization that meets the requirements to participate in this arrangement, and also publishes its own Dutch report, can choose to submit the Dutch report voluntarily for the purpose of the benchmark.
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 with all Public Interest Entities they are engaged with in their transparency report. Based on these lists the Public Interest Entities with 500 employees or more are selected for the Transparency Benchmark. Just like last year we identified a few organizations, which are marked as Public Interest Entities, but are not active in the Netherlands. Last year there we identified six organizations of which three organizations participated within the international group report regulation. This year we identified four organizations. These organizations 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 2016. Different types of reports qualify, such as annual reports, financial reports and corporate responsibility 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 2016 (ended in 2016). Only reporting information published before the 1st of July 2017 has been included in the Transparency Benchmark.
Transparency Benchmark 2017 The Crystal 201714
3.2.5 Methodology All participating organizations are invited to screen the quality of their own report by using the online self-assessment. By using the online self-assessment, organizations 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 organizations 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: organizations assess their own information based on the criteria of the Transparency Benchmark. This year
156 organizations have filled in the self-assessment. • Evaluation of the self-assessment and/or integrated assessment: in order to secure the quality of provisional scores and remedy
interpreta¬tion differences of participants, all self-assessment have been assessed by a team of reviewers. Participants that did not fill in the self-assess¬ment themselves, were also provided with a provisional score by the reviewing team, based on publicly available annual reports.
• Commentary period: Participants that do not agree with the determined provisional score were given the opportunity to submit their comments at the level of the individual criteria by using the e-tool. The comments of the participants have been reviewed and a reaction was formulated by the executor of the Transparency Benchmark. After this process the final scores of the Transparency Benchmark have been determined and communicated to the different participants.
• Communication with the Panel of Experts: Even after the determination of the final score by the reviewing team, an organization may wish to express disagreement with the score. Such disagreement tends to originate mainly from a difference in interpretation of a criterion between the executor of the Transparency Benchmark and the participant. Interaction with the Panel of Experts took place in the event of disagreement about the final score. The Panel of Experts assessed in these cases the final score.
• Panel Assessment: The 21 highest scoring participants were also separately evaluated by the Panel of Experts. The reports of these organizations have been assessed based on so-called ‘panel criteria’. The ‘panel criteria’ can be found in the appendix of the criteria 2017, to be downloaded from the website of the Transparency Benchmark (https://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 organization 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 2017 The Crystal 2017 15
3.2.6 Panel of Experts and the Crystal JuryThe Panel of Experts reviews the quality of the assessments and communicates with organizations that had comments regarding their final score. Additionally, the Panel of Experts assesses the top 20* of the Transparency Benchmark; the highest scoring reports plus additional periodic information. The Panel of Experts focuses on the quality-related criteria (relevance, clarity, reliability, responsiveness and coherence) and adjusts these by a maximum of 15% (positive or negative) based on their own set of criteria. The Panel of Experts 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);• Ms. Charlotte Linnebank, founder and Executive director at Stichting Questionmark and QM intelligence BV; • Ms. Erika Marseille, member of the counsel of the Foundation for Annual Reporting; • Mr. Marhijn Visser, Secretary International Economic Affairs at VNO-NCW - MKB-Nederland; • Mr. Paul Hurks, director international affairs at The Royal Netherlands Institute of Chartered Accountants; • Mr. Ralph Thurm, director and founder of consultancy firm AHEADahead and co-founder of Platform Reporting 3.0; • Mr. Jos Reinhoudt, senior manager at MVO Nederland; • Mr. Gerhard Schuil, Manager Research & Professional Services at SOMO.
The Jury selects the winner of the Crystal Prize out of the nominated reports. The Jury provides an explanation for their decision in the Jury report. In 2017, the Jury adopted, similar to last year, the criteria: ‘show who you are’ in choosing the winner out of the nominated organizations with regard to the following theme: “In what way is your Supervisory Board involved in the corporate responsibility performance of the organization. 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 the theme award for the following year.
The Jury that assessed the nominated reports of the Transparency Benchmark and selects the winner of The Crystal Prize consists of the following members: Chairwoman: Ms. Monika R. Milz Member: Mr. Martin HoogendoornMember: Ms. Petri Hofsté
* This year the top-21 has been assessed by the Panel of Experts due to the fact that multiple organizations received a similar score before the assessment by the Panel.
Transparency Benchmark 2017 The Crystal 201716
4 This year’s winners4.1 The Jury report
In 2017, the Crystal Prize will be awarded for the eighth time. In the fourteenth year since its inception, the Transparency Benchmark continues to show an increase in the average score. The Jury sees this as confirmation of the positive influence the Benchmark has on reporting in the Netherlands. At the same time, the Jury recognizes that the time for rejuvenation has come: in order to continue to stimulate transparency, the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy is updating the approach and the criteria.
4.1.1 Jury theme: the role of the supervisory board in corporate social responsibilityIncreasingly, organizations are expected to take responsibility for, and report on, their impact on society. Both at a national and international level, this expectation is being formulated more and more explicitly: the EU Directive regarding disclosure of non-financial and diversity information, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the revised Corporate Governance Code are the most notable examples of this.
The primary responsibility for that impact on society rests with the executive board of an organization. However, the supervisory board also plays a major role in this regard, as it needs to be able to challenge and assess the executive board on all matters relating to the organizations strategy and the extent to which it is future-proof. Now that non-financial performance increasingly is integrated within the strategy and operations, the supervisory board must be expected to provide a critical challenge to the executive board in these areas.
The Jury has found that supervisory board reports still do not focus sufficiently on non-financial performance and risks. Many only contain a statement to the effect that the supervisory board values corporate social responsibility. As such, the report is often limited to a summary of the topics that have been discussed. The Jury sometimes noted omissions of non-financial topics that affect the performance and risks of the organization. It also found a lack of depth: what is the vision of the supervisory board itself? Does it perhaps differ from that of the executive board? And in that case, what is the outcome of the debates conducted on this?
Whether those debates have actually taken place cannot be ascertained. The fact remains, however, that reporting on this is too infrequent and too superficial, even though the information is essential for stakeholders to determine whether effective supervision is exercised.
Transparency Benchmark 2017 The Crystal 2017 17
Although the supervisory board reports of the top 4 feature a number of good elements, the information about the role of the supervisory body in corporate social responsibility was too limited to set them apart in itself. The Jury encourages organizations and supervisory boards to devote more attention to this important topic next year.
4.2 The winners
The Jury is tasked with selecting the final winners of the prize. The Jury was supported in doing so by the Transparency Benchmark’s Panel of Experts, to whom the Jury extends its sincere gratitude. There are three winners this year.
4.2.1 The fastest climber: VION Holding N.V.VION Holding N.V. is the fastest climber in the 2017 Transparency Benchmark. Last year, the organization achieved a total score of 38 points. This year, it scored 128 points. The organization rose from the 204th to the 112th in rank, climbing 92 positions.
The greatest difference compared with prior reporting is that this year, a CSR report was prepared for the first time. This thorough report included crucial components such as a value creation model, a description of the value chain and information with regard to the stakeholder dialogue. The way in which material topics and the value creation model are connected with each other, in particular, is remarkably accurate.
Another one of the report’s strengths is that results are presented on a quantitative basis for almost every material topic. VION can improve this even further by making the targets more specific as well.
The Jury expresses its appreciation for the fact that VION is opting for transparency by publishing a CSR report. In a sector that is constantly critically observed by society, pursuing transparency is not always a self-evident path, but that makes it all the more important.
To sum up, VION has demonstrated that it is well able to execute reporting on its corporate responsibility results in a mature manner. The challenge for the years ahead will be to have the information externally validated and to make targets more specific.
4.2.2 The most innovative annual report: ABN AMRO Group N.V.In addition to an integrated annual report, ABN AMRO also published a Human Rights Report in 2016. ABN AMRO applies the UN Guiding Principles Reporting Framework for this report. This framework is specifically intended for reporting on identifying and managing human rights topics that are relevant for the organization.
Transparency Benchmark 2017 The Crystal 201718
There are not yet many organizations, neither at a national nor at an international level, that apply the UNGP Reporting Framework, and certainly not on the detailed basis applied by ABN AMRO. The report discusses the material human rights topics relating to the various roles that ABN AMRO plays in society. The bank recognizes in that connection that it has a responsibility for matters occurring further down the chain. A notable feature is that ABN AMRO, to a greater extent than in its annual report, is prepared to be self-critical and clearly states where there is room for improvement.
With this report, ABN AMRO has made a solid contribution to the current debate regarding the role of financial service organizations with regard to human rights. The Jury is pleased to reward this with the prize for the most innovative report. The Jury would also like to express its appreciation for Unilever, which also published a human rights report based on the same framework in 2015. This did not come to the Jury’s attention at that time due to the fact that it was not an explicit part of the Jury theme, and therefore the report was not included in its deliberations concerning the most innovative report.
4.2.3 The Crystal Prize, the Transparency Benchmark’s main prizeThis year, the Jury assessed the top four instead of the top three organizations. Numbers three and four achieved the same score following the assessment by the Panel of Experts. This reflects a broader development: differences in scores among the top-ranked organizations in the Transparency Benchmark are progressively narrowing. Although there are still enough areas in which organizations differ from another, the Jury is seeing a high level of quality of the reports in this group. Many organizations are doing their best to improve their report every year.
Siemens Nederland is a clear example of an organization that has taken a major step forward in reporting. Siemens has visibly acted on the observations made by the Panel of Experts last year. For instance, its reporting has become much more clearly structured, consisting of only two documents. Notably, this is the only organization among the top 4 that has not opted for an integrated report. The Jury would also have liked to see a clearer link with the SDGs in a report of such an organization. But the fact that a subsidiary of a foreign organization reports on its activities in the Netherlands in this much detail sets it apart. This has been recognized and rewarded with the fourth place in the Transparency Benchmark.
The third place is taken by Schiphol Group. This organization has already been reporting at a high level for many years and, this year, it has once again issued a particularly appealing and transparently-designed report. The report discusses the management agenda at some length: not just for the year under review but for the future as well. A feature that is as notable as it is commendable is that the person bearing final responsibility is stated for each corporate responsibility topic. At the same time, the Jury would have welcomed more detailed disclosures on the human resources policy. While it does report indicators, Schiphol does not state what it does to ensure that identified issues are actually addressed.
Transparency Benchmark 2017 The Crystal 2017 19
Alliander, last year’s winner, ended at the second place this year. The strengths singled out last year continue to apply: the report is clear, specifically discusses dilemmas and devotes ample attention to long-term value creation. The standards for the Crystal Prize are demanding, however, and other organizations are also working ceaselessly to improve their reporting. Without detracting from the quality of the report, in the opinion of the Jury, Alliander had not taken new major steps forward in its reporting this year.
4.2.4 Winner of the Crystal Prize 2017The winner of this year’s Crystal Prize is Royal BAM Group. BAM operates in a sector that has experienced many financial challenges in recent years, challenges which BAM itself also had to face. The Jury therefore has great admiration for the way in which corporate responsibility topics have maintained their prominence on the agenda. This is reflected in the report: it is clear, for example, that BAM expressly involves its stakeholders in the debate on the kind of organization it aims to be by 2050, and which goals for 2020 correspond to that. BAM also presents its own vision for the kind of projects that are necessary to meet corporate responsibility challenges. This sets this organization apart from others on its sector.
That BAM does not shirk corporate responsibility challenges is also evident from its inclusion of the business principles and the principles underlying the tax policy it pursues. There is also room for self-reflection, in a separate section concentrating on areas in which BAM can improve. All of these elements are combined clearly and transparently in the report. The result is a good-quality report from an organization that is not afraid to take a stand on sustainability topics. The Jury is therefore very pleased to award the Crystal Prize to BAM.
Transparency Benchmark 2017 The Crystal 201720
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 organizations that obtained a score on the Transparency Benchmark (253 organizations).
5.1 Trend analysis 2014 – 2017
The criteria for the Transparency Benchmark were updated in 2014 to align them more closely with developments in corporate social responsibility (CSR) reporting. In order to safeguard consistency, the criteria have not changed significantly since that time. This does not mean, however, that reporting on social responsibility performance has stood still. On the contrary, organizations have taken serious steps to improve the transparency of their reporting. A number of the developments that have taken place in the past four years are reviewed in this chapter, with a special focus on the value chain, materiality and stakeholder involvement and the verification of CSR information by an external party.
The changes in reporting are driven largely by developments at both the national and international level. Some of these developments are already reflected in recent reporting, while others will mainly be seen to influence reports on 2017 and subsequent years.
In 2015 the United Nations introduced the Sustainable Development Goals. The SDGs consist of 17 goals that are intended to lead to a more sustainable world and can also be used to provide direction for (corporate responsibility) goals to which organizations contribute.
On 30 June 2017, the industry-led Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) set up by the Financial Stability Board (FSB) released its Final Report: Recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures. The Report includes recommendations for use by companies in providing information to investors, lenders, insurers, and other stakeholders. These disclosures include the financial impact that climate risks have, or could have, on their organizations. The recommended disclosures include how boards and management govern the impacts of climate change, and how they integrate governance into their strategy, businesses, financial plans and risk management processes. The most complex of the Recommendations asks organizations to model a range of climate scenarios over the short-, medium- and long-term and quantify the financial impacts from climate change.
Transparency Benchmark 2017 The Crystal 2017 21
At the European level, the EU Directive for Non-Financial Information (NFI) was drawn up. With effect from 1 January 2018, this Directive requires PIEs to provide additional disclosures on their policy concerning topics environmental matters, social matters, human rights, and anti-corruption and bribery. As under the Dutch Corporate Governance Code, the ‘comply or explain’ rule applies. In chapter six of this report a first analysis has been included regarding the EU Directive for Non-Financial Information and to what extent the relevant participants of the Transparency Benchmark included the different topics within their reporting.
Another aspect that has been analyzed in chapter six is the Natural Capital Protocol, an initiative of the Natural Capital Coalition. The Natural Capital Protocol is a framework that can be used by organizations to monitor and measure the use of natural capital. By providing insight in the potential positive and negative impact of the used natural capital, an organization is able to calculate the costs and benefits for the organization as well as society. Besides that, organizations are provided with new insights into their own dependencies with regard to natural capitals. With these insights it is possible for management to identify risks and opportunities to support management decisions.
In addition, the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) launched the GRI Standards, revising the last version of the standards (G4), amending their structure and clarifying some of the terms deployed. These GRI Standards offer organizations a greater degree of flexibility in reporting while requiring greater attention for the scope of most material topics on which they report. As such, the Standards provide footing for including impacts that are relevant for the environment and society in a broader perspective instead of just for the company itself.
Besides these international events, there have also been relevant developments at the national level. The Dutch Corporate Governance Code was revised in 2016, and embedded in laws and regulations in 2017. PIEs are therefore required to implement this in their future management reports in accordance with the ‘comply’ or ‘explain’ rule. The main change entailed by this revision is that long-term value creation and taking stakeholder interests in to account are required to be given central importance in PIEs’ management reports.
In addition, the government, together with its social partners, has set itself the goal of creating a circular economy by 2050. To that end, the government will take a more organizational approach towards the course to be taken, management and everyone’s (own) responsibilities, while the organizations will need to carry out their own responsibilities. This goal ties in with various SDG goals.
Transparency Benchmark 2017 The Crystal 201722
5.2 Value chain
The developments outlined above have a significant impact on the information reported by organizations. For instance, the number of organizations reporting on the value chain has grown, a development that cannot be seen in isolation from Nederland Circulair 2050, the revised Corporate Governance Code, the EU NFI Directive and the GRI Standards. These frameworks have also strengthened the focus on explaining the choices that are made with regard to reporting impacts outside companies themselves.
The Circular Economy in the Netherlands by 2050 target has focused attention on connecting import and export streams in the value chain, the revised Corporate Governance Code requires additional attention to be given to determining sustained long-term value creation, and the EU Directive mandates disclosure of information on the human rights policy pursued by a company, among other things. These developments have brought considerations regarding the demarcation of streams in the value chain into sharp focus. Lastly, the transition from GRI G4 to the GRI Standards entails a stronger focus on material topics that are significant due to their impact on society and the environment as a whole, rather than just the company itself.
Against the background of the developments sketched above, this paragraph reviews the scores that the various groups of participants achieved in the past years on the Transparency Benchmark concerning criteria relating to the value chain. The criteria analyzed for this analysis are criterion 2 and an additional question for criterion 23. Criterion 2 requires organizations to provide a brief overview of the (international) value chain in which the organization operates. The complementary question of criterion 23 requires organizations to provide insight into the choices that an organization makes on whether or not to report activities in the value chain, outside its own organization.
For the purpose of assessing the scores, the research group was divided into the following four groups: leaders, followers, peloton and laggards. These are the same groups as used for the Transparency Benchmark ladder. Within this analysis, organizations with a zero score are not included. The scores for criterion 2 show no remarkable developments in the groups of the leaders, followers and laggards. What is striking, on the other hand, is the development of the scores at the overall level and the fact that those developments are driven mainly by the organizations in the peloton. Looking at the total scores, the percentage of organizations receiving points on this specific criterion in 2014 was 73%. In 2015 and 2016 the scores fell to 69% and 60% respectively. In 2017, the percentage of organizations that scored points on this criterion increased from 60% in 2016 to 65% in 2017. We’ve seen that the development in the scores of the peloton strongly influenced the total scores for this criterion.
Transparency Benchmark 2017 The Crystal 2017 23
Criterion 2 - Pro�le and value chain
0 20 40 60 80 100
2014 - Total
2015 - Total
2016 - Total
2017 - Total 65%
60%
69%
73% 27%
31%
40%
35%
Yes N0 Yes N0
Criterion 2 - Pro�le and value chain
0 20 40 60 80 100
2014 - Peloton
2015 - Peloton
2016 - Peloton
2017 - Peloton 62%
54%
67%
73% 27%
33%
46%
38%
Looking at the scores received for the additional criterion of question 23 concerning insight into decisions on whether or not to report on activities in the value chain, we see a rising trend in the percentage of organizations that scored points on this criterion, driven primarily by the scores achieved by leaders and followers. The peloton and the laggards have currently not progressed that much on providing insight into decisions on whether or not to report on activities in the value chain. The percentage of organizations that included information on this rose from 80% to 95% among the leaders between 2014 and 2017, with an even more marked increase from 56% to 86% among the followers in that same period.
Yes N0
Criterion 23 - Relevance
0 20 40 60 80 100
2014 - Leaders
2015 - Leaders
2016 - Leaders
2017 - Leaders 95%
90%
90%
80% 20%
10%
10%
5%
Yes N0
Criterion 23 - Relevance
0 20 40 60 80 100
2014 - Followers
2015 - Followers
2016 - Followers
2017 - Followers 86%
57%
45%
56% 44%
55%
43%
14%
Transparency Benchmark 2017 The Crystal 201724
The trend towards providing greater insight into value chains and reporting on activities outside own value chains is driven partly by national and international frameworks, as well as developments in laws and regulations. Especially In the past two years, due to the introduction of the GRI Standards, for instance, we have witnessed the emergence of an additional focus on disclosing social, environmental and economic impacts in a broader perspective than solely that of the organization concerned. The EU NFI Directive also requires organizations to provide insights on environmental matters, social matters, human rights and corruption and bribery, not only within the organization but also within the value chain. These developments compel organizations to consider the value an organization can add to society in a broader perspective. One of the organizations that have been awarded for the way they visualized and provided insight in the impact within their value chain is Heineken. Last year the organization won the award for most innovative report. The Jury included the following in Jury report: “Compared to other companies, Heineken has contextualized the value creation model within their supply chain model. In the overview ‘From Barley to Bar’ the reader is able to follow the wholeprocess 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 geographically. Heineken’s report distinguishes itself from other reports, by also mentioning the dilemmas in high-risk countries”.
Transparency Benchmark 2017 The Crystal 2017 25
Source: Sustainability Report Heineken 2015
Transparency Benchmark 2017 The Crystal 201726
Another example is the value chain by BAM. BAM visualized its value chain based on process they use for tenders and other projects. In the value chain BAM provides insight in the input capitals and where these capitals are used within the value chain. This is similar to the visualization of Heineken in 2015. Besides providing insight into the capitals used, BAM also included their suppliers in the value chain as their most important stakeholder. Through this model, the impact of BAM within the value chain has been made clear.
Source: Annual Report BAM 2016
Transparency Benchmark 2017 The Crystal 2017 27
Compared to the previously discussed examples, Ahold Delhaize did not integrate the input- and output capitals within their value chain. Heineken and BAM used these capitals to provide insight in the way they create value within their value chain, however Ahold Delhaize visualized this in a different manner. First of all, the visualization of the value chain provides insight into the different aspects within the value chain. Starting with resources, followed by the production of suppliers, the distribution of the goods, the sale and ultimately the consumption by consumers. Within this visualization it is clearly indicated which parts of the value chain are controlled by Ahold Delhaize. Following this, Ahold Delhaize provided clear insight in how the organization wants to improve their impact within the value chain by implementing sustainability standards, investing in innovations, fighting food waste and improving energy efficiency.
Source: Annual Report Ahold Delhaize 2016
Transparency Benchmark 2017 The Crystal 201728
Although the number of leaders achieving points on criterion 2, with regard to providing insight in the value chain, has almost always been at 100% over the past four years, the quality of the value chains shown has increased. This mainly concerns the additional insight provided with regard to the impact within the value chain by including the input- and output capitals.
For the purpose of sharing good examples within the Transparency Benchmark, the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy published a document of good practices from the Transparency Benchmark participants in 2014. One of the examples included within this document was the value chain Shell included within their sustainability report in 2012. This value chain was considered to be good practice because it provides a detailed presentation of the Shell value chain and showed where in the value chain Shell was most active.
Source: Sustainability Report Shell 2012
Transparency Benchmark 2017 The Crystal 2017 29
Although the number of leaders achieving points on criterion 2, with regard to providing insight in the value chain, has almost always been at 100% over the past four years, the quality of the value chains shown has increased. This mainly concerns the additional insight provided with regard to the impact within the value chain by including the input- and output capitals.
For the purpose of sharing good examples within the Transparency Benchmark, the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy published a document of good practices from the Transparency Benchmark participants in 2014. One of the examples included within this document was the value chain Shell included within their sustainability report in 2012. This value chain was considered to be good practice because it provides a detailed presentation of the Shell value chain and showed where in the value chain Shell was most active.
Source: Sustainability Report Shell 2012
Transparency Benchmark 2017 The Crystal 201730
Another example included within the good practices document is the value chain from Vodafone:
Source: Integrated Report Vodafone 2012/2013
Transparency Benchmark 2017 The Crystal 2017 31
This value chain was considered to be an example of good practice as it combines sustainability elements with various aspects of the Vodafone supply chain.
Based on the examples provided within this paragraph we have seen a clear trend in the past four year. When looking at the examples provided in the good practices document from 2014, we see that these presentations of the value chain are focused on providing insight in the value and/or supply chain and what the position of the organization is within this chain. In recent examples we see that organizations are not only providing insight in their position in the value chain but also try to provide insight into the impact of the organization within the chain. In some cases the organizations are also able to link the different input- and output capitals used by the organization and how these capitals help the organization to add or extract value from society.
The fact that more organizations provide insight into the impacts within the value chain of the organization and how the organization can add value for society, can be derived back from recent developments like the OESO-guidelines, the United Nations Guiding Principles and the EU Directive on non-financial information. These different guidelines call for organizations to make the value chain more transparent and to indicate where in the value chain the organization can have a positive impact on society and the environment.
5.3 Materiality and stakeholder involvement
For organizations reporting in accordance with GRI guidelines, materiality and disclosures concerning stakeholder involvement were largely introduced as part of the transition from GRI G3 to GRI G4, which put more focus on materiality. Subsequently, various frameworks and laws and regulations have strengthened reporting on material topics and stakeholder involvement, as exemplified, for instance, by the SDGs. These are increasingly being used as input for formulating material topics with the aims to create broader social impact. Linking material topics to the SDGs also promotes stakeholder involvement by creating a common language that organizations can refer to. Similarly, the EU NFI Directive compels companies to report on material social and environmental policies.
Criteria 3, 22 and 33 were used a basis for reviewing whether the developments referred to above are reflected in the scores achieved by the organizations on the Transparency Benchmark. Criterion 3 requires organizations to provide an explanation about the subjects of material importance to the value chain in which they operate. Criterion 22 requires assessment of whether the organization actually reports on the material topics identified under criterion 3, while criterion 33 requires organizations to explain how they involve stakeholders in the policy and activities of the company and how they take their legitimate interests and expectations into account.
Transparency Benchmark 2017 The Crystal 201732
When looking at the number of organizations receiving points on criterion 3 in the past four years, it shows that the clear majority of the organizations receive a score every year. Although a decrease in the percentage of organizations with a score occurred between 2014 and 2015 (from 79% to 72%), we see an increase in the percentage of organizations that scored points after these years, from 76% in 2016 to 81% in 2017. The scores achieved by the leaders, followers and the peloton in recent years have been relatively stable. A notable aspect, however, is the trend emerging among the laggards. These are the organizations with a score of 30 points or lower. In recent years, we are seeing that the percentage of organizations that has identified material topics has risen between 2014 and 2017 from 7% in 2014 to 22% in 2017. This demonstrates the responses to developments concerning corporate social responsibility reporting and providing transparency on material topics are gathering momentum among this group as well.
Yes N0
Criterion 3 - Pro�le and value chain
0 20 40 60 80 100
2014 - Laggards
2015 - Laggards
2016 - Laggards
2017 - Laggards 22%
14%
14%
7% 93%
86%
86%
78%
Yes N0
Criterion 3 - Pro�le and value chain
0 20 40 60 80 100
2014 - Total
2015 - Total
2016 - Total
2017 - Total 81%
76%
72%
79% 21%
28%
24%
19%
When looking at criterion 22, which requires organizations to report on all material topics, a substantial decrease occurred between 2014 and 2015. In 2014, 82% of the organizations scored points on this criterion, but in 2015 the percentage fell to just 61%. This pronounced fall is attributable to a change in the criterion that was applied in 2015. In 2014, organizations were requested to report on at least 3 material topics. Following the annual evaluation of the questionnaire, it was found in 2015 that the criterion in the previous format was insufficiently aligned with the GRI guidelines as updated in 2014 and the IIRC methodology. It was therefore decided that, with effect from 2015, points would only be awarded if all material topics were reported on, which explains the departure from the trend between 2014 and 2015. We subsequently found that the percentage of organizations that scored points on this criterion rose steadily between 2015 and 2017, from 61% to 64%, respectively. This reflects the fact that increasing numbers of organizations are reporting on all material topics that are relevant for the organization concerned.
Transparency Benchmark 2017 The Crystal 2017 33
There were no notable developments on criterion 33, which concerns the way in which stakeholders are involved in the policy and activities of the company. Both leaders and followers achieved the full 100% score over the past four years. The organizations in the peloton are developing in line with the overall trend and the laggards, unfortunately, have not demonstrated progress over the past four years.
There is a wide range of ways in which organizations visualize their most material topics. Examples from Nuon, BAM, AGCO and NS are set out below, and a specific aspect is highlighted in each case.
Although the matrix prepared by Nuon does not show which material topics are the most important for its stakeholders, or which topics have the greatest environmental, social and economic impact, it does provide good insight into how the topics are treated in the organization. The analysis also shows which topics have become more material compared with the preceding year, and provides good insight into the topics for which NUON needs to ensure compliance to retain social acceptance for its activities, and which topics NUON is focusing on in order to create positive impact.
Yes N0
Criterion 33 - Responsiveness
0 20 40 60 80 100
2014 - Total
2015 - Total
2016 - Total
2017 - Total 76%
75%
74%
76% 24%
26%
25%
24%
Yes N0
Criterion 22 - Relevance
0 20 40 60 80 100
2014 - Total
2015 - Total
2016 - Total
2017 - Total 64%
63%
61%
82% 18%
39%
37%
36%
Transparency Benchmark 2017 The Crystal 201734
MOST IMPORTANT ASPECTS
7Source: Annual and Sustainability Report 2016 Vattenfall
Transparency Benchmark 2017 The Crystal 2017 35
The matrix provided by Royal BAM Group is another good example, showing the impact of various topics on society (by means of dot size), in addition to the relevance for the organization itself and the stakeholders. This provides an additional dimension in the matrix and matches the trend identified above, towards an increased focus on impact on society.
ability to affect financial, environmental and social value creation for BAM’s stakeholders. This longlist included aspects derived from the fourth edition of the Guidelines of GRI (Global Reporting Initiative), BAM’s Group strategy, the results of research into stakeholders’ interests and feedback from stakeholder dialogues and general meetings of shareholders.
Next, a Group-wide selection of BAM employees evaluated the importance of these relevant matters in terms of their known or potential effects on BAM’s activities, products, services and relations, both within and outside of BAM, within the timeframe 2016-2020. ‘Effect’ within BAM was defined as ‘impact on BAM’s success’.
Stakeholders were asked to identify and prioritise the potential impact of these matters on themselves and on society. Most relevant for the clients group were ‘health and safety’ and ‘project and product quality and control’. The group of employees specifically indicated ‘employee recruitment, development and retention’ as a material theme. Providers of financial capital indicated that BAM’s performance on ‘circular economy’ is most relevant to their organisations. BAM’s subcontractors and
Impa
ct o
f BA
M o
n st
akeh
olde
rs
The dot size represents the impact of BAM’s performance on society (manipulated for graphical reason).
Impact on BAM's success
2
3
4
5
2 3 4 5
employee recruitment,development and retention
financial performance
project and product quality and control
health and safety
innovation
business conduct and transparency
procurement strategy
local communityengagement
human rights
circular economy
energy and emissions
fair tax
Materiality matrix
suppliers as well as the group representing society (NGOs, government and knowledge institutes) specifically indicated ‘business conduct and transparency’ as the most material theme. They were also asked to introduce and assess matters that were omitted from BAM’s initial materiality assessment. Topics that were added as important were culture and open collaboration. These subjects are pillars of BAM’s strategy and already elaborated in this report and will also be included in next year’s survey.
The stakeholders that were invited to the stakeholder dialogue were asked to fill out a materiality survey. In the light of the theme 'digitalisation' it was to be expected that 'innovation' would rank high in responses.
The materiality matrix displays the prioritisation of the matters based on their relative importance to BAM and to BAM’s stakeholders. It should be noted that opinions of various stakeholders and appreciation in BAM’s home markets may vary.
This report has been structured according to the material themes. It addresses BAM’s performance in relation to the following topics that are positioned in the materiality matrix:
10
2016 – 27
Source: Annual Report BAM 2016
Transparency Benchmark 2017 The Crystal 201736
In the matrix below, presented by AGCO in 2012, the dots indicate the level of control the company has over a specific topic.
AGCO 2012 SUSTAINABILITY REPORT | 8 |
SUSTAINABILITY APPROACH SUSTAINABILITY APPROACH
Our sustainability strategy development is guided by a set of issues that have been identified through a 2011 materiality analysis that was led by a leading independent sustainability consultancy. This process began with a current state assessment to determine those opportunities most likely to benefit from a formalized sustainability strategy and program. The assessment was accompanied by a materiality analysis that initially considered a broad list of global industry issues. Filtered for relevance to AGCO’s business and stakeholders, this list was further honed and assessed against societal concern, business impact and AGCO’s level of influence and
control. From this process, 20 key topics were identified and prioritized. This year, we have chosen to categorize these topics into six broad issues to form the basis of our reporting framework.
Strategy Development
The materiality analysis was key to the development of a strategic sustainability road map with four priorities: OPERATIONS, CUSTOMERS, SUPPLIERS and COMMUNITIES. Each of these priorities has high-level goals that are linked to our value creation chain and offer the potential to create lasting,
positive impacts for our business, our customers and our world at large. To underscore the integration of sustainability into our business, these goals also will help build business value by reducing costs, increasing revenue, mitigating risk and enhancing our long-term corporate and product reputation.
Materiality & Strategy Development
Food Security
Land Use
WaterAvailability
Labor Conditions/Human Rights Suppliers
WaterQuality
ClimateAdaptation
FarmerLivelihoods
ClimateChange
Mitigation
Biofuels
Consumer Nutrition
Biodiversity
Waste Management
Community Relations
EnergyConsumption
ProductStewardship
Employee Health & Safety
IMPACT ON COMPANY
Diversity
Soil Health
GMO
STA
KEH
OLD
ER C
ON
CER
N
HIGH
LOW HIGH
High Medium Low
LEVEL OF CONTROL
The matrix format provides a picture of the materiality of AGCO's critical issues and how they relate to one another.
Source: Sustainability Report AGCO 2012
Transparency Benchmark 2017 The Crystal 2017 37
In addition to the materiality matrix, Nederlandse Spoorwegen (Dutch railways) has also included an overview stating, for each stakeholder group, the topics that are the most important for a specific group.
Source: Annual Report NS 2016
Transparency Benchmark 2017 The Crystal 201738
As is evident from the scores, solely consulting stakeholders and reflecting that consultation in a matrix is no longer enough to set a company apart. As such, leaders are seeking ways to enhance the materiality analysis as well as its presentation. This benefits transparency: readers have access to more and more information on the topics that actually matter to the company and society. As a result, organizations can be held accountable much more accurately for their corporate social responsibility.
In the years ahead, the challenge will be to increasingly involve stakeholders further up or down the (value) chain in the dialogue with the company. Attempts are already being made to do so for specific topics. For instance, with regard to the theme of human rights, specific attention is requested to be devoted to giving people, that feel disadvantaged by an organization, access to a channel to engage in dialogue with the company. These groups comprise not just the traditional stakeholder groups, but also, for instance, employees of suppliers. Some leaders are already seeking to actively foster this type of dialogue, via sector organizations, sector initiatives, but also NGO’s are asking organizations to stimulate these types of dialogue.
5.4 Assurance
Developments concerning assurance on sustainability information occurred mainly in the past year. The revised Corporate Governance Code requires organizations to discuss long-term value creation and other corporate responsibility topics in detail. The external auditor will assess whether an organization complies with the new Code, and therefore also whether sufficient attention is devoted to long-term value creation. The EU NFI Directive is expected to have a similar effect.
From 2014 to the present time, the percentage of organizations that has included in its annual report a report from an independent party that has verified the content of the sustainability information and provided assurance with regard to the reliability of the sustainability information has remained stable. Approximately 30% of all participants of the Transparency Benchmark received a score for criterion 30 over the past four year.
However, two other developments are manifest, occurring mainly in the group of leaders. Firstly, the level of assurance provided in the report with regard to the CSR information, or a part thereof, is more often reasonable than four years ago. In 2014 there were 3 organizations, within the leader group, which received the maximum score for criterion 30 (Assurance statement with reasonable assurance with regard to the non-financial information). In 2017 there were 5 organizations in who received the maximum score for this criterion. This means that the quality of the data and underlying processes is improving, and at the same time attests to the value that organizations attach to this information. This trend is expected to continue.
Transparency Benchmark 2017 The Crystal 2017 39
In addition, leaders more often include a combined report, which provides assurance on both the financial information and the non-financial information. This is another way in which organizations demonstrate that reliable financial information and non-financial information are both necessary for sound operations. Two combined auditor’s reports are included. The first is the combined auditor’s report that was issued for Nederlandse Financierings-Maatschappij voor Ontwikkelings landen N.V. (FMO). This assurance statement provided a limited degree of certainty. The second combined accountant statement has been issued for Havenbedrijf Rotterdam (Port of Rotterdam) and concerns an assurance statement with a reasonable degree of certainty about both financial and non-financial information.
Combined independent auditor’s report To: the shareholders and supervisory board of Nederlandse Financierings- Maatschappij voor Ontwikkelingslanden N.V.
Our conclusions We have audited the financial statements 2016 of Nederlandse Financierings- Maatschappij voor Ontwikkelingslanden N.V. (‘FMO’ or ’the Company’), based in The Hague. The financial statements include the consolidated financial statements and the company financial statements. In our opinion: • The accompanying consolidated financial statements give a true and fair view of the financial position
of FMO as at 31 December 2016 , and of its result and its cash flows for 2016 in accordance with International Financial Reporting Standards as adopted by the European Union (EU-IFRS) and with Part 9 of Book 2 of the Dutch Civil Code.
• The accompanying company financial statements give a true and fair view of the financial position of FMO as at 31 December 2016, and of its result for 2016 in accordance with Part 9 of Book 2 of the Dutch Civil Code.
We have reviewed the sustainability information in the Annual Report 2016 of FMO (the scope is described in section Our Scope). A review engagement is aimed at obtaining limited assurance. Based on our procedures performed, nothing has come to our attention that causes us to conclude that the accompanying sustainability information, in all material respects, does not present, a reliable and adequate view of the policy and business operations with regard to sustainability and the thereto related events and achievements for the year ended 31 December 2016, in accordance with the Sustainability Reporting Guidelines version G4 of the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) and the supplemental reporting criteria as disclosed in the chapter ‘How we report’ in the Annual Report 2016.
Basis for our conclusions We conducted our assurance engagements in accordance with Dutch law, including the Dutch Standards on Auditing and the Dutch Standard 3810N, ‘Assurance engagements relating to sustainability reports’. Dutch Standard 3810N is a subject specific standard under the International Standard on Assurance Engagements (ISAE) 3000, ‘Assurance Engagements Other Than Audits or Reviews of Historical Financial Information’. Our responsibilities under those standards are further described in the section Our responsibilities in this report. We believe the assurance evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our conclusions.
Our independence We are independent of FMO in accordance with the “Verordening inzake de onafhankelijkheid van accountants bij assurance-opdrachten” (ViO, Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants, a regulation with respect to independence) and other relevant independence regulations in the Netherlands. This includes that we do not perform any activities that could result in a conflict of interest with our independent assurance engagement. Furthermore, we have complied with the “Verordening gedrags- en beroepsregels accountants” (VGBA, Dutch Code of Ethics).
69
Source: Annual Report FMO 2016
Transparency Benchmark 2017 The Crystal 201740
Source: Annual Report Havenbedrijf Rotterdam 2016
Transparency Benchmark 2017 The Crystal 2017 41
5.5 Sector comparison
The participating organizations of the Transparency Benchmark have been divided into 16 different sectors. The organizations that could not be included in a specific sector form the sector ‘other’, a total of 21 organizations.
The dynamics in the operating environment and the challenges faced by the organizations vary per sector, making a sector-based analysis essential and valuable. The various sectors demonstrate differences in average points received and the percentage of zero scores. 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 2017 (without zero scores)
Percentage zero scores 2017 Just like previous years the Transport sector has the
highest average score with 156 points, however the average score of this sector has decreased with 7 points compared to last year.
The average score of all organizations has increased to 108 points (2016: 104 points). There are substantial differences between the scores of the different sectors. An illustrative example of this is the difference of in total 128 points between the average score of the transport sector and the pharmaceuticals.In addition, it is noticeable that some sectors consist primarily of organizations with a zero score. For example, although the technology sector reached an average score of 123 points, 60% of the organizations in this sector received a zero score. The real estate sector on the other hand, only achieves an average score of 103 points. However, all organizations have achieved a positive score in this sector.
This year, 12 new organizations have been added to the Transparency Benchmark. Only these 12 organizations are considered as new participants within the sectors.
Banking and insurance 131 3%
Construction and maritime 108 40%
Consumer products 86 74%
Services 112 34%
Energy, oil and gas 142 42%
Trading 48 77%
Industrial products 84 61%
Media and communications 94 40%
Other 58 67%
Pharmaceuticals 28 43%
Retail 105 63%
Technology 123 60%
Transport 156 61%
Universities and Medical Centres 94 4%
Real estate 103 0%
Food and beverage 123 49%
Transparency Benchmark 2017 The Crystal 201742
5.5.1 Banking and insurance
0 50 100 150 200
RFS Holland Holding B.V.Citco Bank Nederland N.V.
The Royal Bank of ScotlandHDI-Gerling Verzekeringen N.V.
De Goudse N.V.Zorg en Zekerheid Groep
O.W.M. DSW Zorgverzekeraar UACoöperatie Univé U.A.
Credit Europe Bank N.V.DAS Ned. Rechtsbijstand Verzekeringmaatschappij N.V.
BinckbankONVZ Ziektekostenverzekeraar N.V.
Robeco Institutional Asset Management B.V.VvAA groep B.V.
Atradius N.V.Kas Bank N.V.
Triodos Bank N.V.NIBC Bank N.V.
Coöperatie VGZ U.A.CZ groep
ASR Nederland N.V.Vivat VerzekeringenMenzis Holding B.V.
AchmeaNN GROUPAegon N.V.
Nederlandse Waterschapsbank NVDelta Lloyd Groep
De Nederlandsche Bank N.V.ING Groep
Bank Ned. Gemeenten N.V.de Volksbank N.V.
Ned. Financierings-Maatschappij voor Ontwikkelingslanden NVRabobank
ABN AMRO Group N.V.Van Lanschot Bankiers 193
193191191
188188
187186185185184183183
180179
177175
171165
159146
143134
8881
5956
4644
4034
3026
187
0
Number of companies 36
Number of companies with zero score 1
Number of companies with a score 35
Average score (exl. companies with zero score) 131
Percentage of companies with zero score 3%
Number of new participants 0
The banking and insurance sector scored, similar to last year, above average with an average score of 131 points. This is an increase of 10 points compared to last year.
Just like last year only 1 organization received a zero score.
Another aspect that is worth mentioning is that 14 organizations received a score of 180 points or higher.
Transparency Benchmark 2017 The Crystal 2017 43
5.5.2 Construction and maritime
0 50 100 150 200Wavin N.V.
Peterson Control Union Group B.V.Mota-Engil Africa N.V.
Koninklijke WagenborgJoh. Mourik & Co. Holding B.V.
GustoMSC Investments B.V.CRH Nederland B.V.
Brihold B.V.Bluewater Holding B.V.
Beelen Groep B.V.A. Hakpark B.V.
Aan de Stegge Holding B.V.Van Wijnen Groep N.V.
Oranjewoud N.V.Janssen De Jong Groep B.V.
Hurks groepUnica Groep B.V.
Dura Vermeer GroepBallast Nedam N.V.
SPIE Nederland B.V.Wi�eveen+Bos
Damen Shipyards Group N.V.Van Oord
IHC Merwede Holding B.V.TBI Holdings
SBM O�shoreKoninklijke Boskalis Westminster N.V.
VolkerWesselsHeijmans
Royal BAM Group 199189
180178176
173120119
108100
8885
7169
462422
000000
4000000
Number of companies 30
Number of companies with zero score 12
Number of companies with a score 18
Average score (exl. companies with zero score) 108
Percentage of companies with zero score 40%
Number of new participants 1
This year, the construction and maritime sector obtained an average score of 108 points. This is a minor increase compared to last year when the average score was 107 points. With the increased score there has come an end to the decline of the average scores over the past two years.
Royal BAM Group is the winner of the Crystal with a score of 199 points.
Witteveen+Bos has been included in the Transparency Benchmark for the first time this year. Although the organization was not required to do so, it decided to participate on a voluntary basis.
Transparency Benchmark 2017 The Crystal 201744
5.5.3 Consumer products
0 50 100 150 200Nike Eur. Operat. Neth. B.V.
WE Europe B.V.Van den Ban Autobanden B.V.
Swarovski (Europe) Holding B.V.Remeha Group B.V.
Philip Morris Holland B.V.Lekkerland Beheer
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 Products
Apollo Vredestein B.V.Takeaway.com N.V.
X5 Retail Group N.V.Action Service & Distributie
Accell GroupUnilever N.V. 185
1384242
2500000000000000
Number of companies 19
Number of companies with zero score 14
Number of companies with a score 5
Average score (exl. companies with zero score) 86
Percentage of companies with zero score 74%
Number of new participants 2
Last year the average score of this sector was 104 points, this year it decreased to 86 points. Two years ago the sector received an average score of 133 points. This drop in score is caused by the fact that more organizations received a score within the sector and this lowered the average score (last year 4 organizations received a score and this year 5).
With the entrance of two new participants and the fact that they both received a score, the percentage of organizations with a zero score has decreased from 79% to 74%. Therefore, this sector is no longer the sector with the highest percentage of organizations with a zero score.
Transparency Benchmark 2017 The Crystal 2017 45
5.5.4 Services
0 50 100 150 200Atos Origin Nederland B.V.
Xylem Water Solutions Nederland B.V.USG People N.V.
United Parcel Service Nederland B.V.Unit 4 N.V.
TP Vision Europe B.V.Tauw Groep BV
Sweco Nederland BVOracle Nederland B.V.
Omron Europe B.V.Manpower Nederland B.V.
Loyens & Loe� N.V.Holiday Holding Ro�erdam B.V.
Hametha B.V.Diversey 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 HoldingAdecco Nederland Holding B.V.
Accenture B.V.Monuta
IMC TradingTMF Group Holding B.V.
Home Credit B.V.Value8
APGIntertrust N.V.
Broekhuis HoldingDPA GROUP
Nieuwe Steen invEuronext N.V.
Yarden Holding B.V.Stichting Espria
Flow Traders N.V.LeasePlan Corporation N.V.
Centric Holding B.V.ICT Automatisering
Stichting Exploitatie Nederlandse StaatsloterijFugro N.V.
Holland CasinoBrunel International N.V.
Vebego International N.V.PGGM
RenewiOntwikkelingsmaatschappij Oost Nederland NV
Royal HaskoningDHVDeloi�e Holding B.V.
ANWB B.V.Regionale Ontwikkelingsmaatschappij InnovationQuarter B.V.
SUEZ Recycling & Recovery Netherlands B.V.Arcadis N.V.
Industriebank LIOF N.V.Dela Coöperatie U.A.
KPMG N.V.Randstad Holding N.V.
Brab. Ontw. Maatschappij N.V.Q-Park NV
MNFacilicom Services Group
N.V. HVCHolding Nationale Goede Doelen Loterijen N.V.
Ordina N.V.NV NOM Investerings- en Ontwikkelingsmaatschappij voor Noord-Nederland
PricewaterhouseCoopersErnst & Young Nederland
COVRA NV 187187
184178178
175175
173172172
168163
161156
152146
142146
136133
131128
127124
119118
114112
10274
7272
6960
5754
4647
4242
3934
2625
716
000000000000000000000000
Number of companies 70
Number of companies with zero score 24
Number of companies with a score 46
Average score (exl. companies with zero score) 112
Percentage of companies with zero score 34%
Number of new participants 1
The service sector has the highest number of participating organizations, in total there are 70 organizations included in this sector. The average score is just above the overall average, and has increased compared to last year, from 103 points to 112 points. This is the second consecutive year the average score increases, while the number of organizations in the sector almost remained the same.
About one third of the organizations has a zero score in this sector.
Transparency Benchmark 2017 The Crystal 201746
5.5.5 Energy, oil and gas
0 50 100 150 200Yara Sluiskil B.V.
TOTAL Nederland N.V.
Oilinvest (Netherlands) B.V.
Kuwait Petroleum B.V.
Eneco Holding N.V.
EFR Nederland B.V.
De Nederlandse Energie Maatschappij B.V.
Argos Group Holding B.V.
Delta N.V.
Ultra-Centrifuge Ned. N.V.
Heerema Marine Contractors Holding Nederland B.V.
Royal Dutch Shell
GasTerra B.V.
Juva
EBN
Enexis Holding N.V.
Nederlandse Gasunie N.V.
TenneT Holding B.V.
Alliander N.V. 198194194
188185
173168
13246
4340
00000000
Number of companies 19
Number of companies with zero score 8
Number of companies with a score 11
Average score (exl. companies with zero score) 142
Percentage of companies with zero score 42%
Number of new participants 0
The energy, oil and gas sector has achieved a higher average score than last year. Last year, the sector achieved an average score of 135 points, while this year the average score has increased to 142 points.
The increase of the average score is mainly caused by the fact that the scores at the top of the sector have increased compared to previous years. Last year 3 organizations receives a score of 180 or higher and this year 5 organizations received such a score.
Transparency Benchmark 2017 The Crystal 2017 47
5.5.6 Trading
0 50 100 150 200Roba Metals
Wensink Automotive B.V.Trimble Europe B.V.
Transm. and Engineer. Services Netherl.Toshiba Medical Systems Europe B.V.
Royal Reesink N.V.RLG Europe B.V.
PP Groep Katwijk B.V.Oxbow Netherlands Coöperatieve U.A.
N.V. Deli MaatschappijHager-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.
Coöperatieve Vereniging Beko U.A.Cefetra B.V.
Brokking's Beheer B.V.Brenntag Nederland B.V.
Beheer- en Beleggingsmaatschappij Zandbergen B.V.Baker Hughes (Nederland) B.V.
Hexion B.V.Interfood Holding
Copaco Nederland B.V.SHV Holdings N.V.
Scholten AwaterEXOR N.V.
MCB International B.V.Amsterdam Commodities N.V.
Royal FloraHolland 15492
4534
742
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) 48
Percentage of companies with zero score 77%
Number of new participants 1
The trading sector has an average score of 48 points: this is a decrease compared to last year, when the average score was 57 points.
The decrease in the average score of the sector is caused by the fact that Nidera B.V. is no longer part of the research group due to the merge into COFCO International. Nidera B.V. was the leader of this sector over the past years. Its place is now taken by Royal FloraHolland.
Transparency Benchmark 2017 The Crystal 201748
5.5.7 Industrial products
0 50 100 150 200BASF Nederland B.V.
Yanmar EuropeVoestalpine Automotive Netherlands Holding B.V.
Tetra Laval Holdings B.V.Terberg Group B.V.
Synbra Holding B.V.Stork
SIHI Group 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.
DOW Benelux B.V.Denso Int. Europe B.V.
Denkavit Internationaal B.V.De Hoop Terneuzen 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.Van Leeuwen Buizen Groep B.V
Schoeller Allibert Holding B.V.Sif Holding N.V.
Kramp Groep B.V.Brocacef Holding
Koninklijke Ten Cate N.V.Vimetco N.V.
Constellium N.V.Batenburg Techniek N.V.
Caldic B.V.Nedap N.V.
AMG Advanced Metallurg. Gr. NVOCI
Forbo Flooring B.V.Tata Steel Nederland B.V.
Aalberts Industries N.V.STMicroelectronics N.V.
AperamCorbion N.V.
Kendrion N.V.Koninklijke Philips N.V.
Philips Lighting N.V.AKZO Nobel N.V.
DSM N.V. 191190
188187
182159
11287
10583
7372
5970
5646
2828
2624
2120
4
0000
03
000000000000000000000000000000000
Number of companies 62
Number of companies with zero score 38
Number of companies with a score 24
Average score (exl. companies with zero score) 84
Percentage of companies with zero score 61%
Number of new participants 3
This year the average score of the sector has decreased from 97 points to 84 points. The number of organizations with a zero score in absolute numbers is the highest of all sectors: 38 organizations received a zero score.
Although this sector has the most organizations with a zero score, it is also the sector with the most new participants, 3 in total. These 3 organizations all received a positive score and Philips Lighting N.V. is the new participant with the highest score (188 points). With 188 points Philips Lighting N.V. instantly reached the top-21 of the Transparency Benchmark.
Transparency Benchmark 2017 The Crystal 2017 49
5.5.8 Media and communications
0 50 100 150 200Stichting Nederlandse Publieke Omroep
Sanoma Magazines B.V.
Global City Holdings N.V.
Chios Investments B.V.
Audax B.V.
de Persgroep Nederland B.V.
Cimpress
Wolters Kluwer N.V.
RELX Group N.V.
TMG - Telegraaf Media Groep 161
152
139
44
37
33
0
0
0
0
Number of companies 10
Number of companies with zero score 4
Number of companies with a score 6
Average score (exl. companies with zero score) 94
Percentage of companies with zero score 40%
Number of new participants 0
The average score of the sector media and communications has increased with 19 points from 75 to 94 points. This increase is caused by the fact two organizations which were part of this sector last year, did not meet the participation criteria this year. One of these organizations had a lower score. Due to the elimination of this score the average score increased.
Transparency Benchmark 2017 The Crystal 201750
5.5.9 Pharmaceuticals
0 50 100 150 200Merck Sharp & Dohme B.V.
Alliance Boots B.V.A&D Pharma Holdings N.V.
Kiadis Pharma N.V.Fagron
ProbiodrugGALAPAGOS 44
301919
000
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) 28
Percentage of companies with zero score 43%
Number of new participants 1
Just as in previous years the pharmaceuticals sector has the lowest number of participants as well as the lowest average score. The average score has also decreased this year, from 30 points to 28 points.
Again GALAPAGOS is the organization with the highest score within this sector, although the score has decreased compared to last year (from 53 to 44 points).
Transparency Benchmark 2017 The Crystal 2017 51
5.5.10 Retail
0 50 100 150 200Metro Distributie Nederland B.V.
Yamaha Motor Europe N.V.Tesla Motors Netherlands B.V.
St. Clair/ De BijenkorfSPAR 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.Markeur
Lohomij B.V.Inter-Sprint Banden
Intergamma B.V.Foot Locker Europe B.V.
Euretco B.V.ECCO EMEA B.V.
Deen Holding Hoorn B.V.BMW Nederland B.V.
B & S International B.V.AS Adventure Holding B.V.
Detailresult Groep N.V.Blokker Holding B.V.
Hoogvliet B.V.Coolblue Holding B.V.
A.S. Watson Health & Beauty Benelux B.V.Ingka Holding B.V.
Beter Bed Holding N.V.Coop Holding
Stern Groep N.V.PLUS Holding B.V.
HEMAJumbo Groep Holding B.V.
GrandVision N.V.Zeeman Groep B.V.
Koninklijke Ahold Delhaize N.V. 169156
147
135131131
117108
10582
57
137
52
0
000
48300
0
00000000000000
00
00
Number of companies 40
Number of companies with zero score 25
Number of companies with a score 15
Average score (exl. companies with zero score) 105
Percentage of companies with zero score 63%
Number of new participants 0
Compared to last year the average score of the retail sector has increased. Last year the average score of the sector was 103 points, this year the average score is 105 points. This is just below the overall average of 108 points.
The increase of the average score can be explained by the fact this year there are more organizations with a score that is higher than 130 points, compared to last year. Last year only three organizations receive more than 130 points and this year seven organizations received a score higher than 130 points.
Transparency Benchmark 2017 The Crystal 201752
5.5.11 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.NXP Semiconductors Netherlands B.V.
Nokia Solutions and Networks 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.Dell Global B.V.
Cisco Systems International B.V.Chemours Netherlands B.V.
Boston Scienti�c Int. B.V.Acer Europe B.V.
VDL GroepNeways Electronics International N.V.
ALTICETomTom N.V.
Tele2 Netherlands Holding N.V.BE Semiconductor Indus. N.V.
Thales NederlandGemalto N.V.
VimpelCom Ltd.ASM International N.V.
ASMLTKH Group N.V.
KPNSiemens Nederland 196
191174
165155
152130
123112
9183
7153
21
00
0000000000000000000
Number of companies 35
Number of companies with zero score 21
Number of companies with a score 14
Average score (exl. companies with zero score) 123
Percentage of companies with zero score 60%
Number of new participants 0
The average score of the technology sector has also increased this year, from 117 points to 123 points.
Compared to last year the percentage of organizations with a zero score has remained at a comparable level (62% last year and 60% this year). Therefore it can be concluded that in general, the level of transparency throughout the sector has improved compared to last year.
Transparency Benchmark 2017 The Crystal 2017 53
5.5.12 Transport
0 50 100 150 200TNT Express
Vroon O�shore B.V.Universal Cargo Logistics
Thomas Cook Nederland B.V.Stolt Tankers
SamskipRaben Netherlands BV
Handelsveem BeheerGaiwin B.V.
Ewals Holdings B.V.Eur. Container Terminals B.V.
EEA Helicopter Operations B.V.DAF Trucks N.V.
ConnexxionCatom Enterprises B.V.
Vos Logistics Beheer B.V.GVB Amsterdam
ProRail B.V.Air France - KLM
PostNLNS
Havenbedrijf Ro�erdam N.V.Schiphol Group 197
195195
184179
171
33
137115
00000000000000
Number of companies 23
Number of companies with zero score 14
Number of companies with a score 9
Average score (exl. companies with zero score) 156
Percentage of companies with zero score 61%
Number of new participants 0
Just like last year the transport sector has the highest average score, although the score has decreased from 163 points to 156 points. This brings the score back to the level of 2015.
The decrease in score can be partially explained by the fact that one of the organizations within this sector received a zero score, while last year it received more than 130 points.
Transparency Benchmark 2017 The Crystal 201754
5.5.13 Universities and Medical Centers
0 50 100 150 200Technische Universiteit Eindhoven
Radboud Universiteit NijmegenOpen Universiteit
Erasmus Universiteit Ro�erdamAvans Hogeschool
VUmcUniversiteit van Tilburg
NyenrodeVrije Universiteit
Universiteit van AmsterdamAcademisch Medisch Centrum
Maastricht UMC+Technische Universiteit Del�
Leids Universitair Medisch CentrumUniversiteit Utrecht
Erasmus MCUniversiteit TwenteUniversiteit Leiden
Universiteit MaastrichtRijksuniversiteit Groningen
RadboudumcUMC Utrecht
TNOUniversitair Medisch Centrum Groningen
Wageningen University & Research 164162
159159
144134
114
122118
9998
8886
716969
6361
5854
4342
3938
0
Number of companies 25
Number of companies with zero score 1
Number of companies with a score 24
Average score (exl. companies with zero score) 94
Percentage of companies with zero score 4%
Number of new participants 1
The sector Universities and Medical Centers has an average score of 94, compared to a score of 90 in 2016.
Where last year none of the universities or medical centers received a zero score, this year one of the universities received a zero score.
Transparency Benchmark 2017 The Crystal 2017 55
5.5.14 Real Estate
0 50 100 150 200WDP
Eurocommercial Properties
Unibail Rodamco
Wereldhave Manag. Holding B.V.
Vastned Retail N.V. 133
128
122
79
52
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) 103
Percentage of companies with zero score 0%
Number of new participants 1
The real estate sector has an average score of 103 points. This is a minor increase compared to last year when the average score was 102 points.
This year the real estate sector is the only sector where none of the organizations received a zero score.
Transparency Benchmark 2017 The Crystal 201756
5.5.15 Food and Beverage
0 50 100 150 200Van Rooi Meat B.V.
Theobroma B.V.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.A-Ware Food Group B.V.
Admidex B.V.Addasta Holding B.V.2 Sisters Europe B.V.
CZAVKoninklijke Grolsch N.V.
Lucas Bols N.V.Koninklijke Coöperatie Cosun U.A.
Refresco Group N.V.Coöperatie AVEBE U.A.
The Greenery B.V.Bavaria N.V.
Farm Frites Beheer B.V.ForFarmers N.V.
VION Holding N.V.Sligro Food Group N.V.
Agri�rm Group B.V.Plukon Food Group
Perfetti v. MelleBidfood
Vreugdenhil Groep B.V.Koninklijke FrieslandCampina N.V.
VanDrie GroupKoninklijke Wessanen N.V.
Albron Nederland B.V.Heineken N.V.
Vitens N.V. 192183
179176
171
139141143
152168
132131
128117
112
90101
8575
6159
5544
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) 123
Percentage of companies with zero score 49%
Number of new participants 0
With an average score of 123 points the organizations in the sector food and beverage significantly improved their performance compared to last year, when they obtained an average score of 105 points.
VION Holding N.V. is the fastest climber of the Transparency Benchmark 2017. Last year the organization received 38 points, this year the organization obtained 128 points.
Transparency Benchmark 2017 The Crystal 2017 57
5.5.16 Other
0 50 100 150 200Vroegop Ruhe & Co. B.V.
Optiver Holding B.V.O�ce Depot International
NetApp & ManufacturingMosadex
MediqHyva Group B.V.
Elopak B.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/Rensa
AerCap Holdings N.V.Kardan N.V.
Basic-Fit N.V.Airbus Group N.V.
Louis DreyfusKoninklijke Vopak N.V. 129
6963
5545
36
00000000000000
8
Number of companies 21
Number of companies with zero score 14
Number of companies with a score 7
Average score (exl. companies with zero score) 58
Percentage of companies with zero score 67%
Number of new participants 1
Compared to last year the category other received a higher average score. Last year the organizations within this sector received an average score of 51 points, this year it increased to 58 points.
Just like previous years Koninklijke Vopak N.V. is the leader in this sector with a score of 129 points (2016: 130 points).
Transparency Benchmark 2017 The Crystal 201758
5.6 Organizations with zero scores
The category of organizations with zero scores consists of organizations that are included in the participants group but did not achieve a score (0-score). An organization is part of this category when:• The report is not publicly available for free.• The report was not published in a timely manner, and previous-year reports have already been included in an earlier edition of the Transparency
Benchmark. • The organization is a subsidiary of a group but did not refer to a report from the parent on group level in the Dutch (financial) report and/
or did not apply for the group report arrangement.
Overview zero scores 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Total number of participants 469 473 460 409* 461* 483* 477**
Total of organizations with zero score 236 242 200 165 216 231 224
Percentage of organizations with zero score 50,32% 51,16% 43,48% 40,34% 46,85% 47,83% 46,96%
* Organizations who have participated with their group report are excluded.** Organizations who have participated with their group report and international PIE’s are excluded.
The Ministry aims to reduce the group of organizations with zero scores every year. This has been done by organising workshops and approaching organizations with a zero score to fill in the self-assessment. This year the percentage organizations with zero scores decreased from 48% to 47%. The main reason for this decrease is that this year only 12 new organizations (2016: 69) have been added to the participant group of the Transparency Benchmark. From previous years we have learned that organizations participating for the first time on the Transparency Benchmark are more likely to receive a zero score. However all 12 new added organizations received a score this year. This indicates that the importance and knowledge regarding the Transparency Benchmark among new participants has increased compared to previous years.
Most organizations with a zero score can be found in the Industrial products sector: a total of 38 organizations. However, the percentage of organizations with a zero score is the highest in the trading sector (77%). Last year the sector with the highest percentage of zero scores was the consumer products sector.Of all organizations listed on the Amsterdam’s stock exchange, 75 in total, only 2 organizations received a zero score. Although organizations with a zero score are not visible on the Transparency Benchmark Ladder, obtaining a zero score is not an indication that an organization is not sustainable, it is only an indication that the organization is not transparent about its sustainability policies and results. For an overview of all organizations with a zero score refer to appendix 7.4.
Transparency Benchmark 2017 The Crystal 2017 59
5.7 Corporate responsibility reporting in practice
The participating organizations that filled in the self-assessment were asked to (voluntarily) answer some additional questions about reporting and the process of developing a report. After the introduction of the new GRI Standards it was decided to change the questions regarding the use of the GRI guidelines this year. Unfortunately only 32 organizations answered the new question and therefore the results are not representative and comparable enough with the results conducted last year. Therefore the GRI analysis has not been include in this analysis.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
20172016
21%
1%
32%
9%
25%
21%
2%
12%9%
33%
8%
28%
Seperate CR ReportOther Relevant InformationIntegrated Report - OtherIntegrated Report - IIRCFinancial ReportNone
Type of Report(Analysis based on 252 (2016) and 253 (2017) respondents)
Compared to last year, the number of respondents who indicated they published an Integrated Report remained exactly the same with 41%. Of those reports, 9% is based on the framework for Integrated Reporting of the IIRC (International Integrated Reporting Council) and 32% is not based on the IIRC framework.
Just like last year, 21% of the organizations published a separate CSR report. The percentage of organizations that only publish a financial report is steadily decreasing. This year it has decreased from 28% to 25%.
What stands out is the percentage of organizations that state that they do not publish any kind of report, this increased from 9% to 12%.
Transparency Benchmark 2017 The Crystal 201760
0%5%
10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50%
OtherNo use of framework for
reporting
ISO 26000SustainabilityAccountingStandards
Board
GreenhouseGas Protocol
EMASCarbonDisclosure
Project
InternationalIntegrated
Reporting Council (IIRC) framework
Use of Internationally Recognized Frameworks(Analysis based on 89 (2016) and 80 (2017) respondents)
43%49%
19%23%
1% 0%
23%
0% 2%
9%
19%
0%
31%
19% 17%20%
20162017
The percentage of organizations that indicate they use the IIRC-framework for their report has increased from 43% to 49%. Also the number of organizations that indicate they use the Carbon Disclosure Project has increased, from 19% to 23%. The same trend is visible for the SASB framework, an increase from 2% to 9%.
Due to the increased use of reporting frameworks it is inevitable that there is a decrease visible in the percentage organizations indicating that they do not use a reporting framework. The percentage has decreased from 31% last year to 19% this year. According to the respondents who answered this additional question the use of the IIRC-frameworks is still the one most used.
Compared to previous years the Greenhouse Gas Protocol has been added as an additional option and ISO 26000 has been removed as an option. 23% of the organizations indicated they use the Greenhouse Gas Protocol as a reporting framework.
Transparency Benchmark 2017 The Crystal 2017 61
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
OtherLack of appropriate
knowledge/expertise in the elaboration
of a CR report
The elaboration of the report
is more timeconsuming
than initially expected
The reportis not
considered a key point
Diculties with the interpretation
of external guidelines
Data collection within the
organisation is complex
Most important challenges in the process of CR reporting(Analysis based on 126 (2016) and 113 (2017) respondents)
51%
33%
13%
48%
3%
21%
46%
29%
16%
36%
1%
29%
20162017
Most of the respondents indicate the biggest challenges during the process of reporting can be found inside their own organization. The respondents identify challenges related to data collection (46%) and time investment (36%) as most important. However, the percentage of organizations indicating that either one of these challenges is applicable to their organization has decreased compared to last year. The percentage of respondents indicating that the report is not considered a key point, increased for the first time over the last years (from 13% to 16%).
A positive aspect is the decrease in the percentage of organizations indicating they face difficulties with the interpretation of external guidelines. This has decreased from 33% to 29%.
The biggest increase regarding the challenges is seen in the category ‘Other’, from 21% to 29%. Unfortunately it is not possible to indicate what these other challenges might be.
Transparency Benchmark 2017 The Crystal 201762
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
20172016
Fully implemented OECD guidelinesUsed OECD guidelines as a starting point in the elaboration of the code of conduct and corporate governanceFamiliar with OECD guidelines,but not implementedNot familiar with the OECD guidelines
Use of OECD Guidelines(Analysis based on 106 (2016) and 102 (2017) respondents)
16%
28%
42%
14%
20%
36%
31%
13%
From the 102 organizations that answered this question, 56% indicated they use the OECD guidelines to some extent. This is an increase compared to last year when 44% indicated they used the OECD guidelines to some extent. Of this 56%, 36% indicated they used the OECD guidelines as a starting point for the code of conduct and corporate governance. The other 20% indicated they fully implemented the OECD guidelines. This is an indication that more organizations are starting to use the OECD-guidelines in regard to corporate responsibility reporting.
This trend is also visible in the organizations indicating they are not familiar with the OECD guidelines, this has decreased from 14% to 13%. Also the percentage of organizations indicating they are familiar with the OECD guidelines, but choose not to implement them has decreased (from 42% to 31%).
Transparency Benchmark 2017 The Crystal 2017 63
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
I am not familiar with
the SDG’s
We are familiar with the SDG’s
but have no ambitions to
adopt SDG’s in the near future
We are familiarwith the SDG’s but we have trouble adopting
and aligning the SDG’s with our
company strategy
We are familiar with the SDG’s and we have
the ambitions to start working with
the SDG’s
We are familiar with the SDG’s
and we have taken (the rst) steps towards
adopting SDG’s
20162017
22%17%
11%
24%
5%
52%
24%
5%
25%
15%
Use of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG's)(Analysis based on 127 (2016) and 110 (2017) respondents)
After the publication of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG’s) by the United Nations in late 2015, last year a question regarding these goals was added to the additional questionnaire of the Transparency Benchmark. Last year 24% of the respondents indicated they were not familiar with the SDG’s and within a year this has decreased to 15%. Another category that stands out is the fact that more than half of the organizations (52%) indicated they are familiar with the SDG’s and have taken the (first) steps towards adopting the SDG’s, while last year only 22% of the organizations used this answer.
This trend is also visible at the group of respondents that indicated to be familiar with the SDG’s but not having the ambition to adopt them in the near future. Within one year this has decreased from 25% to only 5%. This shows once more that the SDG’s have become more popular over the past two years and that they are embraced by organizations. This is reflected within the corporate responsbility reporting of multiple organizations who choose to link the SDG’s with their material themes.
Transparency Benchmark 2017 The Crystal 201764
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Is obliged for my
organization
Is not obliged for my organization, however we partially
comply with the Code
Is not obliged for my organization
Corporate Governance Code - Mandatory(Analysis based on 106 respondents)
44%
33%
23%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
We are not familiar with
the new corporate governance code
We are currently investigating the potential
impact on our reporting
standards
No, this does not have an
impact on ourfuture reporting
standards
Yes, this requires modi�cations
in our reporting standards
Corporate Governance Code - Impact(Analysis based on 106 respondents)
37%
9%
36%
18%
After the publication of the new Corporate Governance Code in late 2016, two additional questions were added to the additional questionnaire of the Transparency Benchmark. The first question we asked organizations in what way the new Code was obliged for them. 44% of the respondents indicated that the Code was obliged. Besides that 33% of the organizations indicated that although the Code is not obliged for their organization, they partially comply with the Code. The second question was what the impact of the Corporate Governance Code could be on the annual report of the organization. 18% of the respondents indicated the Code requires modifications in their reporting standards. On the other hand, 36% of the respondents indicated that the Code does not have an impact on their future reporting standards. When organizations indicate that the Code does not have an impact on their reporting standards, this could either indicate the Code is not obliged for their organization or that the report already complies with the Code. For an organization to comply with the Code the organization should have integrated their long term vision within the model of value creation, the strategy, risk analysis, remuneration policy and their corporate culture. Out of 106 respondents, 37% indicate they are investigating what the impact of this new Code could be on the reporting standards. Finally 9% of the respondents indicated that they are not familiar with the new Corporate Governance Code.
Transparency Benchmark 2017 The Crystal 2017 65
6 First analysis EU-Directive on non-financial information and diversity and the Natural Capital Protocol
As of next year, public-interest organizations (PIEs) with more than 500 employees (around 125 organizations in the Netherlands) are required to comply with the Directive on Non-Financial Information (besluit Bekendmaking niet-financiele informatie) and the Directive on Diversity Policy (besluit Bekendmaking diversiteitsbeleid) (NFID). This means that large PIEs are obliged to include certain relevant non-financial information in the management report. In addition, the Natural Capital Protocol was published last year. The Natural Capital Protocol provides guidance to organizations on integrating natural capital in their decision-making processes.
With a view to enriching the Transparency Benchmark, the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy has carried out a first analysis of the reporting of relevant organizations in relation to the laws and protocols related to the directive referred to above.
Disclosure of non-financial and diversity informationWith effect from the financial year 2017, the statutory requirements for transparency concerning non-financial information in the management report for large PIEs will become more stringent owing to two independent provisions:1. Directive on Non-Financial Information 2. Directive on Diversity Policy
Transparency Benchmark 2017 The Crystal 201766
Natural Capital protocolThe Natural Capital Coalition has published the Natural Capital Protocol. The protocol is a framework aimed at well-informed decision-making, meaning it does not entail any statutory obligations. The protocol’s framework was developed to support organizations in generating trusted and credible information that business managers can use in making decisions.
6.1 Initial analysis
The two directives concerning the disclosure of non-financial and diversity information require organizations to carry out an analysis of their current reporting and to identify any steps they need to take to comply with the new legislation in 2018. To support organizations in achieving this, an initial analysis of the status quo was carried out for the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy. This centred on the following question: “How far have the organizations progressed on including information on the mandatory components pursuant to the directive on Non-financial and diversity information based on their reporting of 2016”?
It is important to note that the results of this analysis do not provide an indication of whether organizations comply with the legislation, as this can be determined only by a court. Moreover, its method was not designed to determine this; it was aimed only at establishing whether information had been included and did not consider aspects such as materiality or reliability. The results are presented at a sector level only, as no exchange of views on the scores took place with individual organizations during the analysis.
6.2 Research group
Only the organizations within the scope of one or both of the directives were included in the research group. These are therefore not all the organizations that are within the scope of the research group in the Transparency Benchmark. Only large listed organizations were included in the research group for the analysis relating to the directive on diversity policies, as the directive applies solely to large listed organizations. A listed organization is classified as large if it meets at least two of the three following criteria:• Average number of employees during the financial year > 250 • Balance sheet total > 20 million• Net turnover > 40 million
Transparency Benchmark 2017 The Crystal 2017 67
The large PIEs have been included in the research group for the baseline measurement relating to the directive on non-financial information. In connection with this directive, a PIE is classified as large if it meets the two following criteria:• Average number of employees during the financial year > 500 • Balance sheet total > 20 million or Net turnover > 40 million
The organizations selected for the baseline measurement relating to the natural capital protocol were those that were within the scope of at least one of the two aforementioned selections. This resulted in the following populations for the research groups:
Research Group Population
Diversity directive 73
Non-Financial Information directive 107
Natural Capital Protocol 116
6.3 Procedure
The following criteria were applied:• Only annual reports for the reporting year 2016 were used. • Public, periodic information was used (in line with the participant protocol for the Transparency Benchmark).• All information included in the report that accompanies the financial statements has been included. Strictly speaking, the management report
comprises only the information that is designated as such (management report).• All mandatory components with regard to the directive on non-financial information (policy, KPIs, results, risks and risk management) have been
assessed for each of the mandatory topics (environmental matters, social matters, human rights and anti-corruption) as an individual component. This has been done to determine for which individual components information may have been omitted in the reports. This diverges from a future assessment relating to the directive which considers only whether all relevant information has been included.
Transparency Benchmark 2017 The Crystal 201768
6.4 Results of analysis relating to directive on diversity information
The directive on diversity information requires large listed organizations to provide insight into the policy with regard to board diversity. In the report, besides information on the policy, insight is required to be given into the targets, results and the manner in which the policy is implemented. Various types of diversity, such as, for example, age, gender, geographic origins, education and professional experience are required to be discussed in the disclosures.
The baseline measurement shows that 28 out of 73 organizations (38%) in the research group included information in the report on the topics that are required in the directive on diversity information. The bar chart in graph 1 reveals that, in particular, the industrial goods and banks & insurance sectors are leaders in this field, as these sectors feature the highest numbers of compliant organizations, in relative terms.
Graph 2 shows how the total research group for diversity scores on the inclusion of the specific reportable topics pursuant to the directive. According to those results, the organizations report most often on the diversity policy. Also, more than half of the organizations report on the results achieved and the implementation of the policy. The organizations report least often on the diversity targets set.
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14Other
TransportTrading
TechnologyServices
RetailReal estate
PharmaceuticalsMedia and communications
Industrial productsFood and beverageEnergy, oil and gas
Consumer productsConstruction and maritime
Banking and insurance yesno
Graph 1: the extent to which companies include information with regard to the disclosure on diversity policy
Graph 2: the extent to which companies within the research group included information with regard to the disclosure on diversity policy
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Implementingdiversity policy
Diversity results
Diversity goals
Diversity policy
Transparency Benchmark 2017 The Crystal 2017 69
6.5 Results of analysis relating to the directive on non-financial information
The directive on non-financial information requires an organization to provide insight into how it treats environmental matters, social matters and employee-related matters, respect for human rights and anti-corruption and bribery matters in its own business operations and value chain. This information is required to be included in the management report. For each of the aforementioned topics, insight is required to be given into four aspects:• The policy pursued (if available, including diligence procedures applied)• The results of the policy pursued• The principal risks and management of those risks• Non-financial performance indicators
In order to help place the aforementioned information in the proper context, a description of the business model is also required to be included in the management report.
The analysis reveals that none of the 107 reports (0%) of the research group includes all of the information relating to the directive on non-financial information. The bar chart below (graph 3) illustrates the percentages for the extent to which information is included for each sector.
Graph 4 represents the scores for the entire non-financial information research group on the inclusion of information on the specific reportable topics pursuant to the directive. Those results show that almost all organizations report on the business model. As regards the specific topics, environmental matters, social matters and employee-related matters are reported on most often. The information concerning respect for human rights and anti-corruption and bribery matters is provided far less frequently. Graph 4 also shows that not all required information is included in the management report but is often also published in, for example, a separate sustainability report or other form of report.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100Other
TransportTrading
TechnologyServices
RetailReal estate
PharmaceuticalsMedia and communications
Industrial productsFood and beverageEnergy, oil and gas
Consumer productsConstruction and maritime
Banking and insurance
Graph 3: the extent to which companies include information with regard to the disclosure on non-�nancial information
43%52%
42%64%
52%56%
59%14%
81%53%
36%61%
36%70%
38%
Transparency Benchmark 2017 The Crystal 201770
As stated earlier, for each of the topics as shown in graph 4, insight must be given into the policy pursued, the results of that policy, the principal risks and how they are managed as well as the non-financial key performance indicators. Graph 5 represents the scores of the entire NFI research group for inclusion of information on the various components required to be included per topic. This reveals that insight is most often provided into the policy that organizations have formulated for the various topics; around 50% of the organizations score points on this. Two aspects that are included relatively less often are the KPIs and explanatory information on the results per topic, with only 26% scoring on inclusion of a KPI for the topics environmental matters, social matters, human rights or corruption matters. Risks and the related risk management are described in around 40% of the reports analysed.
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Respect forhuman rights
Anti-corruption and bribery
Business model
Environmental ma�ers
Social and personnel ma�ers
Included within board report
Graph 4: the extent to which companies within the research group included information with regard to the di�erent themes required by the disclosure on non �nancial information
100%
Risk management
Non-�nancial performance indicators
Principal risks
Results
Policy
20%
40%
60%
80%
Graph 5: the extent to which companies within the research group included information with regard to the di�erent aspacts required by the disclosure on non �nancial information
Transparency Benchmark 2017 The Crystal 2017 71
6.6 Results of baseline measurement relating to natural capital protocol
In July of 2016, the Natural Capital Coalition published the Natural Capital Protocol. The protocol is a framework aimed at properly-informed decision-making, meaning it does not entail any statutory obligations. The protocol’s framework was developed to support organizations in generating trusted and credible information that business managers can use in making decisions. The framework comprises nine steps that are shown in figure 1. The analysis focused on two components of the two steps ‘Frame’ and ‘Measure and Value’ of natural capital, zooming in firstly on the extent to which insight is provided into the relation between natural capital and the organization concerned (impact and dependencies) and secondly on the extent to which the results of the assessment of the impacts and dependencies (assessment results) are reported. Again, this was based on reporting on 2016.
Figure 1 Natural Capital Protocol: the protocol framework
Transparency Benchmark 2017 The Crystal 201772
The analysis (see graph 6) shows that less than half of the organizations disclose information on the results relating to the Natural Capital Protocol. The research group scores better on reporting on the impacts and dependencies. A majority of the research group reports on impacts and dependencies in relation to the Natural Capital Protocol.
Clear differences are manifest between sectors, as reflected in graph 7. Scores are high in the media, transport and real estate sectors, particularly for the impacts & dependencies of natural capital. Work is currently under way on a Finance Sector Supplement, which may be a reason why banks & insurers are currently not yet among the leaders. It is also notable, given the attention that has already been focused for some time on transparency in the food chain, that the food sector also achieves moderate scores at present. A sector guide is already available for the food sector and worldwide there is extensive experience concerning Natural Capital. Lastly, it is notable that reporting by the pharmaceuticals industry and the construction & maritime sectors is currently least in line with the natural capital protocol despite there being a clear link with natural capital for those sectors.
Graph 6: the extent to which the reports of the companies within the research group regarding "assessment results" and ''impact and dependencies'' are in line with the Natural Capital Protocol
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Assessment results
Impact & dependencies
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%Other
TransportTrading
TechnologyServices
RetailReal estate
PharmaceuticalsMedia and communications
Industrial productsFood and beverageEnergy, oil and gas
Consumer productsConstruction and maritime
Banking and insurance
Graph 7: the extent to which the reports of the companies within the research group regarding "assessment results" and ''impact and dependencies'' are in line with the Natural Capital Protocol per sector
Impact & dependencies Assessment results
Transparency Benchmark 2017 The Crystal 2017 73
7 Appendices7.1 New participating organizations
In 2013 the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy decided to expand the research group of the Transparency Benchmark every year, with the ultimate goal to include the 600 largest organizations of the Netherlands. In 2017 this has resulted in 12 new participants, of which 2 organizations participated on a voluntary basis this year. The table below shows the new participants, including the respective sectors.
New Participant Sector
Avans Hogeschool Universities and Medical Centres
Basic-Fit N.V. Other
EXOR N.V. Trading
Intertrust N.V. Services
Philips Lighting N.V. Industrial products
Probiodrug Pharmaceuticals
Sif Holding N.V. Industrial products
Takeaway.com N.V. Consumer products
Vimetco N.V. Industrial products
WDP Real estate
Witteveen+Bos Construction and maritime
X5 Retail Group N.V. Consumer products
Transparency Benchmark 2017 The Crystal 201774
7.2 Dutch organizations with an international group report
Organizations in the participants group, which are part of a multinational organization and do not provide public accounting information on the Dutch activities were placed in the category ‘organizations with zero scores’ until 2013. This classification is based on the consideration that an organization should also report on its activities in the Netherlands if it merited its inclusion in the participants group (due to substantial Dutch operations).This score, however, often does not do justice to the CSR efforts (and accountability on the international level) of the specific organization. As of 2013, it is possible for these organizations to choose a separate arrangement. According to this special arrangement these organizations are not displayed on the ranking of the Transparency Benchmark. Instead, these organizations will be placed on a separate 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). An organization will be included in the Transparency benchmark as an organization with zero score if the organization fails to fulfil the required criteria for the arrangement concerning the international group report. In total 24 organizations (2016: 26 organizations) requested to participate and met the criteria of the international group report.
Organizations
Abbott Healthcare Products B.V.
Allianz Nederland Groep N.V.
ASICS Europe B.V.
Astellas BV
BP Nederland Holdings B.V.
Capgemini N.V.
Coca-Cola Ent. Nederl. B.V.
Core Laboratories N.V.
ENGIE Services Nederland N.V.
Epson Europe B.V.
EquensWorldline SE
Ericsson Holding Int. B.V.
Organizations
Essent
Esso Benelux B.V.
IBM Nederland BV
Neste Netherlands B.V.
Nestlé Nederland B.V.
Nuon Energie N.V.
Rockwool B.V.
Sodexo Nederland B.V.
Teijin Aramid B.V.
T-Mobile
TUI Nederland
Uniper Benelux
Transparency Benchmark 2017 The Crystal 2017 75
7.3 Foreign Public Interest Entities (PIE)
The Authority for the Financial Markets (AFM) in the Netherlands defines 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 traded on a regulated market, banks with domicile 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.
This year we found that four organizations (2016: six), which are marked as PIE, are not active in the Netherlands. These organizations are based in the Netherlands but their shares are not traded on the Dutch stock exchange. These organizations are included in the overview below but did not receive a Benchmark score.
Foreign Public Interest Entities
CNH Industrial N.V.
Fortuna Entertainment Group N.V.
Ovostar Union N.V.
Qiagen N.V.
Transparency Benchmark 2017 The Crystal 201776
Organizations
2 Sisters Europe B.V.
A&D Pharma Holdings N.V.
A. Hakpark B.V.
Aan de Stegge Holding B.V.
ABB B.V.
Accenture B.V.
Ace Innovation Holding B.V.
Acer Europe B.V.
Addasta Holding B.V.
Adecco Nederland Holding B.V.
Admidex B.V.
Advanced Travel Partners Nederland B.V.
Air Products Nederland B.V.
Alliance Boots B.V.
Apollo Vredestein B.V.
ArcelorMittal Netherlands B.V.
Ardagh Group Netherlands B.V.
Argos Group Holding B.V.
AS Adventure Holding B.V.
Atos Origin Nederland B.V.
Avery Dennison Materials Nederland B.V.
A-Ware Food Group B.V.
Organizations
B & S International B.V.
B. Braun Medical B.V.
Baker Hughes (Nederland) B.V.
Bakkersland Groep B.V.
BASF Nederland B.V.
BCD Travel Holding
BEE Holding B.V.
Beelen Groep B.V.
Beheer- en Beleggingsmaatschappij Zandbergen B.V.
Bluewater Holding B.V.
BMW Nederland B.V.
Booking.com B.V.
Bosal Nederland B.V.
Bose Products
Boston Scientific Int. B.V.
Brand Loyalty Group B.V.
Brenntag Nederland B.V.
Brihold B.V.
British American Tobacco International (Holdings) B.V.
Brokking's Beheer B.V.
C. den Braven Beheer B.V.
Canon Europa N.V.
7.4 Organizations with zero points awarded
This year 224 organizations are categorized as ‘organizations with zero score’.
Transparency Benchmark 2017 The Crystal 2017 77
Organizations
Cargill B.V.
Cefetra B.V.
Center Parcs Europe N.V.
CGI Nederland B.V.
Chemours Netherlands B.V.
Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V.
Chios Investments B.V.
Cisco Systems International B.V.
Clondalkin Industries B.V.
Connexxion
Coöperatieve Vereniging Beko U.A.
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 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.
Organizations
Diversey Europe Operations B.V.
DOW Benelux B.V.
Dutch Flower Group B.V.
Eastman Chemical B.V.
ECCO EMEA B.V.
EEA Helicopter Operations B.V.
EFR Nederland B.V.
Elopak B.V.
Eneco Holding N.V.
Enviem Holding B.V.
Eur. Container Terminals B.V.
Euretco 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.
Transparency Benchmark 2017 The Crystal 201778
Organizations
H.L. Barentz B.V.
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.
Hoogwegt Groep B.V.
Huawei Technologies Coöperatief U.A.
Huntsman Investments (Netherlands) B.V.
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.
JACOBS DOUWE EGBERTS B.V.
Joh. Mourik & Co. Holding B.V.
Organizations
Juniper Networks International B.V.
Koninklijke De Heus B.V.
Koninklijke Wagenborg
Koninklijke Zeelandia Groep B.V.
Kuehne + Nagel N.V.
Kuwait Petroleum B.V.
KYOCERA Document Solutions Europe B.V.
Lekkerland Beheer
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.
Mead Johnson B.V.
Meatpoint B.V.
Mediq
Mercedes-Benz Nederland B.V.
Merck Sharp & Dohme B.V.
Metro Distributie Nederland B.V.
Milkiland N.V.
Transparency Benchmark 2017 The Crystal 2017 79
Organizations
Mitsubishi Motors Europe B.V.
Mosadex
Mota-Engil Africa N.V.
N.V. Deli Maatschappij
Nedfast Holding B.V.
NetApp & Manufacturing
Nike Eur. Operat. Neth. B.V.
Nokia Solutions and Networks B.V.
NVDU Acquisition B.V.
NXP Semiconductors Netherlands 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.
Philip Morris Holland B.V.
Plantronics B.V.
Organizations
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 Metals
Rockwell Automation B.V.
Royal Reesink N.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.
Scotch & Soda N.V.
Sensata Technol. Holding N.V.
SIHI Group B.V.
SPAR Holding B.V.
St. Clair/ De Bijenkorf
Stichting Nederlandse Publieke Omroep
Transparency Benchmark 2017 The Crystal 201780
Organizations
Stolt Tankers
Stork
Swarovski (Europe) Holding B.V.
Sweco Nederland BV
Synbra Holding B.V.
Tauw Groep BV
Tech Data Nederland B.V.
Technische Universiteit Eindhoven
Terberg Group B.V.
Tesla Motors Netherlands B.V.
Tetra Laval Holdings B.V.
Theobroma B.V.
Thomas Cook Nederland B.V.
TNT Express
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.
United Parcel Service Nederland B.V.
Universal Cargo Logistics
USG People N.V.
Van den Ban Autobanden B.V.
Organizations
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
Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy, 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/ezk
The Crystal, the main award of the Transparency Benchmark
Is an initiative of the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy and
The Netherlands Institute for Chartered Accountants (NBA)
Project team 2017
EZK: Saskia Böttcher, Rob Overkleeft
NBA: Paul Hurks
www.transparantiebenchmark.nl/en
Directoraat-Generaal Bedrijfsleven en Innovatie
Bezuidenhoutseweg 73
Postbus 20401
2500 ek | ’s-Gravenhage
Internet: www.rijksoverheid.nl/ezk
November 2017 | Publicatie-nr. 107891
