Transparency Benchmark 2015 the Crystal 2015 in Cooperation with The

Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 2015 In cooperation with the Netherlands Institute of Chartered Accountants (NBA) Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 2015 In cooperation with the Netherlands Institute of Chartered Accountants (NBA)

Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 2015 1 1 The Transparency Benchmark Ladder

The Transparency Benchmark Ladder provides an overview of the total scores of the participating organizations, including the sub scores concerning 8 different criteria categories. The organizations that are included in the Transparency Benchmark are ranked in different groups: Frontrunners, Followers, Peloton, Laggards and organizations with zero scores

Category transparancy ladder 2015 Ranking Positions Leaders 1 - 20 Followers 21 - 70 Peloton 71 - 213 Laggards 214 - 245 Organisations with zero scores 246 - 461

2 Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 2015 The Transparency Benchmark Ladder

Organisation Pos. Cat. Total score

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

6 Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 2015 Content

1 The Transparency Benchmark Ladder 2 4.3.14 Real estate 32 4.3.15 Food and beverage 33 2 Introduction 8 4.3.16 Other 34 2.1 Preface 8 4.4 Corporate responsibility reporting in practice 35 2.2 About this report 9 5 In-depth theme: 3 This year’s winners 10 The impact of Transparency 40

4 What stands out? 11 6 Explanation of the Transparency Benchmark 47 4.1 Category comparison 11 6.1 Goal 47 4.2 Criteria comparison 12 6.2 Differences to previous year 47 4.2.1 Materiality 15 6.3 Boundary of publicly available accounting 4.3 Sector comparison 18 information 48 4.3.1 Banking and insurance 19 6.4 Methodology 49 4.3.2 Construction and maritime 20 6.5 Criteria 50 4.3.3 Consumer products 21 6.6 Jury report 51 4.3.4 Services 22 4.3.5 Energy, oil and gas 23 7 Appendices 56 4.3.6 Trading 24 7.1 New Participating organizations 56 4.3.7 Industrial products 25 7.2 Dutch organizations with an international 4.3.8 Media and communications 26 group report 59 4.3.9 Pharmaceuticals 27 7.3 Organizations with zero points awarded 60 4.3.10 Retail 28 7.4 Panel of Experts Transparency Benchmark 65 4.3.11 Technology 29 7.5 Jury of The Crystal 65 4.3.12 Transport 30 7.6 Literature 66 4.3.13 Universities and Medical Centres 31

Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 2015 7 2 Introduction

2.1 Preface

This booklet contains the results of the Transparency Benchmark 2015, assessing organizations’ disclosures for the reporting year 2014. The Transparency Benchmark provides insight into the degree of transparency from a corporate responsibility perspective of the 485 largest organizations in the Netherlands.

The structure of the Transparency Benchmark 2015 is similar to the Transparency Benchmark 2014. The criteria were radically changed in 2014 to align them with the new GRI Guidelines and account for the trend in Integrated Reporting. This year, the criteria have not been changed with regards to their content. However, some of the criteria have been redefined or provided with a supplement to enhance comprehensibility and reduce room for interpretation. As a result of this fine-tuning, some elements of companies’ reports, which were eligible for points in 2014, might have been rejected this year. The self-assessment methodology remained the same as last year:all organizations were invited to measure the quality of their reports through an online self-assessment. By completing the online self-assessment, organizations obtained direct insights into the strong elements of their report and those elements on which points were missed. The submitted answers of the self-assessment were critically checked for accuracy by a team of researchers.

Additionally, the group of participating organizations was changed compared to last year. The executor of the Transparency Benchmark, EY, has carefully checked the group,removing organizations that no longer belonged to the target group and adding new ones. Newly added organizations were informed of their inclusion in the benchmark in March 2015. The participation protocol (available at www.transparantiebenchmark.nl) describes the standards followed in defining the final participants group as well as the accounting information eligible for obtaining points on the Transparency Benchmark Ladder.

An independent panel of experts has additionally assessed the top 20 based on their own criteria, which are also available on the website. In addition, the website provides insights into all participating organizations and their respective scores.

The Crystal, developed in 2010 by the Ministry of Economic Affairs and the Netherlands Institute of Chartered Accountants (NBA), aims to be the most prestigious award for the best corporate responsibility reporting . As such, it is presented to the organization with the highest score on the Transparency Benchmark. The jury, consisting of Ms. Monika Milz, MBA (chairman), HRH Prince Carlos de Bourbon de Parme and

8 Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 2015 Professor. Leen Paape RA RO CIA, has chosen the winner from the top three. Next to the Crystal, additional awards are presented to the organization that climbed the most places on the Transparency Benchmark ladder and the organization that addresses transparency in corporate responsibility reporting in the most creative and innovative manner.

Stakeholders, like consumers, shareholders and governments expect an organization to be transparent about its tradeoffs and performance on an environmental, social and governance level. By openly communicating on these matters, an organization assumes a vulnerable position as its activities can be evaluated by its stakeholders. Transparency triggers the stakeholder dialogue, which can lead to adjustments in the company’s policy. This has been the purpose of the Transparency Benchmark for the past11 years and it seems to work. This year, the TB report includes an in-depth chapter in which transparency on social, environmental and governance elements is discussed. What is it, how does it work and what is the impact of transparency on the way organizations conduct business today?

In order to gain a proper understanding of the Transparency Benchmark, it is important to emphasize that the benchmark is purely aimed at measuring transparency in reporting. The Ministry gives no substantive judgment about the performance of organizations in the field of corporate responsibility. However, the Transparency Benchmark goes beyond merely establishing scores for companies. The observed trends in scores and patterns within sectors are also interesting to delve into. In this booklet, you will find more information in this respect, besides the results of companies’ transparency over the reporting year 2014.

Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 2015 9 3 This year’s winners

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

Fastest climber on the ladder of the Transparency Benchmark Westland Infra has climbed this year from position 162 to position 56. An increase of a staggering 106 positions.

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

The Crystal Prize, First prize of the Transparency Benchmark The third position is for Unilever, right behind number two, Philips. The winner of the Crystal Prize 2015 with 196 points is AkzoNobel. The complete report with the considerations of the Jury can be found in paragraph 6.6.

10 Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 2015 4 What stands out?

This chapter will focus on the results of the Transparency Benchmark. The results concerning the criteria were based on the analyses of the organizations that obtained a score on the Transparency Benchmark (245 organizations). Organizations with zero scores have thus not been included in the analysis.

4.1 Category comparison

The criteria of the Transparency Benchmark have been divided into two main categories: content-oriented and quality-oriented criteria. The content-oriented criteria are related to the content of the report, such as a description of the business model, policies and results, and the management approach. The quality-oriented criteria provide insight into the quality of the report such as consistency of information, reliability and relevance. The main categories are further divided into a total of eight subcategories. The graph below shows the average total score and average scores for each subcategory.

Total score A remarkable observation this year is that Content criteria organizations score on average higher on Company Prole and Business Model the content-oriented criteria (53%) than Policy and Results on the quality-oriented criteria (46%). Management Approach Qualitative criteria Similar to last year, 49.6% of the maximum Relevance number of points have been obtained by Clarity organizations in the participating group. Reliability This corresponds to an average score of Responsiveness 99 points. Coherence 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 2015 11 Top 3 best scoring categories: Top 3 lowest scoring categories: 1. Company Profile and Business Model (59% of maximum attainable score) 1. Reliability (27% of maximum attainable score) 2. Clarity (58% of maximum attainable score) 2. Policy and Results (47% of maximum attainable score) 3. Management Approach (53% of maximum attainable score) 3. Coherence (48% of maximum attainable score)

4.2 Criteria comparison

The next pages will provide more information on the criteria of the Transparency Benchmark 2015. The table below indicates the criteria with the best and worst scores obtained by the participating organizations. The highest and lowest scoring criteria are the same criteria as in 2014.

This table is then followed by, an overview of the most relevant and remarkable results of the Transparency Benchmark 2015. The graphs included in this overview present the average scores along the organizational classification of the TB Ladder (as defined in chapter 1). Comparison with last year’s scores is made possible by including the 2014 results. Moreover, based on a complementary in-depth analysis, the texts accompanying each graph highlight further observations of this year’s TB results, which are not directly derived from the graphs themselves.

TOP 3 HIGHEST SCORINING CRITERIA TOP 3 LOWEST SCORING CRITERIA Score & Criteria Explanation criteria Score & Criteria Explanation criteria 82% of the organizations achieved Complete understanding of 67% of the organizations No inclusion of a signed statement from the maximum score concerning the organizational structure obtained the minimum score an independent third party, who has criterion 13 concerning criterion 30 verified the corporate responsibility information 79% of the organizations achieved General information about the 65% of the organizations has Subject matter experts or stakeholders the maximum score on criterion 1 organization, a quantitative summary obtained the minimum score have not been invited to express their of the organization’s profile (amount concerning criterion 31 opinion in the report itself (e.g. quotes of employees, amount of supplied have not been included) goods/ services, etc.) 61% of the organizations Sharing a vision on relevant corporate 61% of the organizations has The achieved corporate responsibility achieved the maximum score responsibility themes and creating obtained the minimum score results are not compared with relevant on criterion 35 awareness / understanding with concerning criterion 40 publications from external parties (e.g. stakeholders on these specific themes listings, benchmark information, trend analyses and best practices)

12 Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 2015 Value Chain 69% of organizations report on the value chain in which Yes No it operates. (compared to 73% in 2014). Total 2015 69% 31% The percentage of organizations receiving the maximum score on this Total 2014 73% 27% criteria increased from 16% to 22%. The full score can be obtained by 100% 0% providing an explanation about the main corporate social responsi- Leaders bilities that are of importance within the value chain and including a Followers 98% 2% graphical representation. Peloton 67% 33% Category: Organization and Business Model Laggards 9% 91% 0 20 40 60 80 100 Business Strategy Yes No This year, 86% of the organizations provide an explana- Total 2015 86% 14% tion on the business strategy. The percentage of organizations that obtained the maximum score Total 2014 88% 12% increased from 50% in 2014 to 55%. These organizations provide 100% 0% Leaders specific information on the strategy and present a coherent set of Followers 100% 0% strategic themes, priorities and objectives. Additionally, they explicitly Peloton 90% 10% link the strategy with other components of the report. Laggards 38% 63% Category: Organization and Business Model 0 20 40 60 80 100 Objectives 74% of the organizations have formulated specific targets Yes No concerning corporate responsibility in 2015. Total 2015 74% 26% This is comparable with previous year. Total 2014 73% 27% In total, 29% of the organizations obtained the maximum score on 100% 0% this criteria (4% more than previous year). These organizations provide Leaders quantitative targets and link them with the material aspects. Followers 100% 0% Categorie: Policy and results Peloton 74% 26% Laggards 16% 84% 0 20 40 60 80 100

Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 2015 13 Third-party Assurance 33% of organizations have a statement of an Yes No independent third party included in the corporate responsibility report. Total 2015 33% 67% In comparison with previous year, it is remarkable that the followers- Total 2014 30% 70% group scores on average significantly better: 76% of the followers Leaders 100% 0% obtained an independent statement, compared to 63% in 2014. Followers 76% 24% In total, 11 organizations gained the maximum score on this criteria. Peloton 15% 85% Category: Reliability Laggards 3% 97% 0 20 40 60 80 100

Stakeholder Engagement 74% of the organizations indicate how they engage their Yes No stakeholders in the strategy, policy and activities of the Total 2015 74% 26% organization. This is a slight decrease from last year. There is room for improvement since only 17% of the organizations Total 2014 76% 24% achieve the maximum score. These organizations report on the 100% 0% Leaders outcomes of the stakeholder dialogue, the involvement of the highest Followers 100% 0% governance body during the dialogue and indicate how the Peloton 76% 24% stakeholder dialogue is related to the organization’s strategy and Laggards 13% 88% established targets. 0 20 40 60 80 100 Category: Reliability

Challenges and Dilemmas 67% of the organizations report on the challenges, Yes No issues or dilemma’s faced with regards to their business, Total 2015 67% 33% a slight increase from last year. Total 2014 66% 34% Moreover, there is a clear increase in the percentage of organizations 100% 0% that achieved the maximum score on this criteria. These organizations Leaders include the description on challenges, issues or dilemmas as a Followers 94% 6% stand-alone recognizable part within the report. Peloton 65% 35% Category: Responsiveness Laggards 13% 88% 0 20 40 60 80 100 14 Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 2015 Link between CR 64% of organizations clearly report how their strategy, and Strategic Aspects Yes No activities and results with regards to corporate Total 2015 64% 36% responsibility align to the organization’s strategy. Total 2014 65% 35% 50% of the organizations achived the maximum score on this criteria. These organizations use their set of strategic priorities as a guidance Leaders 100% 0% for an explanation of the developments, results and future expecta- Followers 100% 0% tions regarding corporate social responsibility. Peloton 60% 40% Category: Coherence Laggards 0% 100% 0 20 40 60 80 100

4.2.1 Materiality Internationally, the subject of materiality within reporting has been receiving more and more emphasis. This includes a sharpened focus on materiality of CSR themes in sustainability reporting in particular, evident from the latest GRI G4 guidelines. To keep the ever-increasing amount of non-financial information clearly structured and relevant for users, companies need to focus on those subjects, which are of most material importance to their own business and/or the users of the report. Therefore, this year special attention was dedicated to materiality in the formulation of criteria for the Transparency Benchmark 2015, leading to a redefinition of some criteria. The next pages provide insight in the conclusions related to the criteria about materiality.

Materiality I: General The precentages of organizations that report about Yes No material themes is 72% in 2015 (which is a decrease of 7% 72% 28% from last year). Total 2015 79% 21% Despite this total decrease, the percentage of organizations that Total 2014 provide additional insights into their material themes (insights into Leaders 100% 0% the relative importance of the identified material themes and Followers 100% 0% graphical representation of this) increased from 27% to 38%. Peloton 73% 27% Category: Organization and business model Laggards 9% 91% 0 20 40 60 80 100

Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 2015 15 Materiality II: Relevance Criteria 22 was changed in comparison to last year. Whereas last year the organizations could obtain the maximum score if they reported Yes No on at least five of the total pool of identified material issues, this Total 2015 61% 39% year, organizations could only obtain the maximum score if they Total 2014 82% 18% report on all (and exclusively on) the material themes, which they have identified themselves. Due to these changes, there is a Leaders 100% 0% noticeable decrease in the percentage of organizations that obtained Followers 100% 0% points on this criteria (82% in 2014 to only 61% in 2015). Peloton 56% 44% Despite the changes and the stricter interpretation of the criteria, Laggards 3% 97% 37% of the organizations obtained the maximum score. 0 20 40 60 80 100 Category: Relevance

Monetary value A large number of organizations describe the impact of their products/services on society. Quantifying and monetizing the generated impact is becoming more popular. The monetary value of environmental or social impact is the value (in Euros or other monetary value) of the effect on the environment or society. It should be noted that there is a significant difference between the monetary value of a cost saving for the organization (or the supply chain) and the monetary value of an effect (impact) for society. An investment in charity or an energy-saving program expressed in Euros of costs saved is not similar to the monetary value of a social of environmental effect. Monetizing the impact of training and education on employees, (future) employers and society is an example of such monetary value.

16 Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 2015 Criteria 11 and 12 were also changed in comparison to last year. In 2014, the organizations were awarded full points for explanations in their reports about a number of standard environmental and social aspects, specifically included in the criteria (assuming relevant aspects are similar for all organizations). This year, these criteria were reformulated such that a list of possible environmental and social aspects was no longer provided. Rather, organizations could only get points if all the material environmental and social aspects (as identified in their own reports) are explained, i.e. the criteria took into account the fact that companies have material aspects specific to their own organization).

Materiality III: Environmental Aspects 74% of the organizations report about their material environmental aspects of business practice. Yes No Although last year, the same percentage reported about Total 2015 74% 26% material environmental aspects, in 2014 this criteria looked Total 2014 74% 26% at a standardized list of aspects. This year, 65% of the organizations included a quantitative explanation Leaders 100% 0% of at least one material environmental aspect. In total 6 organizations Followers 100% 0% obtained the maximum amount of points on this criteria: in order to Peloton 74% 26% receive the maximum amount of points it is required to express the Laggards 19% 81% environmental results in a monetary value (see box about monetary 0 20 40 60 80 100 value). Category: Policy and results Materiality IV: Social Aspects 76% of the organizations report about their material social Yes No aspects of business practice. Total 2015 76% 24% Next to this, it is worth noting that 7 organizations have gained the Total 2014 84% 16% maximum amount of points on this criteria and have expressed their Leaders 100% 0% social results in a monetary value ( see box about monetary value) . Followers 100% 0% Category: Policy and results Peloton 78% 22% Laggards 13% 88% 0 20 40 60 80 100

Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 2015 17 4.3 Sector comparison

The participating organizations of the Transparency Benchmark have been divided into 16 different sectors (similar to last year). The organizations that could not be included in a specific sector form the sector ‘other’, a total of 19 organizations.

The dynamics in the operating environment and challenges vary per sector making a sector-based analysis essential and valuable. The various sectors demonstrate differences in average points received. A lower average score provides insights into the transparency within a particular sector and not necessarily about the performance regarding corporate responsibility of the sector.

Sector Average score Percentage As in last year, the transport sector has the highest average 2015 zero scores score in 2015 with 156 points. 2015 The average score of all organizations is exactly the same as Banking and insurance 108 5% last year (99 points). Construction and maritime 110 23% Consumer products 133 86% There are substantial differences between the scores of Services 94 32% sectors. An illustrative example of this is the difference of in Energy, oil and gas 129 42% total 122 points between the transport sector and the pharma- Trading 75 76% ceuticals industry. Industrial products 97 67% Media and communications 66 44% In addition, it is noticeable that some sectors consist majorly Other 91 74% of organizations with a zero score. For example, although in Pharmaceuticals 34 50% the consumer products sector the average is 133 points, 86% of Retail 85 60% the organizations in this sector received a 0-score. On the Technology 101 60% contrary, the real estate sector only achieves an average score Transport 156 63% of 95 points, however all organizations have achieved a Universities and Medical 73 4% positive in this sector. Centres For this year’s sector comparison a general reclassification has been made. This entails that some organizations have been assigned Real estate 96 0% to another sector compared to last year. In addition, 80 new organizations have been added to the Transparency Benchmark. Only these 80 organizations are considered as new participants within the sectors. Food and beverage 104 52%

18 Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 2015 4.3.1 Banking and insurance

Aegon N.V. Number of organisations 37 ING Groep Number of organisations with zero score 2 Van Lanschot Bankiers Number of organisation with a score 35 Bank Ned. Gemeenten N.V. De Nederlandse Bank N.V. Average score (excl. organisation with zero score) 108 Achmea Percentage of organisation with zero score 5% SNS Bank N.V. ABN AMRO Group N.V. Number of new participants 5 Nederlandse Waterschapsbank NV MN The banking and insurance sector scored, Rabobank Menzis Holding B.V. similar to last year, above average with an Vivat Verzekeringen average score of 108 points. However, this is a NN GROUP CZ Groep decrease from last year, when an average of NIBC Bank N.V. Ned. Financierings-Maatschappij voor Ontwikkelingslanden NV 116 points was obtained. Delta Lloyd Groep In this sector, only 5% of the organizations Atradius N.V. ASR Nederland B.V. have awarded zero-score. Stichting Zorgpartners Friesland Binckbank ONVZ Ziektekostenverzekeraar N.V. Vivat Verzekeringen is the best scoring new Coöreratie VGZ U.A. O.W.M. DSW Zorgverzekeraar UA member of the participants group, with a Ageas Insurance International N.V. score of 158. Legal & General Allianz Nederland Groep N.V. Zorg en Zekerheid Groep KasBank Robeco Groep N.V. Credit Europe Bank N.V. De Goudse N.V. Coöperatie Univé U.A. The Royal Bank of Scotland RFS Holland Holding B.V. HDI-Gerling Verzekeringen N.V.

Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 2015 19 4.3.2 Construction and maritime

Royal BAM Group Number of organisations 26 Heijmans Number of organisations with zero score 6 Royal Imtech N.V. SBM Oshore Number of organisation with a score 20 VolkerWessels Average score (excl. organisation with zero score) 110 Joh. Mourik & Co. Holding B.V. Koninklijke Boskalis Westminster N.V. Percentage of organisation with zero score 23% TBI Holdings Number of new participants 2 Beelen Groep B.V. Wavin N.V. Ballast Nedam N.V. This year, the construction and maritime Van Oord Damen Shipyards Group N.V. sector obtained an above-average score of IHC Merwede Holding B.V. Unica Groep B.V. 110 points. This is a decrease from an average Dura Vermeer Groep Oranjewoud N.V. score of 120 points in 2014. Hurks groep Janssen De Jong Groep B.V. Van Wijnen Groep N.V. Oranjewoud N.V. is within this sector the Aan de Stegge Holding B.V. A. Hakpark B.V. best new participant in the group with a Bluewater Holding B.V. score of 35. CRH Nederland B.V. Koninklijke Wagenborg SPIE Nederland B.V.

20 Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 2015 4.3.3 Consumer products

Unilever N.V. Number of organisations 21 Accell Group Number of organisations with zero score 18 TomTom N.V. A.S. Watson B.V. Number of organisation with a score 3 Action Service & Distributie Average score (excl. organisation with zero score) 133 Apollo Vredestein B.V. Bose Products Percentage of organisation with zero score 86% Cabot Norit Activated Carbon Number of new participants 2 Canon Europa N.V. De MandemakersGroep Holding B.V. FUJIFILM Europe B.V. Despite the fact that only three Honeywell Netherl. Hold. B.V. Hunter Douglas N.V. organizations in this sector received a score, Lekkerland Beheer Philip Morris Holland B.V. the average score (excluding zero scores) is Remeha Group B.V. Smartwares B.V. 133 points. Swarovski (Europe) Holding B.V. Tommy Hilger Europe Van den Ban Autobanden B.V. The consumer products sector is the sector WE Europe B.V. with the highest percentage of organizations with a 0-score: 86%.

Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 2015 21 4.3.4 Services

ANWB B.V. Number of organisations 65 Ernst & Young Nederland NV NOM Investerings- en Ontwikkelingsmaatschappij voor Noord-Nederland Holding Nationale Goede Doelen Loterijen N.V. Number of organisations with zero score 21 PricewaterhouseCoopers Facilicom Services Group Number of organisation with a score 44 Ordina N.V. KPMG N.V. Average score (excl. organisation with zero score) 94 Deloie Holding B.V. Randstad Holding N.V. Royal HaskoningDHV Percentage of organisation with zero score 32% Industriebank LIOF N.V. N.V. HVC Number of new participants 8 Ontwikkelingsmaatschappij Oost Nederland NV USG People N.V. COVRA NV TNO Vebego International N.V. The service sector has the highest number of Arcadis N.V. Stichting Exploitatie Nederlandse Staatsloterij PGGM participating organizations, in total there are Grontmij N.V. CoMore 65 organizations included in this sector. The Holland Casino Fugro N.V. LeasePlan Corporation N.V. average score is, just like last year, 94 points. Stichting Espria Brab. Ontw. Maatschappij N.V. Broekhuis Holding Propertize B.V. Dela Uitvaartverzorging B.V. About one third of the organizations have a Brunel International N.V. Nieuwe Steen inv ICT Automatisering 0-score in this sector. Yarden Holding B.V. Centric Holding B.V. Monuta Value8 DPA GROUP APG Propertize B.V. is within this sector the best DOCDATA N.V. Exact Holding N.V. new participant in the group with a score of TMF Group Holding B.V. IMC Trading Accenture B.V. 62. Adecco Nederland Holding B.V. ADG dienstengroep B.V. Amlin Corporate Insurance BCD Travel Holding Booking.com B.V. CGI Nederland B.V. Ecurion Equens SE Holiday Holding Roerdam B.V. ISS Holding Nederland B.V. Loyens & Loe N.V. Manpower Nederland B.V. Omron Europe B.V. Oracle Nederland B.V. TP Vision Europe B.V. Twynstra Gudde Unit 4 N.V. United Parcel Service Nederland B.V. Van Gansewinkel Groep Xylem Water Solutions Nederland B.V.

22 Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 2015 4.3.5 Energy, oil and gas

Alliander N.V. Number of organisations 24 Nederlandse Gasunie N.V. Number of organisations with zero score 10 TenneT Holding B.V. Enexis B.V. Number of organisation with a score 14 E.ON Benelux N.V. Average score (excl. organisation with zero score) 129 Westland Infra GasTerra B.V. Percentage of organisation with zero score 42% Eneco Holding N.V. Number of new participants 3 Royal Dutch Shell EBN Core Laboratories N.V. The energy, oil and gas sector has achieved a Nuon Energie N.V. Delta N.V. higher average score than last year. Last year, Ultra-Centrifuge Ned. N.V. Argos Group Holding B.V. the sector has achieved an average score of De Nederlandse Energie Maatschappij B.V. 124 points, while this year the average score Delek Nederland B.V. Essent is 129. Heerema Marine Contractors Holding Nederland B.V. Kuwait Petroleum B.V. Neste Oil Netherlands B.V. New World Resources TOTAL Nederland N.V. Yara Sluiskil B.V.

Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 2015 23 4.3.6 Trading

Nidera B.V. Number of organisations 17 Dutch Flower Group B.V. Number of organisations with zero score 13 Amsterdam Commodities N.V. SHV Holdings N.V. Number of organisation with a score 4 N.V. Deli Maatschappij Auctus Holding B.V. Average score (excl. organisation with zero score) 75 Copaco Nederland B.V. Percentage of organisation with zero score 76% Getinge Arjo Holding Netherlands B.V. Hager-Minnema-Huen Beheer B.V. Number of new participants 3 Interfood Holding MCB International B.V. Momentive Specialty Chemicals BV The trading sector has an average score of 75 Oxbow Coal B.V. Roba points, which is higher than the average of Scania Europe Toshiba Medical Systems Europe B.V. last year: 73 points. Transm. and Engineer. Services Netherl.

24 Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 2015 4.3.7 Industrial products

AKZO Nobel N.V. Number of organisations 54 Koninklijke Philips N.V. DSM N.V. Number of organisations with zero score 36 Koninklijke Ten Cate N.V. Kendrion N.V. Number of organisation with a score 18 Rockwool Benelux Holding DOW Benelux B.V. Average score (excl. organisation with zero score) 97 Corbion N.V. Aperam Percentage of organisation with zero score 67% Aalberts Industries N.V. Nedap N.V. Number of new participants 9 AMG Advanced Metallurg. Gr. NV Stork Van Leeuwen Buizen Groep B.V Brocacef Holding Last year, the sector had an average score of Hertel Holding B.V. Forbo Flooring B.V. 89 points,while this year, the sector scores an Kramp Groep B.V. Sulzer Netherlands Holding ABB B.V. average of 97 points. Ace Innovation Holding B.V. ArcelorMittal Netherlands B.V. Ardagh Group Netherlands B.V. Avery Dennison Materials Nederland B.V. The industrial products sector is, after the Bosal Nederland B.V. C. den Braven Beheer B.V. technology sector, the sector with the most Caldic B.V. Citadel Enterprises B.V. De Hoop Terneuzen B.V. new participants. De Stiho Groep B.V. Denkavit Internationaal B.V. Enviem Holding B.V. Flowserve Hitachi Machinery N.V. Huntsman Investments (Netherlands) B.V. Inalfa Roof Systems Group B.V. International Flavors & Fragrances I.F.F. (Nederland) B.V. INVISTA B.V. Kuehne + Nagel N.V. LyondellBasell Industries N.V. MHI Equipment Europe B.V. Nedschroef Nederland B.V. Otra N.V. P.L. v. Merksteijn Hold. B.V. Rockwell Automation B.V. SABIC International Holdings B.V. Scheuten Glass Holding B.V. SIHI Group B.V. Synbra Holding B.V. Tata Steel Terberg Group B.V. Tetra Laval Holdings B.V. Voestalpine Automotive Netherlands Holding B.V. Yanmar Europe

Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 2015 25 4.3.8 Media and communications

TMG - Telegraaf Media Groep Number of organisations 16 RELX Group N.V. Number of organisations with zero score 7 Wolters Kluwer N.V. Roto Smeets Group N.V. Number of organisation with a score 9 Koninklijke Brill N.V. Average score (excl. organisation with zero score) Cimpress 66 Global City Holdings N.V. Percentage of organisation with zero score 44% de Persgroep Nederland B.V. Audax B.V. Number of new participants 3 Endemol B.V. Koninklijke Wegener N.V. Nielsen N.V. The average score of the media sector is 66 RTL Nederland B.V. Sanoma Magazines B.V. points. This is a sharp decline from the Stage Entertainment B.V. average of 96 points last year. Remarkably, Stichting Nederlandse Publieke Omroep all the organizations in this sector score lower than last year.

Global City Holdings NV is within this sector the best new participant in the group with a score of 14.

26 Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 2015 4.3.9 Pharmaceuticals

GALAPAGOS Number of organisations 6 Fagron Number of organisations with zero score 3 ESPERITE A&D Pharma Holdings N.V. Number of organisation with a score 3 Alliance Boots B.V. Average score (excl. organisation with zero score) 34 Astellas B.V. Percentage of organisation with zero score 50% Number of new participants 4

Same as last year, the pharmaceuticals sector has the smallest number of participants and the lowest average score. Four of the six organizations within this sector are new compared to last year.

GALAPAGOS is within this sector the best new participant in the group with a score of 53.

Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 2015 27 4.3.10 Retail

Koninklijke Ahold N.V. Number of organisations 35 Jumbo Groep Holding B.V. Number of organisations with zero score 21 Zeeman Groep B.V. Beter Bed Holding N.V. Number of organisation with a score 14 PLUS Retail B.V. Average score (excl. organisation with zero score) 85 HEMA Percentage of organisation with zero score 60% IKEA Nederland B.V. Coop Holding Number of new participants 6 Macintosh Retail Group N.V. Stern Groep N.V. Euretco B.V. The retail sector has achieved a higher B & S International B.V. average score than last year. The sector Blokker Holding B.V. Maxeda Nederland B.V. achieved an average score of 84 points in BMW Nederland B.V. 2014, this year the average score is 85. Da Holding B.V. Dirk van den Broek/Dekamarkt Foot Locker Europe B.V. Hoogvliet B.V. B & S International B.V. is within this sector Intergamma B.V. the best new participant in the group with a Inter-Sprint Banden Lohomij B.V. score of 31. Markeur Mercedes-Benz Nederland B.V. Miss Etam B.V. Mitsubishi Motors Europe B.V. Peugeot Nederland N.V. PGA Nederland N.V. Poiesz Beheer B.V. Pon Holdings B.V. Retailcom Beheer B.V. SPAR Holding B.V. St. Clair/ De Bijenkorf V&D Group Yamaha Motor Europe N.V.

28 Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 2015 4.3.11 Technology

KPN Number of organisations 35 Siemens Nederland Number of organisations with zero score 21 Vodafone ASML Number of organisation with a score 14 TKH Group N.V. Average score (excl. organisation with zero score) 101 VimpelCom Ltd. Percentage of organisation with zero score 60% Tele2 Netherlands Holding N.V. BE Semiconductor Indus. N.V. Number of new participants 14 Gemalto N.V. ASM International N.V. OCI The technology sector has the most new Neways Electronics International N.V. participants in the group of the Transparency NXP Semiconductors Netherlands B.V. VDL Groep Benchmark 2015, in total there are 14 new Acer Europe B.V. organizations in this sector. ALTICE Boston Scientic Int. B.V. Chemours Netherlands B.V. Cisco Systems International B.V. The average score of the sector increased Dell Global B.V. this year from 92 points to 101 points. Fujitsu Technology Solutions (Holding) B.V. Huawei Technologies Coöperatief U.A. IBM Nederland BV Vimpelcom Ltd. is within this sector the best Ingram Micro KYOCERA Document Solutions Europe B.V. new participant with a score of 128. Liberty Global Holding B.V. Nokia Solutions and Networks B.V. Plantronics B.V. Samsung Electronics Benelux B.V. Saphin B.V. Sensata Technol. Holding N.V. Specialist Computer Holdings Nederland B.V. Tech Data Nederland B.V. Verizon Business International Holdings B.V. Xerox Investments Europe

Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 2015 29 4.3.12 Transport

NS Number of organisations 27 Havenbedrijf Roerdam N.V. Number of organisations with zero score 17 Schiphol Group PostNL Number of organisation with a score 10 Air France - KLM Average score (excl. organisation with zero score) 156 ProRail B.V. Koninklijke Vopak N.V. Percentage of organisation with zero score 63% TNT Express Number of new participants 1 GVB Holding NV Vos Logistics Beheer B.V. Universal Cargo Logistics Similar to last year, the transport sector has Catom Enterprises B.V. Connexxion the highest average score. The sector DAF Trucks N.V. achieved an average score of 126 points in De Rijke Continental B.V. EEA Helicopter Operations B.V. 2014. This year the average score is 156 Eur. Container Terminals B.V. Ewals Holdings B.V. points. Gaiwin B.V. Handelsveem Beheer Post-Kogeko Logistics B.V. In addition, it is the only sector in which all Raben Group B.V. Samskip organizations with a score have achieved Stolt Tankers more than 100 points. Sundio Group B.V. Thomas Cook Nederland B.V. Vroon Group B.V.

30 Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 2015 4.3.13 Universities and Medical Centres

Wageningen UR Number of organisations 23 Radboudumc Number of organisations with zero score 1 Rijksuniversiteit Groningen Universiteit van Amsterdam Number of organisation with a score 22 Universiteit Maastricht Average score (excl. organisation with zero score) 73 Universiteit Twente Universiteit Utrecht Percentage of organisation with zero score 4% Universiteit Leiden Number of new participants 6 Leids Universitair Medisch Centrum (LUMC) Universiteit van Tilburg Technische Universiteit Del The universities and medical centers (UMC) Technische Universiteit Eindhoven Academisch Medisch Centrum sector has 6 new participants compared to UMC Utrecht Open Universiteit last year. This is caused by the fact that the Maastricht UMC+ vast majority of UMC’s received Erasmus Universiteit Roerdam Universitair Medisch Centrum Groningen (UMCG) dispensation from the government last year. VUmc Erasmus MC The UMC’s did not publish their reports Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen before the 1st of June 2014, and therefore Nyenrode Vrije Universiteit they could not be included in last year’s Transparency Benchmark.

This year, the average score of the sector is 73 in comparison to 85 points in 2014.

The Leids Universitair Medisch Centrum (LUMC) is within this sector the best new participant with a score of 80.

Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 2015 31 4.3.14 Real estate

Q Park N.V. Number of organisations 8 Unibail Rodamco Waterweg Wonen Number of organisations with zero score 0 Wereldhave Manag. Holding B.V. Number of organisation with a score 8 Eurocommercial Properties Vastned Retail N.V. Average score (excl. organisation with zero score) 96 Refresco Holding B.V. Percentage of organisation with zero score 0% GROOTHANDELSGEBOUW Number of new participants 1

This year, the real estate sector scores an average of 96 points. This is a decrease from last year when the average score was 107.

In the sector none of the participating organizations ended with a zero score.

32 Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 2015 4.3.15 Food and beverage

Heineken N.V. Number of organisations 44 Vitens N.V. Number of organisations with zero score 23 Koninklijke FrieslandCampina N.V. Koninklijke Wessanen N.V. Number of organisation with a score 21 Bavaria N.V. Arla Foods B.V. Average score (excl. organisation with zero score) 104 Perfei v. Melle Percentage of organisation with zero score 52% Albron Nederland B.V. VanDrie Group Number of new participants 6 Bidvest Deli XL Sligro Food Group N.V. Vreugdenhil Groep B.V. Cooperative Agrirm U.A. With an average score of 104 points, the ForFarmers Group B.V. food and beverage sector improved their The Greenery B.V. Coöperatie AVEBE U.A. average in comparison to last year’s average Koninklijke Coöperatie Cosun U.A. CZAV score of 97 points. DOC Kaas VION Holding N.V. Farm Frites Beheer B.V. Addasta Holding B.V. About half of the organizations in the food A-Ware Food Group B.V. Bakkersland Groep B.V. and beverage sector has received a zero Cargill B.V. Danone Baby and Medical Nutrition B.V. score. DE Masterblenders 1753 Glencore Grain Roerdam B.V. H.L. Barentz B.V. Hanos (Apeldoorn B.V.) Hoogwegt Groep B.V. IMCD Holding B.V. Koninklijke De Heus B.V. Koninklijke Zeelandia Groep B.V. Loders Croklaan Group B.V. Mars Nederland B.V. Mead Johnson B.V. Meatpoint B.V. Mijwo Beheer B.V. Milkiland N.V. NVDU Acquisition B.V. Plukon Food Group Storteboom Group B.V. Theobroma B.V. 0 50 100 150 200

Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 2015 33 4.3.16 Other

Nutreco Number of organisations 23 Airbus Group N.V. Number of organisations with zero score 17 TUI Nederland Kardan N.V. Number of organisation with a score 6 AerCap Holdings N.V. Average score (excl. organisation with zero score) 91 Louis Dreyfus Advanced Travel Partners Nederland B.V. Percentage of organisation with zero score 74% Beleggingsmij. Braverassa B.V. Number of new participants 1 British American Tobacco International (Holdings) B.V. Center Parcs Europe N.V. Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V. Compared to last year, the industry sector Clondalkin Industries B.V. De Kon. Nederlandse Munt N.V. ‘other’ has obtained a higher score. The Elopak B.V. Horedo/Rensa composition of the sector has significantly Hyva Group B.V. changed compared to last year, a possible Koninklijke Distill. Dirkzwager B.V. Mediq explanation for the higher average score of Mosadex NetApp & Manufacturing 91 points this year. In 2014, the average score Oce Depot International was 53 points. Optiver Holding B.V. Vroegop Ruhe & Co. B.V.

34 Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 2015 4.4 Corporate responsibility reporting in practice

The participating organizations that filled in the self-assessment were asked to (voluntarily) answer some additional questions about reporting and the process of developing a report.

Compared to last year, the number of respondents who Type of Report (Analysis based on 244 (2014) and 245 (2015) respondents) indicated that they have some form of Integrated Reporting in place increased from 37% to 41%. Of those 100% reports, 8% is based on the framework for Integrated 90% 26% 24% Reporting of the IIRC (International Integrated Reporting 80% 1% 1% Seperate CR Report Council). 6% 70% 14% Other Relevant Information 60% None 33% Integrated Report - Other This year, 24% publish a separate CSR report, a decrease 50% 30% Integrated Report - IIRC from last year. The percentage of organizations that only 40% Financial Report publish a financial report has also risen (to 29%). 30% 8% 7% 20% 10% 22% 29% The biggest difference is in the percentage of organiza- 0% tions that state not to publish a report, decreasing from 2014 2015 14% to 6%.

Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 2015 35 Use of GRI Guidelines GRI Version Used (Analysis based on 244 (2014) and245 (2015) respondents) (Analysis based on 126 (2014) and 120 (2015) respondents)

100% 100% No 90% 20% G4 core 80% Yes 80% G4 comprehensive 48% 51% 11% 48% 70% G3.1 60% 60% G3.0 50% 40% 40% 52% 18% 30% 52% 49% 20% 20% 26% 10% 17% 0% 8% 2014 2015 0% 2014 2015

Almost half of the organizations use the guidelines of the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) in the preparation of the (corporate social responsibility) report.

The use of the GRI 3.1 version has significantly decreased compared to last year from 52% to 26%partly explained by the fact that GRI 3.1 can no longer be applied from 2015. As a logical consequence the use of the GRI G4 Core has increased from 20% to 48% and GRI G4 Comprehensive from 11% to 18%. This shows that the majority of organizations follow the development of the GRI guidelines and are committed to meet these new standards.

36 Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 2015 Use of Internationally Recognized Frameworks (Analysis based on 90 (2014) and 73 (2015) respondents) 35% 31% 32% 30% 30% 2014 25% 25% 25% 23% 24% 2015 20% 21% 20% 18% 15% 10% 5% 3% 4% 4% 0% 0% International Carbon EMAS Sustainability ISO 26000 No use Other Integrated Disclosure Accounting of framework Reporting Project Standards Board for reporting Council (IIRC) framework

In addition to the use of the GRI guidelines (see above), 32% of organizations indicate that they make use of the framework for integrated reporting by the IIRC, while 25% use the Carbon Disclosure Project. Compared to last year, the number of organizations that indicate their use of another internationally recognized framework has fallen from 30% to 18%. Furthermore, it is remarkable that once again a quarter of organizations do not use any framework for its reporting.

Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 2015 37 Most important challenges in the process of CR reporting (Analysis based on 137 (2014) and 99 (2015) respondents) 60% 50% 50% 48% 45% 44% 2014 40% 2015 34% 30% 29% 20% 18% 19% 20% 18% 9% 10% 6% 0% Data collection Diculties with The report The elaboration Lack of Other within the the interpretation is not of the report appropriate organisation of external considered is more time- knowledge/ is complex guidelines a key point consuming expertise than initially in the elaboration expected of a CR report

Most of the respondents indicate that the biggest challenges during the process of reporting can be found inside their own organization, identifying in particular those related to data collection (50%), time investment (44%) and a lack of priority (19%).

Compared to last year, the number of respondents who expressed difficulties in interpreting external guidelines decreased from 34% to 29%.

38 Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 2015 Use of OECD Guidelines (Analysis based on 108 (2014) and 71 (2015) respondents) Of the organizations that answered this question, 42% 100 apply the OECD guidelines for International Enterprises 10% 11% 90 to some extent: while 31% use the guidelines only as the 12% Fully implemented 80 14% OECD guidelines basis for their Code of Conduct and Corporate 70 Not familiar with Governance Code, 11% have fully implemented the OECD 60 46% OECD guidelines guidelines. On the other hand, 44% of the organizations 44% 50 Familiar with OECD indicated that, although they are familiar with the OECD 40 guidelines, but not implemented guidelines, they don’t have them integrated in their 30 Used OECD guidelines as company policies. This is a slight decrease compared to 20 a starting point in the 32% 31% elaboration of the code last year. Finally, 14% of the organizations indicated that 10 of conduct and corporate 0 governance they are not familiar with the OECD guidelines. 2014 2015

Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 2015 39 5 In-depth theme: The impact of Transparency

Introduction The Transparency Benchmark focuses – as one can already imagine – on Transparency. Online dictionaries (www.financiële begrippen.com) explain transparency as: the extent to which the management of a business is clear. In order to achieve transparency, companies will have to communicate, i.e. provide useful information. However, the precise definition of ‘useful information’ differs per (group of ) stakeholders. As a result, ‘transparency’ also carries a different meaning for different stakeholders. Furthermore, communication is not only about the receiver, but it also concerns the sender of such information. The organization (i.e. the sender) has its own opinion of how often and in which way useful information should be provided to the receiver.

Currently, people and organizations are in the position to know a lot more about one another due to the widespread usage of the internet, which provides the opportunity to obtain a vast amount of relevant information. This makes transparency even more important, allowing the right kind of information to reach the right receiver. Needless to say, information has an impact.

This section will focus on the existing relationship between the organization and its stakeholders by taking a so-called agency perspective to clarify the choices that companies can make when communicating their information (through an annual report). Furthermore, this section will include insights into the extent to which the organizations address the information needs of their stakeholders.

Agency Theory Agency theory is a well-known and respected theory originating in both economics and business research. It explains the relationship between principals (client) and agents (executor) in business. The traditional agency theory (Jensen & Meckling, 1976) reasons from the perspective that ownership and management in (large) enterprises is separated. The shareholders (principals) transfer the management of the organization (in which they have invested) to the board (the agents) of the organization. Agency theory argues that the principal and the agents could have conflicting interests, due to the fact that principals have less knowledge about the activities and results of the organization. This situation is referred to the presence of information-asymmetry.

40 Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 2015 However, next to the shareholders, other diverse parties including (social) organizations and persons may also have some stake in an organization. The modernistic agency theory approach focuses on this larger basket of principals, i.e. the stakeholders. The concept of information asymmetry is also applicable to these stakeholders (employees, clients, suppliers, banks, the government, interest groups and others).

Communication In order to reduce the effect of information asymmetry (i.e. stakeholders having less knowledge about the organization), organizations should provide adequate and useful information. This information should enable stakeholders to make justified choices in relation to the organization (investing, procurement, employee relations, social level of acceptance and more), also referred to as ‘incremental information paradigm’.

Information asymmetry is only one element of agency theory. Another element important in the discussion of transparency is the conflicting interests between the management of an organization and its stakeholders. This conflict of interests influences the way in which management decides to provide information, leaving the stakeholders in a position of dependency within this process of information-sharing. The question that arises is then: to what extent is the management of an organization able to reduce the asymmetry of information, given the conflicts of interests? Providing information can thus be seen as an instrument of the management of an organization.

Annual reporting Nowadays, organizations are primarily sharing information through their annual public reporting, the most common forms of which include the financial statements, a management report, a sustainability report, and/oran integrated report. Additionally, organizations often communicate other messages through their websites or additional publications. In the context of the Transparency Benchmark, this chapter will especially focus on the communication of accounting information, which is periodically released through the annual reports.

The annual report of an organization includes the financial statement (a factual overview of the financial results of an organization) and the management report (the board of an organization provides an explanation of the results of the organization and the related risks at year-end). In addition to the management report, some organizations also report a so-called sustainability report, or integrate the results related to sustainability in the management report. The financial statement primarily includes quantitative information, whereas the management report mainly includes qualitative information. Basically, the management report can be viewed as an explanation of how the company is performing through the perspective of the board of an organization.

Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 2015 41 The board of an organization asks itself the following question: whom do I want to reach through this annual report, what do message do I want to convey and how am I going to realize this? In answering these questions, the board of an organization will make certain choices that will influence the way in which the report will be presented. A reporting strategy will be formulated but not formally included in the report itself.

Communication Strategy An important characteristic of the annual report is that it serves as a channel for the organization to communicate its corporate image. As a result, the annual reports constitute a showcase of ‘company pride’ for the management of an organization. Though in essence a potentially positive characteristic, this element of ‘company pride’ brings about a risk of presenting a biased picture for the readers of the report.

Deegan (2002) provides additional insights into the communication strategies that have been elaborated by Lindblom. In reporting information an organization stands to: (1) provide full transparency about recent events related to the organization, (2) influence the perception of the stakeholders, (3) manipulate the perception of the stakeholder by diverging attention, and (4) influence the expectations concerning the results of the organization. In order to realize the communication strategy, the board of the organization has a wide set of reporting-instruments at its disposal.

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

Design Design can help accentuate important parts of information. The reader’s attention to certain elements in the report can be influenced through different aspects in the design of the report itself. Some of these aspects refer to the positioning of disclosures in the report, the layout/design of the different pages, the use of colors,pictures and graphics to convey a particular message, and the use of different font types and text boxes throughout the report.

Presentation The presentation of information is related to the design of the report. As such, ‘presentation’ focuses on the selection of topics to include, the right balance between positive and negative disclosures, the decision to provide insights into dilemmas, the structure in which topics are introduced and elaborated on, the degree of detail in information, ,as well as a balance between quantitative and qualitative information on the one hand, and prospective and retrospective information on the other.

Phrasing Finally, information can also become biased as a result of the choices in phrasing. A message can be delivered in many ways, positively or negatively formulated, in an easily comprehensible way, or with a series of very technical terms. Much research

42 Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 2015 has been done on the comprehensibility of reporting. Students of the University of Groningen have, for example, researched this theme with great interest. The main findings across researchers highlight that annual reports are difficult to read. This is based on word-phrase characteristics in the text (length and amount). This research, however, does not take into account characteristics of the reader (e.g. level of expertise, experience, education and degree to which the person is interested).

When managing the introduced instruments, many choices have to be made. The table below provides examples of relevant choices. These choices are not meant as an either/or decision, but rather should be considered as two extremes of a continuum.

Choices made when drafting a sustainability report • Separate or integrated report • Annual report in pdf or printed versus and online report • Graphical representations versus textual guidance • Differences in lay-out • Negative versus positive results • Retrospective versus prospective information • Verification or no verification of annual report • Qualitative information versus quantitative information • Detailed information versus general information • Stakeholder relevance versus management relevance • Absolute versus relative • Comparable results (peer group related to time) • All including annual reports (‘take a lot approach’) versus focused reports (materiality) • Information grouped by theme or integrated in the subjects • Measured information versus non-measureable information • Information about targets or about results • Information about actions or about the impact of the organization • Vague versus specific formulations • Simple usage of language or academic usage of language • Neutrally comparing versus subjectively comparing

Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 2015 43 The stakeholder as starting point It is of great importance – also within the Transparency Benchmark – that Stakeholder organizations consult their stakeholders in order to discover which themes Strategy and topics they consider to be important for the organization. Figure 1 consultation provides an overview of an ideal situation regarding the development of an annual report. The strategy of an organization and an adequate stakeholder engagement constitute the basis for the reporting process. Based on this, the organization can by means of a materiality analysis identify which themes (ranked by importance) are most material to report on: the reporting strategy. Materiality In doing so, the organization may decide to rely on sustainability reporting analysis standards such as GRI G4, SASB, and/or the criteria of the Transparency Benchmark. The reader should also in this ideal situation realize that even External reporting when an organization chooses to carry out a stakeholder consultation in criteria combination with a materiality analysis, the final decisions regarding the annual report rest with the management. Reporting strategy

Annual report

44 Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 2015 Voluntary or mandatory?

Frameworks for reporting The quality of sustainability reporting has increased through the development of sustainability reporting guidelines. The most well-known sustainability reporting guidelines are those developed by the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI G4), Raad voor de Jaarverslaggeving (RF400), the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) and the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC). Within the Dutch reporting landscape, the criteria of the Transparency Benchmark are also used by organizations. All the aforementioned reporting guidelines are ‘princi- ples based’ and their implementation is therefore voluntary.

External pressure Much academic research has focused on the question: which factors explain transparency of organizations (organizational characteristics, financial results, board composition, composition of the board of directors, industry associations and others). Many research approaches make use of certain institutional theories such as isomorphism. Organizations experience pressure from society (government, NGO’s, Transparency Benchmark) to publish sustainability reports (coercive isomorphism). Additionally, many organizations imitate each other’s behavior. These organizations look at what other organizsations are doing and replicate it within their own situations (mimetic isomorphism). Given these organizational behavior patterns, to what extent is sustainability reporting really voluntary? A negative approach in answering such question implies that an organization negatively differentiating itself from its competitors when it chooses not publish a sustainability report. In addition, it should also be noted that organizations that do business with the government are increasingly being questioned on their sustainability policy, and as such, the sustainability report becomes an important component of this ‘accountability to the state’.

Legislation? A concrete example of external pressure can be found in legislation. Since the beginning of sustainability reporting, the value of relevant legislation has been a matter of constant debate. A downside of legislation, which is often referred to, is the risk to compliance-related behavior, ‘use the law as a checklist’. This risk is also evident when looking at the Transparency Benchmark. An important advantage of legislation is however the fact that it will create a framework for both the writer as well as the reader of the report, increasing the comparability across reports. This is also an advantage of the Transparency Benchmark. Financial reporting is important for society and is thus governed by rules related to financial reporting. Reasoning from the same societal perspective, sustainability reporting should also include more relevant reporting rules. Whether this will eventually lead to real transparency – given the wide variety of organizations and qualitative nature of subjects – remains a subject of speculation.

Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 2015 45 Does transparency impact the organization? It is not an easy task to determine whether the degree of transparency impacts the reporting organizations. Will stakeholders do more business with organizations because of increased transparency? Examples of situations where this has indeed been the case abound, such as the recent the news of ABP’s decision to dispose its investments in Mylan. Academic research shows that investors’ decisions are increasingly being guided by information other than financial information. There are however also examples of organizations that operate in an extremely sustainable way, and which, despite not reporting on their sustainable efforts, still make a profit and see an increase in their revenue.

Financial statements have been mandatory for years, but who reads them? The same question can be posed related to sustainability reports. Observations from practice do show, however, that creating an annual report, and providing it with external assurance, contributes to the better performance of an organization. Many organizations communicate to their accountant or advisor their intentions of publishing a sustainability report. These organizations are thus actually starting at the end of the process. Theoretically speaking, better communication of sustainability performance should start with the creation of a vision, mission and a strategy. In practice, however, it seems that after the publication of a first sustainability report, organizations want to progress more and more. For example, these organizations then expect to report better results the next year. This means that they then will need to improve their actual results by for example developing policies, targets and ways of measuring information. If the performance of organizations suddenly drops instead of rises, what can be done about this?

The quality of reporting by organizations has progressed and changed over the years. Research conducted on the factors that influence the quality of reporting (based on the criteria of the Transparency Benchmark) shows that the Transparency Benchmark has been an influence in this process.

Reporting seems to be an institutionalized phenomenon: the audience is limited, but the mechanism in itself is an important element of the checks and balances of an organization. An important challenge for the coming years is to further develop the Transparency Benchmark in order to help expand the understanding of transparency and impact.

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

46 Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 2015 6 Explanation of the Transparency Benchmark

6.1 Goal

The Transparency Benchmark aims to provide an opinion on the content and quality of external reporting on corporate responsibility issues. To this end, the accounting information of the largest Dutch organizations is reviewed against 40 criteria related to corporate responsibility aspects of the organizations and their operations. The Transparency Benchmark does not explicitly give an opinion on the actual performance of organizations.

6.2 Differences to previous year

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

1. The criteria In 2014, the criteria of the Transparency Benchmark have been refined and adjusted to account for new international developments, such as the new GRI guidelines (the G4), the framework for integrated reporting of the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC), the OECD Guidelines for International Enterprises and the EU directive concerning reporting on non-financial information and diversity for PIEs (Public Interest Entity) with more than 500 employees. This year, some criteria have been refined to enhance the comprehensibility and reduce room for interpretation. Furthermore, three criteria regarding materiality have been adjusted with the purpose of aligning closely to the international reporting guidelines.

Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 2015 47 2. The participation protocol and the participating organizations

The participants group was developed by incorporating the following different categories: • Public Interest Entities (PIE’s) with more than 500 employees • Organizations listed in Amsterdam’s stock exchange • Organizations with substantial activities in the Netherlands related to revenue and/or amount of employees • (Partly) State-owned companies • Universities and University Medical Centres (UMC) • Large organizations (more than 250 employees) who have been included in the participants group on a voluntary basis in the past.

Based on the aforementioned criteria, the final participants group increased this year to 485 organizations (compared to 429 in 2014). The list of new participating companies can be found in the Appendix. The entire participation protocol can be downloaded from the website of the Transparency Benchmark (www. Transparantiebenchmark.nl)

Dutch organizations with an International group report An organization may be excluded from participation in the Transparency Benchmark when it is a subsidiary and the report of the parent company meets the guidelines of the expected EU directive proposal on non-financial reporting. This means that information on the environment, social and labor-related issues, human rights, anti-corruption, bribery, and diversity on the board should be included in the annual report. For these organizations a separate overview was prepared, without a benchmark. These organizations receive no score. In total, 24 of the 485 organizations participated in the group arrangement. A list of these organizations is included in the appendix. An organization that meets the requirements to participate in this arrangement, and also publishes its own Dutch report, can choose to submit the Dutch report voluntarily for the purpose of the benchmark.

6.3 Boundary of publicly available accounting information

The scores on the Transparency Benchmark are awarded based on the publicly available reports over the reporting year 2014. Different types of reports qualify, such as annual reports, financial reports and corporate responsibly reports. The main condition is that reports should be publicly available. This implies that the report (the information) of the participant should be available at no additional fees, or should be available for downloading from the corporate website. Reports that are only available at the Chamber of Commerce do not meet the eligibility criteria and can therefore not be used as available accounting information (no points will be received). Additionally, the report should published periodically

48 Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 2015 and concentrated on accounting information of the reporting year 2014 (ended in 2014). Only reporting information published before the 1st of July 2015 has been included the Transparency Benchmark.

6.4 Methodology

The overall process consists of the six following steps: • The self-assessment: organizations can assess their own information based on the criteria of the Transparency Benchmark. This year 158 organizations have filled in the self-assessment. • Evaluation of the self-assessment and/or integrated assessment: in order to secure the quality of provisional scores and remedy interpretation differences of participants, all self-assessment have been assessed by a team of reviewers. Participants that did not fill in the self-assessment themselves, were also provided with a provisional score by the reviewing team, based on the publicly available annual reports. Commentary period: Participants that did not agree with the determined provisional score were given the opportunity to submit their comments at the level of the individual criteria by using the e-tool. The comments of the participants have been reviewed and a reaction was formulated by the executor of the Transparency Benchmark. After this process the final scores of the Transparency Benchmark have been determined and communicated to the different participants. • Communication with the Panel of Experts: Even after the determination of the final score by the reviewing team, an organization may wish to express disagreement with the score. Such disagreement tends to originate mainly from a difference in interpretation of a criterion between the executor of the Transparency Benchmark and the participant. Interaction with the Panel of Experts took place in the event of disagreement about the final score. The Panel of Experts assessed in these cases the final score. In total, 6 organizations have requested the involvement of the Panel of Experts. As a result, the comments of 3 organizations (5 criteria) upheld. The final scores have been set after the period of communication with the Panel of Experts. The composition of the Panel of Experts can be found in the Appendix. • Panel Assessment: The 20 highest scoring participants were also separately evaluated by the Panel of Experts. The reports of these organizations have been assessed based on so-called ‘panel criteria’ (these criteria can be found in the appendix of the criteria 2015, to be downloaded from the website of the Transparency Benchmark: www.transparantiebenchmark.nl ). • Winner of the Crystal Price’: The Jury ultimately determines the winner of the ‘Crystal Price’. The composition of the Jury can be found in the Appendix. An overview of the jury criteria of 2015 can be found on the following website: www.kristalprijs.nl. Next to the Crystal Price, the Jury awards the organization that addresses transparency in corporate responsibility reporting in the most creative and innovative manner. Similar to last year participating organizations could use the e-tool; a web based application that assisted them through the first three steps of the process.

Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 2015 49 6.5 Criteria

The Transparency Benchmark is based on 40 criteria. An overview of the criteria can be downloaded from the website of the Transparency Benchmark (www.transparantiebenchmark.nl). The criteria have been divided into two categories: content-related (three criteria subcategories) and quality-related (five criteria subcategories). A maximum of 200 points can be scored; 100 points for content and quality respectively. The total score can be calculated by adding the total score obtained for both content and quality. The maximum amount of points varies per criteria subcategory (see figure).

Inhoudsgericht normenkader 100 1. Onderneming en bedrijfsprofiel 33 2. Beleid en resultaten 34 3. Management aanpak 33 1A. Profiel en waardeketen 10 2A. Beleid en (zelf opgelegde) verplichtingen 5 3A. Governance en 10 remuneratie 1B. Proces van waardecreatie 10 2B. Doelstellingen 5 3B. Sturing en beheersing 8 1C. Omgevingsanalyse 8 2C. Economische aspecten van 8 2D. Milieu-aspecten van 8 2E. Sociale aspecten 8 3C. Toekomstverwachting 5 (incl. risico’s en kansen) ondernemen ondernemen van ondernemen 1D. Strategische conext 5 3D. Verslaggevingscriteria 10

Kwaliteitsgericht normenkader 100 4. Relevantie 20 5. Duidelijkheid 20 6. Betrouwbaarheid 20 7. Responsiviteit 20 8. Samenhang 20 Materialiteit 8 Begrijpelijkheid 6 Juistheid, volledigheid 17 Gerichtheid op 13 Strategische focus 5 belanghebbenden Reikwijdte en afbakening 6 Beknoptheid 4 Voorzichtigheid 3 Bijdrage aan 2 Contextuele samenhang 6 maatschappelijk debat Tijdigheid 6 Inzichtelijkheid 7 Durf 5 Integratie 6 Toegangkelijkheid 3 Vergelijkbaarheid 3

50 Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 2015 6.6 Jury report

This year, the Crystal Award will presented for the sixth consecutive time. The jury acknowledges and therefore rewards the positive developments in building a culture of transparency in reporting. Companies’ efforts in the area of sustainability reporting are indeed observable and the jury recognizes their potential to lead to increasingly positive results. To stimulate the continuous development of sustainability reporting in the Netherlands, the Ministry of Economic Affairs adjusted and sharpened the criteria of the Transparency Benchmark in 2014. After an initial decrease of the average score, the top-20 organisations score 4 points higher this year. In general, sustainability is more and better integrated in the business model of companies..

Criteria, materiality and taxes Sustainability reporting – and transparency within such reporting in particular – should be considered as a process in continuous development. With the purpose of aligning to such developments, the evaluation criteria were radically adjusted for the Transparency Benchmark 2014. In doing so, the framework of the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC), the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) and the EU directive on non-financial reporting have all been used as a starting point.

In 2015, the criteria remained mostly unchanged from the previous year, although lessons learned from the previous year and developments observed in the reporting practice motivated the fine-tuning and sharpening of several criteria. On the one hand, some criteria had presented large room for interpretation, and as such, they were rephrased . However, the most important adjustment was driven by the increased focus on materiality within reporting. Compared to last year, companies were assessed on the extent to which they report on specifically those topics that are most relevant, i.e. material, for their organizations and their stakeholders.

Reporting with the concept of materiality in mind, is indeed an art of omission. When companies strive for a concise report, they allow for those aspects of most importance to receive the attention they deserve. The jury recognizes this is as a special challenge faced by many organizations. Concise reporting thus constitutes a potential differentiator in todays’ reporting landscape. As such, the jury placed strong emphasis on conciseness in selecting the recipient of the Award to the Most Innovative Report 2015.

A particularly positive development observed by the jury is the way in which companies have opted to elaborate on who they are and what they actually do in their course of business.

Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 2015 51 Portrayals of the business model in the context of the value that a company creates have developed into a core component of reporting. What is more, these value creation narratives are increasingly becoming more intelligible and accessible through, among other, the use of graphic representations.

These observations on materiality and conciseness align with a wider-reaching development in the business world: sustainability is ever more embedded in the business model. The jury is therefore convinced that this increased focus on sustainability from the strategic perspective translates into an emerging culture of transparency in reporting. Companies who manage to constantly communicate on their sustainability performance in a transparent manner, stand more resilient whenever dilemma’s or scandals may arise. The more a company’s contribution towards society is recognized, the more forgiving this society will react to potential drawbacks and incidents. This does require companies to communicate pro-actively on what went wrong. By providing insight in the causes and lessons-learned of incidents, companies have a chance to show society they are striving for continuous improvement. Some leading companies are already doing this, but it is not yet a widely accepted practice. This so called ‘license to operate’ is, next to traditional ethical arguments, an additional motivation to be transparent about both the positive as well as the negative aspects of business on society.

In this respect, the Transparency Benchmark aims to stimulate a culture of transparency. Yet, when considering the current extent of transparency in reporting, a next step in this culture development process is the open communication on tax obligations. As such, the jury also urges companies to become ever more transparent on this particularly sensitive subject. It comes as no surprise that the topic of tax obligations is of social importance and is in fact encompassed in the broader contribution a business makes to society. The OECD has been striving to reduce harmful tax competition for a long time. This has caused companies to increasingly pay taxes in the countries where they operated, and to be more open about their tax payments. There is, however, still significant room for improvement. Especially multi-national organizations should disclose more information on their tax policies and payments. Country-by-country reporting, for instance, is still an exception to the rule. In this case, an attitude of ‘better safe than sorry’ should also be adopted, whereby communication on tax obligations and payments serves to minimize or avoid reputational damage due to potential incidents.

This year’s winners The jury is commissioned with the task to determine the ultimate winner of the awards accompanying the Benchmark. In such responsibility, they are supported by the Panel of Experts of the Transparency Benchmark when making content-related considerations. The jury is thus grateful to the Panel for their contributions in the process. The winners of this year’s Transparency Benchmark’s awards are presented as follows:

52 Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 2015 The Highest Climber Award: N.V. Holding Westland Infra The highest climber in the Transparency Benchmark 2015 is Westland Infra. The company obtained 69 points in total in the 2014 benchmark. With a total of 153 points obtained this year, Westland infra climbed from rank 162th last year to number 56 in 2015. A raking improvement of 106 positions.

The jury acknowledges the accomplishments of Westland Infra in the area of corporate social responsibility reporting, which they developed along the Global Reporting Initiative’s G4 guidelines.

In their reporting over the period 2014, the company has stressed the concepts of value creation and materiality. Westland Infra has included a materiality matrix in their report and has achieved to elaborate on all identified material topics. In doing so, the company has been able to meet the pertinent criteria of the Transparency Benchmark, especially given this year’s stricter view on materiality. Additionally, Westland infra provides clear insights into the value chain within which it operates, presenting a comprehensive value creation model and an accompanying summary of all relevant quantitative indicators.

The Award to Most Innovative Report: N.V. Luchthaven Schiphol The Award to the Most Innovative Report is a token of merit for the organization, which succeeded in the most creative way to contribute to the discourse on the most relevant corporate social responsibility aspects of their business.

This year, the jury has decided to present Schiphol Group with this award. The Integrated Report of Schiphol Group opens with their value creation model, even before providing insight into their most prominent performance results. In doing so they have set out the connecting thread that leads the reader through the whole report, making it reader friendly. Similarly, the key characteristics of the company and its external environment, as well as the results in 2014 are also presented in the first few pages of the report. As a result, Schiphol Group has thrived in concisely bringing to the forefront what is most important.

Another innovative aspect of the company’s reporting is the description of its own value chain, in which Schiphol Group specifies the extent to which they have influence on each part of the chain and which parts require cooperation with partners. This results in a report that is not only innovative in itself but also accessible for a wider audience.

The Crystal Award, the main award of the Transparency Benchmark After the assessment by the Panel of Experts, the jury has decided which of the three highest-ranked companies wins this year’s Crystal Award. Even though the reports are substantially different from each other, the scores and quality of the reports are rather similar.

Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 2015 53 The third position this year is for Unilever N.V., claiming a spot in the top three of the Transparency Benchmark for the first time. The jury values the large steps taken by Unilever in improving their corporate social responsibility reporting over the past couple of years. The company set itself ambitious objectives and has developed into an international frontrunner in the area of sustainability. This consistent emphasis on sustainability as a core element of the organization and its strategy has hence translated into a robust and reliable reputation.

The jury is therefore pleased to observe that Unilever has also strengthened their reporting, as they make it increasingly clear how external developments at a global scale influence their business. Unilever’s mission and objectives are comprehensibly introduced in the context of the Sustainability Living Plan, which was launched back in 2010. However, the jury still identifies an opportunity for further progress if Unilever decides to improve the clarity with which it communicates on those aspects that are of a more negative nature (e.g. weaker than expected performance).

Koninklijke Philips N.V. is placed second in the 2015 Transparency Benchmark. Philips’ reporting has already been recognized with high scores in the Benchmark of previous years. The company’s choice to present its role within society linked to external environment trends (such as aging population and urbanization), has in fact concretized into a core element of Philips’ reporting. The jury therefore wishes to acknowledge the way in which the company has achieved to convert its reporting into a tool for contributing towards raising awareness into these and other topics relevant for society.

Additionally noteworthy is how Philips highlights the importance of corporate social responsibility information by seeking the same level of assurance for these type of disclosures as for their financial reporting. In this regard, Philips can take pride in being one of the few organizations at the forefront, both in the Netherlands as well as internationally. Yet, a next step could consist of aiming for a more concise report, by reducing the amount of product information.

Winner of the Crystal Award The jury presents the Crystal Award 2015 to Akzo Nobel N.V.. Despite the close scores between the top 3 of this year, AkzoNobel’s report differenti- ates itself both in relation to content as well as presentation. From simply looking at the report it becomes clear that sustainability is an integral part of the company’s strategy and organizational culture. Value creation and the relevant results are in fact presented at the level of individual business units. As such, the reader can in one glance gain insights into both the positive as well as negative effects of business operations. It is easy for the reader to track where these take place and in which way they influence the value creation potential of the company.

Additionally, the company’s report is a good example of achieving a ‘balanced image’ of the organization. The jury has decided to reward AkzoNobel for their willingness to elaborate in detail on those aspects of their business that are concerning sources of issues, even when these may well lie outside of the company’s scope of influence. AkzoNobel clearly indicates its progress on its strategic sustainability goals in the first

54 Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 2015 section of the report. It is also open about the fact that two goals require significant improvement. In doing so, AkzoNobel assumes – and communicates – its responsibility for the chain and the sector in which it operates. The jury is therefore convinced that this level of openness and vulnerability that such a company is prepared to shoulder, will support the development of a culture of transparency in the Netherlands. Society as a whole stands to benefit from this, and AkzoNobel deserves special recognition for their contribution.

AkzoNobel’s strong profile in the area of sustainability is also clear when taking into account the consistent high scores in the Transparency Benchmark: the company has consecutively claimed a spot in the top 3 in the past couple of years. This is a particularly noteworthy achievement, given that organizations operating in the business-to-business segments may tend to regard public communication tools, such as sustainability reports, as being of lesser commercial value

Beyond these consistently admirable results in the Transparency Benchmark, the importance that AkzoNobel places on sustainability reporting is evident from the innovative steps taken to improve it. The company developed the 4D methodology, which allows for the more insightful presentation of the impacts of AkzoNobel’s activities along indicators: ‘environment’, ‘human’, ‘social’, and ‘financial’. In its report, the company elaborates on the lessons learned from a pilot project applying this methodology, and explains the conclusions on the extent to which it can be implemented in a feasible and valuable manner. The jury deems such initiative praiseworthy and hopes that it will be followed up both internally as well as externally.

6.7 Organizations with zero scores

The category of organizations with zero scores consists of organizations that are included in the participants group but did not achieve a score (0-score) . An organization can fall into the this category if: • The report was not publicly available for free • The report was not published in a timely manner, and previous-year reports have already been included in an earlier edition of the Transparency Benchmark. • The organization is a subsidiary of a group but did not refer to a report from the parent on group level in the Dutch (financial) report and/or did not apply for the group report arrangement.

Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 2015 55 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Total number of participants 469 473 460 409* 461* Total of organisations with zero score 236 242 200 165* 216* Percentage of organisations with zero score 50,32% 51,16% 43,48% 40,34% 46,85% * Companies who have participated with their group report are excluded

The Ministry aims to reduce the group of organizations with zero scores. Unfortunately, this year the percentage organizations with zero scores increased from 40% to 47%. The main reason for this increase is that 80 new organizations have been added to the participants group of the Transparency Benchmark in 2015. Of these 80 organizations, 53 obtained a zero score, 21 had a positive score and 6 organizations participated in the group report arrangement.

To gain more insight into the type of organizations that obtained a zero score , the organizations are divided into Business-to-Business (B2B) and Business-to-Consumer (B2C) organizations (this table can be found in the appendix): 132 organizations with a zero score are active in the B2B segment 73 organizations with a zero score are active within the B2C segment 11 organizations with a zero score are active in both segments

Most organizations with a zero score can be found in the Industrial products sector, involves total of 36 organizations. However, the percentage of companies with a zero score is highest in the Consumer products sector (86%). Of all listed companies(73), only two companies have a zero score.

56 Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 2015 7 Appendices

7.1 New Participating organizations

In 2015, the Ministry of Economic Affairs decided to expand the Transparency Benchmark and include the 485 largest organizations. This has resulted in 80 new participants. The table below shows the new participants and in which sector they operate.

New Participant Sector New Participant Sector A&D Pharma Holdings N.V. Pharmaceuticals Dell Global B.V. Technology Academisch Medisch Centrum Universities and Medical DPA GROUP Services Centres Erasmus MC Universities and Medical Ace Innovation Holding B.V. Industrial products Centres Addasta Holding B.V. Food and beverage ESPERITE Pharmaceuticals Ageas Insurance International N.V. Banking and insurers Fujitsu Technology Solutions (Holding) B.V. Technology Alliance Boots B.V. Pharmaceuticals Gaiwin B.V. Transport ALTICE Technology GALAPAGOS Pharmaceuticals ASICS Europe B.V. Consumer products GDF Suez Energy, oil and gas Auctus Holding B.V. Trading Getinge Arjo Holding Netherlands B.V. Trading Avery Dennison Materials Nederland B.V. Industrial products Global City Holdings N.V. Media and communications B & S International B.V. Retail GROOTHANDELSGEBOUW Real estate BMW Nederland B.V. Retail H.L. Barentz B.V. Food and beverage CGI Nederland B.V. Services Hager-Minnema-Hutten Beheer B.V. Trading Chemours Netherlands B.V. Technology HDI-Gerling Verzekeringen N.V. Banking and insurance Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V. Other Hewlett-Packard The Hague B.V. Technology De Nederlandse Energie Maatschappij B.V. Energy, oil and gas Holiday Holding Rotterdam B.V. Services

Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 2015 57 New Participant Sector New Participant Sector Huawei Technologies Coöperatief U.A. Technology Propertize B.V. Services Huntsman Investments (Netherlands) B.V. Industrial products Retailcom Beheer B.V. Retail International Flavors & Fragrances I.F.F. Industrial products Ricoh Europe SCM B.V. Technology (Nederland) B.V. Robeco Groep N.V. Banking and insurance INVISTA B.V. Industrial products SABIC International Holdings B.V. Industrial products Leids Universitair Medisch Centrum Universities and Medical Samsung Electronics Benelux B.V. Technology (LUMC) Centres Saphin B.V. Technology Liberty Global Holding B.V. Technology Smartwares B.V. Consumer products LyondellBasell Industries N.V. Industrial products SPIE Nederland B.V. Construction and maritime Maastricht UMC+ Universities and Medical Centres Stichting Nederlandse Publieke Omroep Media and communications Mead Johnson B.V. Food and beverage Swarovski (Europe) Holding B.V. Consumer products Media Markt Saturn Holding Nederland B.V. Retail Tech Data Nederland B.V. Technology Mercedes-Benz Nederland B.V. Retail Tetra Laval Holdings B.V. Industrial products Merck Sharp & Dohme B.V. Pharmaceuticals TMF Group Holding B.V. Services Mijwo Beheer B.V. Food and beverage TOTAL Nederland N.V. Energy, oil and gas Milkiland N.V. Food and beverage TP Vision Europe B.V. Services Neste Oil Netherlands B.V. Energy, oil and gas UMC Utrecht Universities and Medical Centres Nielsen N.V. Media and communications United Parcel Service Nederland B.V. Services NN GROUP Banking and insurance Universitair Medisch Centrum Groningen Universities and Medical Nokia Solutions and Networks B.V. Technology (UMCG) Centres NVDU Acquisition B.V. Food and beverage Verizon Business International Holdings Technology OCI Technology B.V. Oranjewoud N.V. Construction and maritime VimpelCom Ltd. Technology Peugeot Nederland N.V. Retail Vivat Verzekeringen Banking and insurance Plantronics B.V. Technology

58 Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 2015 New Participant Sector Voestalpine Automotive Netherlands Industrial products Holding B.V. Xylem Water Solutions Nederland B.V. Services Yamaha Motor Europe N.V. Retail

Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 2015 59 7.2 Dutch organizations with an international group report

Organizations in the participants group, which are part of a multinational organization and do not provide public accounting information on the Dutch activities were placed in the category ‘organizations with zero scores’ until 2013. This classification was based on the consideration that if an organization merited its inclusion in the participants group (due to substantial Dutch operations), it should also report on its activities in the Netherlands.

This score, however, often does not do justice to the CSR efforts ( and accountability on the international level) of the specific organization. As of 2013, it is possible for these organizations to choose a separate arrangement. According to this special arrangement these organizations are not displayed on the ranking of the Transparency Benchmark. Instead, these organizations will be placed on a different list, without a ranking (see below). In order to qualify for this arrangement, a report on group level should fulfill at least a minimum amount of criteria. These criteria can be found on the website of the Transparency Benchmark (www.transparantiebenchmark.nl). An organization will be included in the Transparency benchmark as an organization with zero score if the organization fails to fulfil the required criteria for the arrangement concerning the international group report. In total 24 organizations participated in the group report arrangement.

Company Company Abbott Healthcare Products B.V. Hewlett-Packard The Hague B.V. ASICS Europe B.V. Koninklijke Grolsch N.V. Atos Origin Nederland B.V. Media Markt Saturn Holding Nederland B.V. BASF Nederland B.V. Merck Sharp & Dohme B.V. BP Nederland Holdings B.V. Metro Cash & Carry Nederland B.V. Capgemini N.V. Nestlé Nederland B.V. Coca-Cola Ent. Nederl. B.V. Nike Eur. Operat. Neth. B.V. DENSO INTERNATIONAL EUROPE B.V. Ricoh Europe SCM B.V. Epson Europe B.V. Sodexo Nederland B.V. Ericsson Holding Int. B.V. Teijin Aramid B.V. Esso Benelux B.V. Thales Nederland GDF SUEZ Energie Nederland N.V. T-Mobile

60 Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 2015 7.3 Organizations with zero points awarded

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

Company B2B / B2C Company B2B / B2C A&D Pharma Holdings N.V. B2B & B2C Avery Dennison Materials Nederland B.V. B2B A. Hakpark B.V. B2B A-Ware Food Group B.V. B2B A.S. Watson B.V. B2C Bakkersland Groep B.V. B2C Aan de Stegge Holding B.V. B2B & B2C BCD Travel Holding B2C ABB B.V. B2B Beleggingsmij. Braverassa B.V. B2B Accenture B.V. B2B Bluewater Holding B.V. B2B Ace Innovation Holding B.V. B2B BMW Nederland B.V. B2C Acer Europe B.V. B2B Booking.com B.V. B2C Action Service & Distributie B2C Bosal Nederland B.V. B2B Addasta Holding B.V. B2B Bose Products B2B & B2C Adecco Nederland Holding B.V. B2B Boston Scientific Int. B.V. B2B ADG dienstengroep B.V. B2B British American Tobacco International (Holdings) B.V. B2C Advanced Travel Partners Nederland B.V. B2C C. den Braven Beheer B.V. B2B Alliance Boots B.V. B2B & B2C Cabot Norit Activated Carbon B2B ALTICE B2B & B2C Caldic B.V. B2B Amlin Corporate Insurance B2B Canon Europa N.V. B2C Apollo Vredestein B.V. B2C Cargill B.V. B2B ArcelorMittal Netherlands B.V. B2B Catom Enterprises B.V. B2B Ardagh Group Netherlands B.V. B2B Center Parcs Europe N.V. B2C Argos Group Holding B.V. B2B CGI Nederland B.V. B2B Astellas B.V. B2B Chemours Netherlands B.V. B2B Auctus Holding B.V. B2B Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V. B2B

Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 2015 61 Company B2B / B2C Company B2B / B2C Cisco Systems International B.V. B2C Equens SE B2B Citadel Enterprises B.V. B2B Essent B2B Clondalkin Industries B.V. B2B Eur. Container Terminals B.V. B2B Connexxion B2C Ewals Holdings B.V. B2B Copaco Nederland B.V. B2B Flowserve B2B CRH Nederland B.V. B2B Foot Locker Europe B.V. B2C Da Holding B.V. B2C FUJIFILM Europe B.V. B2C DAF Trucks N.V. B2B Fujitsu Technology Solutions (Holding) B.V. B2C Danone Baby and Medical Nutrition B.V. B2C Gaiwin B.V. B2B De Hoop Terneuzen B.V. B2B Getinge Arjo Holding Netherlands B.V. B2B & B2C De Kon. Nederlandse Munt N.V. B2B Glencore Grain Rotterdam B.V. B2B De MandemakersGroep Holding B.V. B2C H.L. Barentz B.V. B2B DE Masterblenders 1753 B2C Hager-Minnema-Hutten Beheer B.V. B2B De Nederlandse Energie Maatschappij B.V. B2C Handelsveem Beheer B2B De Rijke Continental B.V. B2B Hanos (Apeldoorn B.V.) B2B De Stiho Groep B.V. B2B HDI-Gerling Verzekeringen N.V. B2B Delek Nederland B.V. B2B Heerema Marine Contractors Holding Nederland B.V. B2B Dell Global B.V. B2C Hitachi Machinery N.V. B2B Denkavit Internationaal B.V. B2B Holiday Holding Rotterdam B.V. B2B Dirk van den Broek/Dekamarkt B2C Honeywell Netherl. Hold. B.V. B2C Ecurion B2C Hoogvliet B.V. B2C EEA Helicopter Operations B.V. B2B Hoogwegt Groep B.V. B2B Elopak B.V. B2B Horedo/Rensa B2B Endemol B.V. B2C Huawei Technologies Coöperatief U.A. B2C Enviem Holding B.V. B2B Hunter Douglas N.V. B2B

62 Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 2015 Company B2B / B2C Company B2B / B2C Huntsman Investments (Netherlands) B.V. B2B LyondellBasell Industries N.V. B2B Hyva Group B.V. B2B Manpower Nederland B.V. B2C IBM Nederland BV B2B Markeur B2B IMCD Holding B.V. B2B Mars Nederland B.V. B2C Inalfa Roof Systems Group B.V. B2B MCB International B.V. B2B Ingram Micro B2C Mead Johnson B.V. B2C Interfood Holding B2B Meatpoint B.V. B2C Intergamma B.V. B2C Mediq B2C International Flavors & Fragrances I.F.F. (Nederland) B.V. B2B Mercedes-Benz Nederland B.V. B2C Inter-Sprint Banden B2B MHI Equipment Europe B.V. B2B INVISTA B.V. B2B Mijwo Beheer B.V. B2B ISS Holding Nederland B.V. B2B Milkiland N.V. B2C Koninklijke De Heus B.V. B2B Miss Etam B.V. B2C Koninklijke Distill. Dirkzwager B.V. B2B Mitsubishi Motors Europe B.V. B2B Koninklijke Wagenborg B2C Momentive Specialty Chemicals BV B2B Koninklijke Wegener N.V. B2C Mosadex B2C Koninklijke Zeelandia Groep B.V. B2B N.V. Deli Maatschappij B2B Kuehne + Nagel N.V. B2B Nedschroef Nederland B.V. B2B Kuwait Petroleum B.V. B2C Neste Oil Netherlands B.V. B2B KYOCERA Document Solutions Europe B.V. B2B NetApp & Manufacturing B2C Lekkerland Beheer B2B New World Resources B2B Liberty Global Holding B.V. B2C Nielsen N.V. B2C Loders Croklaan Group B.V. B2B Nokia Solutions and Networks B.V. B2C Lohomij B.V. B2C NVDU Acquisition B.V. B2B Loyens & Loeff N.V. B2C Office Depot International B2C

Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 2015 63 Company B2B / B2C Company B2B / B2C Omron Europe B.V. B2C Saphin B.V. B2C Optiver Holding B.V. B2B Scania Europe B2B Oracle Nederland B.V. B2B Scheuten Glass Holding B.V. B2B Otra N.V. B2B Sensata Technol. Holding N.V. B2B Oxbow Coal B.V. B2B SIHI Group B.V. B2B P.L. v. Merksteijn Hold. B.V. B2B Smartwares B.V. B2B Peugeot Nederland N.V. B2C SPAR Holding B.V. B2C PGA Nederland N.V. B2C Specialist Computer Holdings Nederland B.V. B2B Philip Morris Holland B.V. B2B SPIE Nederland B.V. B2B Plantronics B.V. B2B & B2C St. Clair/ De Bijenkorf B2C Plukon Food Group B2C Stage Entertainment B.V. B2B Poiesz Beheer B.V. B2C Stichting Nederlandse Publieke Omroep B2C Pon Holdings B.V. B2B Stolt Tankers B2B Post-Kogeko Logistics B.V. B2C Storteboom Group B.V. B2B Raben Group B.V. B2B Sulzer Netherlands Holding B2C Remeha Group B.V. B2C Sundio Group B.V. B2C Retailcom Beheer B.V. B2B Swarovski (Europe) Holding B.V. B2C RFS Holland Holding B.V. B2C Synbra Holding B.V. B2B Roba B2B Tata Steel B2B Rockwell Automation B.V. B2B Tech Data Nederland B.V. B2B RTL Nederland B.V. B2C Terberg Group B.V. B2C SABIC International Holdings B.V. B2B Tetra Laval Holdings B.V. B2B Samskip B2B Theobroma B.V. B2B Samsung Electronics Benelux B.V. B2C Thomas Cook Nederland B.V. B2C Sanoma Magazines B.V. B2C Tommy Hilfiger Europe B2C

64 Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 2015 Company B2B / B2C Toshiba Medical Systems Europe B.V. B2B TOTAL Nederland N.V. B2B & B2C TP Vision Europe B.V. B2B Transm. and Engineer. Services Netherl. B2B Twynstra Gudde B2B Unit 4 N.V. B2B United Parcel Service Nederland B.V. B2B & B2C Universal Cargo Logistics B2B V&D Group B2C Van den Ban Autobanden B.V. B2B Van Gansewinkel Groep B2B & B2C Verizon Business International Holdings B.V. B2B Voestalpine Automotive Netherlands Holding B.V. B2B Vrije Universiteit B2C Vroegop Ruhe & Co. B.V. B2B Vroon Group B.V. B2B WE Europe B.V. B2B Xerox Investments Europe B2B Xylem Water Solutions Nederland B.V. B2B & B2C Yamaha Motor Europe N.V. B2C Yanmar Europe B2B Yara Sluiskil B.V. B2B

Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 2015 65 7.4 Panel of Experts Transparency Benchmark

The Panel of Experts controls the quality of the assessments and communicates with organizations that had comments regarding their final score. Additionally, the Panel of Experts assesses the top 20 of the Transparency Benchmark; the highest scoring reports plus additional periodic information. The Panel of Experts focuses on the quality-related criteria (relevance, clarity, reliability, responsiveness and coherence) and adjusts these by a maximum of 15% (positive or negative) based on their own set of criteria. The Panel of Experts nominated the resulting top 3 organizations for the Crystal Awards, after which the winner is ultimately determined by the jury. The panel of Experts also advises the Ministry on possible revision of criteria.

The Panel of Experts consists of the following members:

• Chairman: miss Nancy Kamp-Roelands (external expert); • Member on behalf of the organization for entrepreneurs: miss Linda van Beek; • Member on behalf of academic expertise: mr. André Nijhof; • Member on behalf of GRI expertise: miss Teresa Fogelberg; • Member based on personal title: mr. Ernst van Weperen; • Member on behalf of communication advisors: mr. Gijs Dröge; • Member on behalf of investors: mr. Giuseppe van der Helm; • Member on behalf of corporate responsible organizations: mr. Tim Steinweg.

7.5 Jury of The Crystal

The jury selects the winner of the Crystal Award out of the three nominated reports. The jury provides an explanation for their decision in the jury report. IN 2015, the jury adopted, similar to last year, the criteria: ‘show who you are’ in choosing the winner of the top 3 organizations. In addition, the jury determines the winners of the complementary awards (for the most creative and innovative report and for the fastest climber) and determines the theme for theme award for the following year.

66 Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 2015 The jury that determines the top 3 of the Transparency Benchmark and selects the winner of The Crystal Award consists of the following members:

• voorzitter: mevr. Monika R. Milz • lid: Z.K.H. Prins Carlos de Bourbon de Parme • lid: dhr. Leen Paape

7.6 Literature

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

C. Deegan: “The legitimacy effect of social and environmental disclosure – a theoretical foundation”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, vol 15, no 3, 2002, pp. 282-311.

P.J. DiMaggio en W.W. Powell: “The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields”, American Sociological Review, vol 48, 1983, pp. 146-160.

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

M.C. Jensen en W.H. Meckling: ”Theory of the firm: managerial behavior agency costs and ownership structure”, Journal of financial economics 3, 1976, pp. 305-360.

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

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

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

Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 2015 67 68 Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 2015 This is a publication of the Ministry of Economic Affairs, ’s-Gravenhage

Do you have additional reactions or feedback? Please send your reactions/comments to: [email protected].

This publication is digitally available via www.rijksoverheid.nl/ez

The Crystal, the main award of the Transparency Benchmark is an initiative of the Ministry of Economic Affairs and the Netherlands Institute for Chartered Accountants (NBA)

Project team 2015 EZ: Margo Stam NBA: Marc Schweppe www.transparantiebenchmark.nl www.kristalprijs.nl

Directorate-General for Enterprise & Innovation Bezuidenhoutseweg 73 Postbus 20401 2500 EK | ’s-Gravenhage

Internet: www.rijksoverheid.nl/ez

November 2015 | Publication-nr. 87579