Transparency Benchmark 2016 the Crystal in Cooperation with the Netherlands Institute of Chartered Accountants (NBA)

Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal In cooperation with the Netherlands Institute of Chartered Accountants (NBA)

Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal 1 1 The Transparency Benchmark Ladder

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

Category Transparency ladder 2016 Ranking positions Leaders 1 - 21 Followers 22 - 70 Peloton 71 - 217 Laggards 218 - 252 Companies with zero scores 253 - 483

2 Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal The Transparency Benchmark Ladder

Organization Pos. Cat. Total score

Companies in the top 21 with the same rounded off scores, that received the same score were ranked based on a difference in decimal points. Which were ultimately determined and awarded by the Panel of Experts 6 Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal 5.4.3 Consumer products 33 Content 5.4.4 Services 34 5.4.5 Energy, oil and gas 35 5.4.6 Trading 36 5.4.7 Industrial products 37 1 The Transparency Benchmark Ladder 2 5.4.8 Media and communications 38 5.4.9 Pharmaceuticals 39 2 Preface 8 5.4.10 Retail 40 5.4.11 Technology 41 3 About this report, the Crystal Prize and the Transparency 5.4.12 Transport 42 Benchmark 10 5.4.13 Universities and Medical Centers 43 3.1 The Crystal Prize 11 5.4.14 Real Estate 44 3.2 The Transparency Benchmark 11 5.4.15 Food and Beverage 45 3.2.1 Goal 11 5.4.16 Other 46 3.2.2 Criteria 11 5.5 Companies with zero scores 47 3.2.3 The participating companies 12 5.6 Corporate responsibility reporting in practice 48 3.2.4 Boundary of publicly available accounting information 13 3.2.5 Methodology 14 6 Theme: UN Sustainable Development Goals 53 3.2.6 Panel of Experts and the Crystal Jury 15 6.1 What are the SDGs? 53 6.2 Why are the SDGs established? 54 4 This year’s winners 16 6.3 Analysis of the SDGs in the Transparency Benchmark 2016 55 4.1 The jury report 16 6.4 How to implement the SDGs 56 4.2 The winners 18 6.5 Opportunities and challenges 58 6.6 Best practices 59 5 What stands out? 21 5.1 Category comparison 21 7 Appendices 61 5.2 Criteria comparison 22 7.1 New participating companies 61 5.3 Materiality 27 7.2 Dutch companies with an international group report 63 5.4 Sector comparison 30 7.3 Foreign Public Interest Entities (PIE) 64 5.4.1 Banking and insurance 31 7.4 Companies with zero points awarded 65 5.4.2 Construction and maritime 32

Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal 7 2 Preface

The Transparency Benchmark is an annual study on the content and quality of corporate social responsibility reports of the largest companies in the Netherlands. Both private sector companies as well as governmental institutions are included within the research group. The research group consists of a total of 512 companies. This booklet contains the results of the Transparency Benchmark 2016, assessing companies’ disclosures for the reporting year 2015. It is unique that the Dutch government is able to provide this amount of detailed insights into how companies are taking the lead in providing information regarding their corporate responsibility, whether it is in an integrated manner or via a separate corporate responsibility report.

The Transparency Benchmark is not just a study; rather, from the outset in 2004, it has served as a practical tool of the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs to stimulate self-initiative in the business world. This is consistent with the unique self-regulation policies we know in the Netherlands. The Transparency Benchmark is but one of the means available to foster corporate responsibility and therefore should not be seen in isolation from other related measures in place by the government.

The Transparency Benchmark reflects the current societal developments. As such its focus has slightly shifted from purely social themes to providing comprehensive understanding of value creation of the economic, environmental and social aspects of business. Moreover, the company’s prospects of their value creation on the short-, medium- and long-term has become an essential part of the Transparency Benchmark. This requires companies to provide insight not only into their operational results, but information regarding the business model, integration of the strategy, governance structure, management approach, resources dependencies and organizational adaptability to dynamic environments is also crucial. Due to this more integrated focus, the required transparency provides insight in those aspects that are most relevant for a company.

The Transparency Benchmark also reflects the developments regarding corporate responsibility reporting, such as the Dutch Accounting Standard Board (DASB), RJ 400, the RJ “Handreiking maatschappelijke verslaggeving”, the Global Reporting Initiative, the value chain transparency responsibilities by the SER and other trends regarding integrated reporting. Although these reporting guidelines have been developed over the last years, the legal requirements for corporate responsibility reporting are fairly limited. However, as of 2017, regulation regarding transparency on non-financial information and diversity in the management report will be sharpened for public interest companies. Based on the revisions of the corporate governance code, there is increased demand for more transparency regarding diversity. Companies reporting in line with the criteria of the Transparency Benchmark usually already include these legally required disclosures in their reports. In that way the Transparency Benchmark stimulates companies to timely adapt to the latest legal requirements.

8 Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal The strength of the Transparency Benchmark lies in the fact that not only the content is reviewed, but the quality of the information included in the report is also assessed. As a result, the benchmark is able to minimize the chance that companies adopt a checklist mentality due to the detailed questionnaire. The Transparency Benchmark makes use of a dynamic online platform to provide companies with insight into their scores on the most relevant aspects of transparency, their performance vis-à-vis other companies inside and outside their sector, and ultimately potential improvement points. Investors and other users are thereby able to see at a glance which companies are most transparent.

In 2013, approximately 50% of the companies within the research group, indicated that the Transparency Benchmark had a positive impact on the content and quality of their corporate responsibility reporting. On the other hand, we see that the Transparency Benchmark is still unable to motivate a large and important group of companies, which still obtain a low score. With the stricter regulations regarding corporate responsibility information entering into force in 2017, we hope that the companies on the lower end of the benchmark are set in motion, particularly if it comes hand in hand with the aforementioned focus shift in reporting.

The results of this year show us that the average score has increased significantly compared to previous years. More information is included in the reports and also the quality of the information has improved. We have seen that some companies already integrated the Sustainable Development Goals within their annual reports. Gradually more information regarding long-term value creation, governance structures and remuneration is provided by the companies within the research group.

We can be proud of the CR reporting quality of the of Dutch companies and I hope that the Transparency Benchmark remains able to trigger companies to continuously improve their CR reporting.

Dr. Nancy Kamp-Roelands RA MA Former chairwoman of the Panel of Experts Transparency Benchmark

Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal 9 3 About this report, the Crystal Prize and the Transparency Benchmark

This booklet contains the results of the Transparency Benchmark 2016, including all the relevant information concerning the Benchmark. The report has been kept as short and concise as possible, with an emphasis on the results and most noteworthy insights from the Transparency Benchmark 2016.

In this chapter we will provide an in-depth background of the Crystal Prize and the Transparency Benchmark.

In chapter 4 you are able to read the jury report and this chapter provides insight into the considerations by the jury to determine the winners of this year.

Chapter 5 provides insight into the results of the participating companies, based on multiple analyses. These comparisons provide insight into the results on the following levels: category, criteria, sector and zero-scores. Additionally this chapter also contains the analysis on corporate responsibility reporting based on additional questions within the self-assessment tool.

Chapter 6 is about the Sustainable Development Goals, launched by the United Nations in 2015. These 17 Sustainable Development Goals are generally regarded as the successors of the Millennium Development Goals, and are already embraced by several multinationals and included in the annual reports.

Finally, chapter 7 includes the appendices regarding the New participating companies, Dutch companies with an international group report, Foreign Public Interest Entities (PIE) and Companies with zero points awarded.

10 Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal 3.1 The Crystal Prize

The Crystal Prize is the award for best CSR report that has been established by the Ministry of Economic Affairs in cooperation with the Dutch Professional Association of Accountants (NBA) in 2010. The Crystal aims to be the most important price for CSR reporting and is awarded on the basis of the Transparency Benchmark ranking. The jury, consisting of Ms. Drs Monika Milz, MBA (Chairwoman) and professor dr. Leen Paape RA RO CIA, selected this year’s winner of the Crystal Prize among the three highest-ranked companies. Besides the Crystal Prize the jury also awards the Highest Climber Award and the award for Most Innovative Report.

3.2 The Transparency Benchmark

3.2.1 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 publically available accounting information of the largest Dutch companies is reviewed against 40 criteria related to corporate responsibility aspects of the companies and their operations. The Transparency Benchmark does not explicitly give an opinion on the actual performance of companies. A high ranking on the Transparency Benchmark does not imply that there are no controversies regarding corporate responsibility. By being transparent and communicating in an open way, companies show their vulnerability and can engage with stakeholders in a meaningful way. This dialogue could eventually lead to organizational changes if needed.

3.2.2 Criteria The criteria of the Transparency Benchmark are in line with the latest international guidelines and developments, such as the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), the framework for integrated reporting of the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC), the OECD Guidelines for International Enterprises and the EU directive concerning reporting on non-financial information and diversity for PIEs (Public Interest Entity) with more than 500 employees. The criteria have been divided into two categories: content-related (three criteria subcategories) and quality-related (five criteria subcategories). A maximum of 200 points can be scored; 100 points for content and quality respectively. The total score can be calculated by adding the total score obtained for both content and quality. The maximum amount of points varies per subcategory (see figure).

This year, some criteria have been refined to enhance the comprehensibility and reduce room for interpretation. The criteria can be found in the document Criteria 2016 on the website of the Transparency Benchmark

Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal 11 Content-oriented Framework of Standards 100 1. Company and Business model 33 2. Policy and Results 34 3. Management approach 33 1A. Profile and value chain 10 2A. Policy and (self-im posed) obligations 5 3A. Governance and 10 remuneration 1B. Proces of value chain 10 2B. Objectives 5 3B. Steering and Control 8 1C. Analysis f the operating context 8 2C. Economic aspects of 8 2D. Environmental aspects 8 2E. Social aspects of 8 3C. Future expectations 5 (including risks and opportunities) business practice business practice business practice 1D. Strategic context 5 3D. Reporting criteria 10

Quality-oriented Framework of Standards 100 4. Relevance 20 5. Claerness 20 6. Reliability 20 7. Responsiveness 20 8. Coherence 20 Materiality 8 Claerness 6 Accuracy, Completeness and 17 Focus on 13 Strategic focus 5 true view stakeholders Scope and demarcation 6 Conciseness 4 Prudence 3 Contribution to 2 Contextual coherence 6 social debate Timeliness 6 Insightfull 7 Audacity 5 Integration 6 Accesibility 3 Comparability 3

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

Based on the aforementioned criteria, the final participants group increased this year to 512 companies (compared to 485 in 2015). The list of new participating companies can be found in the Appendix. The entire participation protocol can be downloaded from the website of the Transparency Benchmark (www.transparantiebenchmark.nl).

12 Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal Dutch companies with an International group report A company may be excluded from participation in the Transparency Benchmark when it is a subsidiary and the report of the parent company meets the guidelines of the EU directive proposal on non-financial reporting. This means that information on the environment, social and labour-related issues, human rights, anti-corruption, bribery, and diversity on the board should be included in the annual report. For these companies a separate overview was prepared, without a benchmark. These companies receive no score. In total, 26 of the 512 companies participated in the group arrangement. A list of these companies are included in the appendix. A company that meets the requirements to participate in this arrangement, and also publishes its own Dutch report, can choose to submit the Dutch report voluntarily for the purpose of the benchmark.

Public Interest Entities (PIE) that are not active in the Netherlands Just like previous year, this year Public Interest Entities are included in the research group for the Transparency Benchmark. This group is based on control statements by accountants that are authorized to perform audits at Public Interest Entities. Not all accountant offices are authorized to perform these audits. If an accountant office is authorized to perform such an assurance engagement they need to publish a list in their transparency report with all Public Interest Entities they are engaged with. Based on these lists the Public Interest Entities with 500 employees or more are selected for the Transparency Benchmark. In contrast to previous years, this year we found that six organizations, which are marked as Public Interest Entities, are not active in the Netherlands. Of these six companies, three companies participated within the international group report regulation. The other three organizations did not comply with the criteria of the group arrangement. These companies will be included in a separate list in the appendix.

3.2.4 Boundary of publicly available accounting information The scores on the Transparency Benchmark are awarded based on the publicly available reports over the reporting year 2015. Different types of reports qualify, such as annual reports, financial reports and corporate responsibly reports. The main condition is that reports should be publicly available. This implies that the report (the information) of the participant should be available at no additional fees, or should be available for downloading from the corporate website. Reports that are only available at the Chamber of Commerce do not meet the eligibility criteria and can therefore not be used as available accounting information. Additionally, the report should be published periodically and focused on accounting information of the reporting year 2015 (ended in 2015). Only reporting information published before the 1st of July 2016 has been included in the Transparency Benchmark.

Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal 13 3.2.5 Methodology All participating companies are invited to screen the quality of their own report by using the online self-assessment. By using the online self-assessment companies gain insight in the strengths and weaknesses of their own report. The self-assessments have been assessed and evaluated by a team of independent researchers.

Participating companies were able to use the e-tool; a web application with multiple processes. The overall process consists of the six following steps: • The self-assessment: companies assess their own information based on the criteria of the Transparency Benchmark. This year 160 companies have filled in the self-assessment. • Evaluation of the self-assessment and/or integrated assessment: in order to secure the quality of provisional scores and remedy 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, a company may wish to express disagreement with the score. Such disagreement tends to originate mainly from a difference in interpretation of a criterion between the executor of the Transparency Benchmark and the participant. Interaction with the Panel of Experts took place in the event of disagreement about the final score. The Panel of Experts assessed in these cases the final score. • Panel Assessment: The 21 highest scoring participants were also separately evaluated by the Panel of Experts. The reports of these companies have been assessed based on so-called ‘panel criteria’ In previous years the Panel only evaluated the top 20 of the Transparency Benchmark. This year however one additional company is included in the evaluation due to their communication with the Panel of Experts. The ‘panel criteria’ can be found in the appendix of the criteria 2016, to be downloaded from the website of the Transparency Benchmark (www.transparantiebenchmark.nl/en). • Winner of the Crystal Prize’: The Jury ultimately determines the winner of the ‘Crystal Prize’. Next to the Crystal Prize, the Jury awards the company that addresses transparency in corporate responsibility reporting in the most creative and innovative manner and awards the price to the fastest climber on the Transparency Benchmark ladder.

14 Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal 3.2.6 Panel of Experts and the Crystal Jury The Panel of Experts reviews the quality of the assessments and communicates with companies that had comments regarding their final score. Additionally, the Panel of Experts assesses the top 21 of the Transparency Benchmark; the highest scoring reports plus additional periodic information. The Panel of Experts focuses on the quality-related criteria (relevance, clarity, reliability, responsiveness and coherence) and adjusts these by a maximum of 15% (positive or negative) based on their own set of criteria. The Panel of Experts nominated the resulting top 3 companies for the Crystal Prize, after which the winner is ultimately determined by the jury. The panel of Experts also advises the Ministry on possible revision of criteria.

The Panel of Experts consists of the following members: • Chairwoman: Ms. Theresa Fogelberg, Deputy Chief Executive at Global Reporting Initiative; • Vice Chairman: Mr. Giuseppe van der Helm chairman Tax Justice Network, former managing director VBDO; • Mr. André Nijhof professor “Sustainable Business and Stewardship” at the Center for Entrepreneurship, Governance and Stewardship at Nyenrode; • Mr. Gijs Droge, managing director Stichting Milieukeur (SKM) • Mr. Marhijn Visser, Secretary International Economic Affairs at VNO-NCW - MKB-Nederland; • Ms. Maria van der Heijden, managing director at MVO Nederland; • Ms. Charlotte Linnebank, founder and Executive director at Stichting Questionmark and QM intelligence BV; • Mr. Gerhard Schuil, Manager Research & Professional Services at SOMO; • Ms. Erika Marseille, member of the counsel of the Foundation for Annual Reporting; • Mr. Paul Hurks, director international affairs at The Royal Netherlands Institute of Chartered Accountants • Mr. Ralph Thurm, director and founder of the consultancy firm AHEADahead.

The jury selects the winner of the Crystal Prize out of the three nominated reports. The jury provides an explanation for their decision in the jury report. In 2016, the jury adopted, similar to last year, the criteria: ‘show who you are’ in choosing the winner out of the top 3 companies. In addition, the jury determines the winners of the other awards (for the most creative and innovative report, and for the fastest climber) and determines the theme for theme award for the following year.

The jury that determines the top 3 of the Transparency Benchmark and selects the winner of The Crystal Prize consists of the following members: Chairwoman: Ms. Monika R. Milz Member: Mr. Leen Paape

Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal 15 4 This year’s winners

4.1 The jury report

2016 is the thirteenth year of the Transparency Benchmark, and the seventh year of the Crystal Prize. The amount of participating companies as well as the average score have increased this year. It is also a year characterized by a range of new developments, on a national and international level, regarding transparent reporting.

Trends and outlook On January 1st, 2016, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) were officially launched. These 17 goals provide guidance for global efforts in the field of sustainable development, in which private sector around the world assume a significant role. Some companies have included the SDGs in their 2015 annual reports. The jury encourages this development and hopes more companies will be prepared to provide insight into their contribution to the SDGs in 2016.

At the end of 2016 the EU Directive regarding transparency on non-financial information and diversity will come into effect for large public interest entities. This directive asks companies to provide more insight into non-financial information and the policies of the company.

Finally, on December 8th, 2016, the renewed Corporate Governance Code (CGC) will be presented to the Ministry of Economic Affairs. The commission designing the CGC has put long-term value creation at the center of the new developed code. Sustainability, addressing risks and opportunities and considering stakeholder opinions are of great importance. The commission aligned the code with recent developments regarding (transparency on) non-financial aspects of business.

The jury acknowledges that an integrated approach regarding corporate responsibility, where the company’s management supports an integrated strategy, is applied by increasingly more Dutch companies. Non-financial objectives are more often integrated within the business strategy. Also, the way in which companies included non-financial objectives in their reports has positively developed over the past year. Companies’ reports reflect a stronger focus on how they add value, and how they impact society. The Transparency Benchmark 2016 shows that the those criteria related to the company’s business model received the highest scores. It is encouraging to see that 80% of the companies in the ‘Peloton’ group have included corporate responsibility objectives in their reports, compared to 71% last year.

16 Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal The next step in raising a company’s awareness of its societal impact, is a focus on the long-term. Sustainability means that companies should make an effort to sustain this planet and create value for society for the long-term. Sometimes complex dilemma’s present themselves such as: how can value be created when maximum capacity has been reached? This future-oriented approach is not commonplace within the reporting landscape. Some pioneers, including the winner of this year’s Crystal Prize, have been able to take first steps in this regard.

Another noteworthy development is the concept of continuous reporting. Stakeholders gain insight into the most up to date financial and non-financial information, therefore stakeholders stay better informed regarding the results of a company throughout the year, which contrasts with an annual report by which stakeholders are updated annually. As of June 2016, Vodafone started to implement continuous reporting, integrating their website and their news portal, and providing their stakeholders with quarterly updates on their financial and non-financial results. The jury commends this initiative.

The jury sees that the general level of reporting improved over the years. This is confirmed by this year’s Transparency Benchmark results. The average score has increased with 5 points (from 99 in 2015, to 104 in 2016). For the first time, the number of participating companies exceeds 500 companies. In the top 21, a positive development is also visible: the winner obtained 199 out of 200 points, and the lowest score in the top 21 is 186, compared to 177 last year. In short: the bar has been raised and every point can make a difference. Therefor the top 3 has changed significantly compared to previous year.

However, challenges remain. According to the jury, reporting on companies’ supply chains deserves more attention. Stakeholders demand more insight into the global activities of multinational companies, especially when these activities take place in countries with significant social and environmental risks. The winner of this year’s innovation price is a positive exception, elaborating extensively on their supply chain activities across different countries.

In the eyes of the jury, the step towards reporting on organizational weaknesses is even more crucial. Only a few companies are transparent and honest regarding their own weaknesses vis-a-vis peers. The same applies for addressing and communicating on dilemmas: every company is faced with dilemmas, but not every company is transparent on these aspects. These considerations have been the starting point for the jury’s assessment of this year.

Introduction jury theme Driving business means dealing with ethical and other dilemma’s on a strategic as well as operational level. The intention to address dilemmas affecting all stakeholder interests is not sufficient to embed these dilemmas within a company. Embedding ethical business practice in the daily operations, and being transparent about it, requires a vision and a strategy regarding sustainable and ethical business and an operational policy that is in line with this vision and strategy.

Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal 17 For that reason the jury of the Crystal Prize reviewed how companies deal with, institutionalize, and transparently communicate on ethical and other dilemmas.

4.2 The winners

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

The Highest Climber Award: Universitair Medisch Centrum Groningen (UMCG) The highest climber in the Transparency Benchmark 2015 is the UMCG. The organization obtained 36 points in total in the 2015 benchmark. With a total of 148 points obtained this year, the UMCG climbed from rank 197th last year to number 79 in 2016. A raking improvement of 118 positions.

The biggest difference between the annual report 2014 and 2015 is that in 2014, the UMCG published a financial statement and separate annual reports on research and education, quality and safety and environment. In 2015, the UMCG has decided to combine these reports into one integrated document in order to improve the transparency and comprehensibility. The annual report 2015 was the first report, published by the UMCG, based on the Global Reporting Initiative G4 guidelines.

The way the UMCG provides insight into their model of value creation is unique in its sector. This model provides the stakeholders with insight into the input, activities, output and impact of the UMCG. Additionally, the UMCG included a materiality matrix for the first time in 2015, based on internal and external stakeholder meetings. In 2015, the UMCG included objectives in terms of quality and safety, regional cooperation and the complexity of patient care for the first time.

The Award for Most Innovative Report: Heineken N.V. Heineken N.V. has chosen to present their model of value creation in an innovative and clear manner. In both the annual report as well as in the sustainability report 2015, the value creation model constitutes the basis of the report. Compared to other companies, Heineken has contextua- lized the value creation model within their supply chain model. In the overview ‘From Barley to Bar’ the reader is able to follow the whole process from the production of the raw materials until the consumption at the bar. Heineken specifies the sources of their raw materials and provide insights into the origin of the different capitals geografically. Heineken’s report distinguishes itself from other reports, by also mentio- ning the dilemmas in high-risk countries.

18 Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal Moreover, Heineken is also one of the first Dutch companies that included the SDGs in their report. Heineken has linked their strategic themes to the different SDGs, thereby presenting their responsibilities, and placing their performance in a broader social context.

The Crystal Prize, the main award of the Transparency Benchmark After the assessment by the Panel of Experts, the jury selects this year’s winner of the Crystal Prize among the three highest-ranked companies. It is striking that the top 3 of the Transparency Benchmark 2016 consist of three government participations active in the Dutch infrastructure sector (in alphabetical order): Alliander, the NS and the Schiphol Group. A surprising result, especially considering the great sector diversity and the size of the companies within the top 21. The jury is aware that government participations have an exceptional position that differs from the commer- cial context in which privately owned operate. The jury hopes that the results of this year can lead to an exchange of ideas between government participations and privately owned companies.

Government participations are distinctive compared to private companies due to the public interest in these companies. These organizations are privatized by the government and are still finding their place in the market. As such, they need to maintain a government perspective on the one hand and adopt the business perspective on the other. This can lead to controversies, as is the example with ProRail. It is the jury’s opinion that the way in which controversies and dilemmas are presented in the report constitutes an important factor to winning the Crystal Prize. This has led to the jury theme of this year – how do companies deal with (ethical) dilemmas – and this has been especially relevant for the judging process of the top 3.

The integrated report of NS provides considerable insight into the issues and dilemmas the NS has faced. From the very first page NS provides an overview of the most relevant events in 2015. In addition, they take responsibility for the issues they did not manage properly. Painful issues are openly discussed: the Boards of Directors and the Supervisory Board are conscious of what went wrong and what should be improved. NS also provides the reader insight into certain dilemmas, for example investments versus dividend. Furthermore, NS distinguished itself by the clear way in which they integrated their corporate responsibility results in the annual report

Despite the aforementioned positive points, the jury concludes that the report is particularly focused on the past. In the report there is not much attention for the long-term vision of NS. Also, the fact that NS only briefly describes its foreign activities is taken into account by the jury. Therefore NS is ranked third.

Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal 19 The Schiphol Group is ranked second. In its annual report, the airport discusses a number of concrete dilemmas, in which Schiphol mentions its own point of view. These dilemmas have been presented not only with a focus on the current situation, but Schiphol has also included a future outlook on the position of the airport in de upcoming years. The jury admires the accessible design and the way in which Schiphol provided insight in the process of value creation. This is the reason Schiphol Group won the award of most innovative report last year.

Schiphol could improve its report by including specific objectives, and by going into more detail regarding the relationship between its own performance and the societal context in which Schiphol operates. This could be achieved by linking the results to relevant SDGs.

Winner Crystal Prize 2016 The jury presents the Crystal Prize 2016 to Alliander N.V.. Even more than the other two nominees, Alliander provides insight into their most relevant dilemmas. In the annual report, Alliander describes that the Board of Directors and the Supervisory Board openly discuss their corporate responsibilities and the dilemmas connected to these responsibilities. Particularly praiseworthy is the fact that Alliander is explicitly focused on the long-term. Questions are being explicitly highlighted on the limits of expansion, and other ways of long-term value creation are being explored. In doing so, Alliander is a frontrunner in the eyes of jury, especially when noting the organization’s objective to become climate neutral in 2023.

Alliander’s report shows that the organization is not only transparent about their results regarding corporate responsibilities, but also includes its stakeholders within the decision making process. The annual report starts with an overview of its most important stakeholders and this then clearly forms the basis of the report. It is remarkable that the stakeholders which are closest to the organization have the most impact on the material themes. Acknowledging this innovative way to focus on society, the jury is pleased to reward Alliander with the Crystal Prize.

20 Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal 5 What stands out?

This chapter will focus on the results of the Transparency Benchmark. The results concerning the criteria were based on the analyses of the companies that obtained a score on the Transparency Benchmark (252 companies).

5.1 Category comparison

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

Compared to last year we see that the amount of points obtained by the Total score companies has increased. Last year the companies gathered 49,6% of the Content-oriented criteria maximum amount of points, this year it increased to 52,2%. The average Company Prole and Business Model scores of the companies has therefore increased from 99 points to 104 points. Policy and Results

Management Approach When looking at the different categories it is notable that the top 3 best Quality-oriented criteria scoring categories relative to last year did not change. Although the top 3 Relevance remained the same, the percentage of the obtained points did increase for all three categories. The top 3 lowest scoring categories changed compared Clearness to last year. Just like last year the category reliability is the lowest scoring Reliability categorie. The score for the category Responsiveness has decreased from Responsiveness 50% to 49%. This is also the only category where the total amount of Coherence points has decreased compared to last year and that is the reason that this 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% category is new in the top 3 lowest scoring categories.

Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal 21 Top 3 best scoring categories: Top 3 lowest scoring categories 1. Company Profile and Business Model (62% of maximum attainable score) 1. Reliability (27% of maximum attainable score) 2. Clarity (61% of maximum attainable score) 2. Responsiveness (49% of maximum attainable score) 3. Management Approach (55% of maximum attainable score) 3. Policy and Results (51% of maximum attainable score)

5.2 Criteria comparison

The next pages will provide more information on the criteria of the Transparency Benchmark 2016. The table below indicates the criteria with the best and lowest scores obtained by the participating companies. The highest and lowest scoring criteria are the same criteria as in 2014 and 2015. Even the order in which both top 3’s are ranked is the same as last year. This table is then followed by an overview of the most relevant and remarkable results of the Transparency Benchmark 2016. The graphs included in this overview present the average scores along the organizational classification of the Transparency Benchmark Ladder (leaders, followers, peloton and laggards). Comparison with last year’s scores is made possible by including the 2015 results. Moreover, based on a complementary in-depth analysis, the texts accompanying each graph highlight further observations of this year’s results, which are not directly derived from the graphs themselves.

TOP 3 HIGHEST SCORING CRITERIA 2016 TOP 3 LOWEST SCORING CRITERIA 2016 Score & Criteria Explanation criteria Score & Criteria Explanation criteria 87% of the companies achieved Complete understanding of the 68% of the companies No inclusion of a signed statement from the maximum score concerning organizational structure obtained the minimum score an independent third party, who has criterion 13 concerning criterion 30 verified the corporate responsibility information 82% of the companies achieved General information about the 60% of the companies has Subject matter experts or stakeholders the maximum score on criterion 1 company, a quantitative summary of obtained the minimum score have not been invited to express their the company’s profile (amount of concerning criterion 31 opinion in the report itself (e.g. quotes employees, amount of supplied have not been included) goods/ services, etc.) 65% of the companies Sharing a vision on relevant corporate 58% of the companies 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)

22 Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal Value Chain 60% of the companies reports on the value chain in Yes No which it operates (compared to 69% in 2015). Despite the fact that the percentage of companies that report on the Total 2016 60% 40% value chain has decreased, the percentage of companies that obtained Total 2015 69% 31% the maximum score for this criterion has increased from 22% to 34%. Leaders 100% 0% The full score can be obtained by providing an explanation about the Followers 98% 2% main corporate social responsibilities that are of importance within Peloton 54% 46% the value chain and including a graphical representation. Laggards 9% 91% Category: Organization and Business Model 0 20 40 60 80 100

Business Model In total 97% of the companies reports on their Yes No business model (compared to 96% in 2015). Only 8 companies did not obtain a score for this criterion. Despite the Total 2016 97% 3% fact that almost all participating companies obtained a score, only 31% Total 2015 96% 4% received the maximum score. In order to receive the maximum amount Leaders 100% 0% of points a company should provide insight in their business model Followers 100% 0% and clarify their model of value creation. In addition, a SWOT-analysis Peloton 97% 3% should be available as well as a graphical representation of the business model. Laggards 89% 11% 0 20 40 60 80 100 Category: Organization and Business Model

Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal 23 Business Strategy Yes No This year 86% of the companies provided an explanation Total 2016 86% 14% on their business strategy. The percentage is similar with last year. Total 2015 86% 14% However the percentage of companies that obtained the maximum Leaders 100% 0% score decreased from 55% in 2015 to 53% this year. These companies Followers 100% 0% provide specific information on the strategy and present a coherent set Peloton 94% 6% of strategic themes, priorities and objectives. Additionally, they Laggards 23% 77% explicitly link the strategy with other components of the report. 0 20 40 60 80 100 Category: Organization and Business Model

In 2016 77% of the companies formulated objectives Objectives concerning corporate responsibility. This is an increase Yes No of 3% compared to last year. Although the percentage of Total 2016 77% 23% companies with a score increased, the percentage of companies with Total 2015 74% 26% the maximum amount of points has decreased compared to last year. Leaders 100% 0% Last year 29% of the companies obtained the maximum amount of 100% 0% points, this year only 26% obtained this maximum. In order to obtain Followers the maximum amount of points a company has to provide quantitative Peloton 80% 20% targets and link them with the material aspects. Laggards 14% 86% Category: Policy and results 0 20 40 60 80 100

24 Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal 32% of the companies have included a statement of an Third-party Assurance independent third party in the corporate responsibility Yes No report (compared to 33% in 2015). Total 2016 32% 68% Compared to last year the amount of companies with the maximum Total 2015 33% 67% amount of points increased from 11 to 13 companies. These 13 companies have included an assurance statement providing Leaders 100% 0% reasonable assurance regarding at least the most relevant part of the Followers 80% 20% corporate responsibility report. Peloton 14% 86% Category: Reliability Laggards 0% 100% 0 20 40 60 80 100

Stakeholder Engagement In 2016 75% indicate how they engage their stakeholders Yes No in the strategy, policy and activities of the company. This is Total 2016 75% 25% a slight increase to last year. Total 2015 74% 26% The percentage of companies that obtained the maximum score increased from 17% tot 27%. Meaning more companies activily engaged Leaders 100% 0% with their stakholders and included the highest boardlevel within that 100% 0% Followers dialogue. Besides that, these companies used the input of their Peloton 78% 22% stakeholders in relation to their strategy and objectives. Laggards 11% 89% Category: Responsiveness 0 20 40 60 80 100

Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal 25 53% of the companies has provided insight in the issues Issues and Dilemmas and dilemmas faced by the management. This is a Yes No significant decrease compared to last year when 67% of Total 2016 53% 47% the companies received a score for this criterion. Total 2015 67% 33% The reason of this decrease can be found in the reformulation of this Leaders 100% 0% criterion compared to last year. It is not sufficient anymore to only provide insight in the challenges. Also the percentage of companies Followers 88% 12% with a maximum score has decreased from 38% to 30%. In order to Peloton 46% 54% receive the maximum score an companies should provide an explana- Laggards 9% 91% tion regarding the issues and dilemmas and include these as indepen- 0 20 40 60 80 100 dent sections within their report. Category: Responsiveness

26 Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal 5.3 Materiality

Internationally, the subject of materiality within reporting has been receiving more emphasis. This includes a sharpened focus on materiality of CSR themes in sustainability reporting in particular, evident from the latest GRI G4 guidelines. To keep the ever-increasing amount of non-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 the users of the report. The next pages provide insight in the conclusions related to the criteria about materiality.

Materiality I: General Yes No In 2016 the percentage of companies reporting about Total 2016 76% 24% their material themes has increased from 72% to 76%. Total 2015 72% 28% The percentage of companies that provides full insight in their Leaders 100% 0% material themes increased from 38% to 46%. This indicates that almost Followers 100% 0% half of the companies provide insight in their most relevant and Peloton 80% 20% strategic themes and that they made them graphically visible. Category: Organization and business model Laggards 14% 86% 0 20 40 60 80 100

The formulation of criteria 22 has been changed Materiality II: Relevance compared to last year. In order to receive the maximum Yes No score last year, it was necessary to solely report on the Total 2016 63% 37% material themes. After last year’s evaluation it is decided Total 2015 61% 39% to remove this sub criteria from the self-assessment. Leaders 100% 0% Due to this change in the criteria, an increase of companies receiving points for this criteria is visible (from 61% in 2015 to 63% in 2016). This Followers 100% 0% also caused an increase of companies obtaining the maximum score Peloton 59% 41% for this criteria. This has increased from 37% to 55%. Laggards 3% 97% Category: Relevance 0 20 40 60 80 100

Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal 27 Materiality III: Environmental Aspects Yes No This year 78% report about their material environmental Total 2016 78% 22% aspects of their business practice, this is an increase of 4% compared to last year. Total 2015 74% 26% In total 16 companies obtained the maximum amount of points for 100% 0% Leaders this criteria: in order to receive the maximum amount of points it is Followers 100% 0% required to express the environmental results in a monetary value (see Peloton 80% 20% box about monetary value). Last year only 6 companies received the Laggards 23% 77% maximum amount of points for this criterion. 0 20 40 60 80 100 Category: Policy and results

Materiality IV: Social Aspects This year 82% report about their material social aspects of their business practice, this is an increase of 6% Yes No compared to last year. Total 2016 82% 18% In total 17 companies obtained the maximum amount of points for Total 2015 76% 24% this criteria: in order to receive the maximum amount of points it is Leaders 100% 0% required to express the environmental results in a monetary value (see Followers 100% 0% box about monetary value). Last year only 7 companies received the maximum amount of points for this criterion. Peloton 86% 14% Category: Policy and results Laggards 26% 74% 0 20 40 60 80 100

28 Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal Monetary value A large number of companies describe the impact of their products/services on society. Quantifying and monetizing the generated impact is becoming more popular. The monetary value of environmental or social impact is the value (in Euros or other monetary value) of the effect on the environment or society. It should be noted that there is a significant difference between the monetary value of a cost saving for the companies (or the supply chain) and the monetary value of an effect (impact) for society. An investment in charity or an energy-saving program expressed in Euros of costs saved is not to the same as the monetary value of a social or environmental effect. Monetizing the impact of training and education on employees, (future) employers and society are examples of such a monetary value.

Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal 29 5.4 Sector comparison

The participating companies of the Transparency Benchmark have been divided into 16 different sectors (similar to last year). The companies that could not be included in a specific sector form the sector ‘other’, a total of 23 companies.

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

Sector Average score Percentage zero 2016 scores 2016 Just like last year the Transport sector has the highest Banking and insurance 121 3% average score with 163 points, this is an increase of 7 points. Construction and maritime 107 38% Consumer products 104 79% The average score of all companies has increased from Services 103 32% 99 points to 104 points. Energy, oil and gas 135 38% There are substantial differences between the scores of the different Trading 57 77% sectors. An illustrative example of this is the difference of in total 133 points between the transport sector and the pharmaceuticals Industrial products 97 66% industry. Media and communications 75 42% In addition, it is noticeable that some sectors consist majorly of Other 51 74% companies with a zero score. For example, although in the Pharmaceuticals 30 43% consumer products sector the average is 104 points, 79% of the companies in this sector received a zero score. The real estate Retail 103 68% sector on the other hand, only achieves an average score of 102 Technology 117 62% points. However, all companies have achieved a positive score in Transport 163 61% this sector. Universities and Medical 90 0% This year, 69 new companies have been added to the Transparency Benchmark. Only these 69 companies are Centres considered as new participants within the sectors. Real estate 102 0% Food and beverage 105 49%

30 Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal 5.4.1 Banking and insurance

ABN AMRO Group N.V. Number of companies 37 Rabobank Number of companies with zero score 1 Van Lanschot Bankiers Ned. Financierings-Maatschappij voor Ontwikkelingslanden NV Number of companies with a score 36 Bank Ned. Gemeenten N.V. Average score (exl. companies with zero score) 121 ING Groep Aegon N.V. Percentage of companies with zero score 3% SNS Bank N.V. Number of new participants 4 Nederlandse Waterschapsbank NV Vivat Verzekeringen NN GROUP The banking and insurance sector scored, Menzis Holding B.V. Achmea similar to last year, above average with an NIBC Bank N.V. average score of 121 points. This is a De Nederlandsche Bank N.V. CZ groep significant increase compared to last year ASR Nederland N.V. when the average score was only 108 points. Triodos Bank N.V. Coöperatie VGZ U.A. Delta Lloyd Groep Atradius N.V. Last year 2 companies received a zero score, Allianz Nederland Groep N.V. this year only 1 company received this score. VvAA groep B.V. KAS BANK N.V. Binckbank Triodos Bank N.V. is the best scoring new ONVZ Ziektekostenverzekeraar N.V. Robeco Groep N.V. participant within this sector with a score of The Royal Bank of Scotland Coöperatie Univé U.A. 156. DAS Ned. Rechtsbijstand Verzekeringmaatschappij N.V. Credit Europe Bank N.V. O.W.M. DSW Zorgverzekeraar UA Zorg en Zekerheid Groep De Goudse N.V. HDI-Gerling Verzekeringen N.V. Citco Bank Nederland N.V. RFS Holland Holding B.V. 0 50 100 150 200

Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal 31 5.4.2 Construction and maritime

Royal BAM Group Number of companies 29 Heijmans VolkerWessels Number of companies with zero score 11 Koninklijke Boskalis Westminster N.V. Number of companies with a score 18 SBM Oshore Joh. Mourik & Co. Holding B.V. Average score (exl. companies with zero score) 107 TBI Holdings Beelen Groep B.V. Percentage of companies with zero score 38% Van Oord Number of new participants 4 IHC Merwede Holding B.V. Damen Shipyards Group N.V. Unica Groep B.V. Ballast Nedam N.V. This year, the construction and maritime Dura Vermeer Groep Oranjewoud N.V. sector obtained an above-average score of Van Wijnen Groep N.V. Janssen De Jong Groep B.V. 107 points. This is a decrease compared to Aan de Stegge Holding B.V. A. Hakpark B.V. last year when the average score was 110. Bluewater Holding B.V. Brihold B.V. This is the second consecutive year the CRH Nederland B.V. average score has decreased. GustoMSC Investments B.V. Hurks groep Koninklijke Wagenborg Mota-Engil Africa N.V. None of the new participants within this Peterson Control Union Group B.V. SPIE Nederland B.V. sector have obtained a score. Wavin N.V.

32 Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal 5.4.3 Consumer products

Unilever N.V. Number of companies 19 Accell Group TomTom N.V. Number of companies with zero score 15 Action Service & Distributie Number of companies with a score 4 Apollo Vredestein B.V. Bose Products Average score (exl. companies with zero score) 104 Canon Europa N.V. Percentage of companies with zero score 79% Darling International NL Holdings B.V. De MandemakersGroep Holding B.V. Number of new participants 1 FUJIFILM Europe B.V. Honeywell Netherl. Hold. B.V. Hunter Douglas N.V. Last year the average score of this sector was Lekkerland Beheer 133 points, this year it decreased to 104 Philip Morris Holland B.V. Remeha Group B.V. points. This is mainly caused by the fact that Smartwares B.V. Swarovski (Europe) Holding B.V. more companies received a score and this Van den Ban Autobanden B.V. WE Europe B.V. lowered the average score (last year only 3 Van den Ban Autobanden B.V. companies received points). WE Europe B.V. The sector consumer products is the sector with the highest percentage of companies with a zero score: 79%. Although this is still the highest percentage, it is a decrease compared to last year when 86% of the companies received a zero score.

Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal 33 5.4.4 Services

PricewaterhouseCoopers Holding Nationale Goede Doelen Loterijen N.V. Number of companies 72 NV NOM Investerings- en Ontwikkelingsmaatschappij voor Noord-Nederland ANWB B.V. COVRA NV Number of companies with zero score 23 MN N.V. HVC Number of companies with a score 49 Facilicom Services Group Q-Park NV Ernst & Young Nederland Average score (exl. companies with zero score) 103 Van Gansewinkel Groep Randstad Holding N.V. Percentage of companies with zero score 32% Industriebank LIOF N.V. Ordina N.V. KPMG N.V. Number of new participants 12 SUEZ Recycling & Recovery Netherlands B.V. Regionale Ontwikkelingsmaatschappij InnovationQuarter B.V. Royal HaskoningDHV Deloie Holding B.V. Ontwikkelingsmaatschappij Oost Nederland NV The service sector has the highest number of Arcadis N.V. USG People N.V. Holland Casino participating companies, in total there are 72 CoMore Stichting Exploitatie Nederlandse Staatsloterij Brunel International N.V. companies included in this sector. The Vebego International N.V. PGGM Brab. Ontw. Maatschappij N.V. average score is just below the overall LeasePlan Corporation N.V. Dela Coöperatie U.A. Fugro NV average, but has increased compared to last Stichting Espria ICT Automatisering Euronext N.V. year (from 94 to 103 points). Propertize B.V. DPA GROUP Yarden Holding B.V. Broekhuis Holding Value8 APG About one third of the companies has a zero Centric Holding B.V. Nieuwe Steen inv TMF Group Holding B.V. score in this sector. Monuta Flow Traders N.V. IMC Trading Tauw Groep BV Home Credit B.V. Accenture B.V. SUEZ Recycling & Recovery Netherlands B.V. Adecco Nederland Holding B.V. Amlin Europe N.V. BCD Travel Holding is the best new participant within this sector BEE Holding B.V. Booking.com B.V. Brand Loyalty Group B.V. with a score of 142 points. CGI Nederland B.V. Corendon Holding B.V. CWT B.V. Diversey Europe Operations B.V. Equens SE Hametha B.V. Holiday Holding Roerdam B.V. Loyens & Loe N.V. Manpower Nederland B.V. Omron Europe B.V. Oracle Nederland B.V. Sweco Nederland BV TP Vision Europe B.V. Unit 4 N.V. United Parcel Service Nederland B.V. Xylem Water Solutions Nederland B.V.

34 Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal 5.4.5 Energy, oil and gas

Alliander N.V. Number of companies 21 Nederlandse Gasunie N.V. Number of companies with zero score 8 TenneT Holding B.V. Enexis Holding N.V. Number of companies with a score 13 EBN Average score (exl. companies with zero score) 135 Westland Infra Percentage of companies with zero score 38% GasTerra B.V. Number of new participants 1 Eneco Holding N.V. Royal Dutch Shell Core Laboratories N.V. The energy, oil and gas sector has achieved a Delta N.V. Heerema Marine Contractors Holding Nederland B.V. higher average score than last year. Last year, Ultra-Centrifuge Ned. N.V. the sector achieved an average score of 129 Argos Group Holding B.V. De Nederlandse Energie Maatschappij B.V. points, while this year the average score has EFR Nederland B.V. increased to 135 points. Esso Benelux B.V. Kuwait Petroleum B.V. Oilinvest (Netherlands) B.V. The top 3 within this sector remained the TOTAL Nederland N.V. Yara Sluiskil B.V. same, however Alliander N.V., as winner of the Crystal Prize, is the company with the highest score.

Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal 35 5.4.6 Trading

Nidera B.V. Number of companies 30 Koninklijke Coöperatieve Bloemenveiling FloraHolland U.A. Royal Reesink N.V. Number of companies with zero score 23 Amsterdam Commodities N.V. Cefetra B.V. Number of companies with a score 7 Scholten Awater Average score (exl. companies with zero score) 57 SHV Holdings N.V. Baker Hughes (Nederland) B.V. Percentage of companies with zero score 77% Beheer- en Beleggingsmaatschappij Zandbergen B.V. Brenntag Nederland B.V. Number of new participants 15 Brokking's Beheer B.V. Coöperatieve Vereniging Beko U.A. Copaco Nederland B.V. De sector trading has an average score of 57 Dutch Flower Group B.V. Eastman Chemical B.V. points. This is a significant decrease Fondel Holding B.V. H.J. Heinz Supply Chain Europe B.V. compared to last year when the average Hager-Minnema-Huen Beheer B.V. Hexion B.V. score was 75 points. Interfood Holding MCB International B.V. N.V. Deli Maatschappij Oxbow Netherlands Coöperatieve U.A. The number of companies within this sector PP Groep Katwijk B.V. RLG Europe B.V. that received a score has increased from 4 to Roba Toshiba Medical Systems Europe B.V. 7 companies. The sector trading is the sector Transm. and Engineer. Services Netherl. Trimble Europe B.V. with the highest number of new participants Wensink Automotive B.V. (15 companies in total).

36 Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal 5.4.7 Industrial products

DSM N.V. Koninklijke Philips N.V. Number of companies 59 AKZO Nobel N.V. Rockwool Benelux Holding Number of companies with zero score 39 Kendrion N.V. Corbion N.V. Number of companies with a score 20 Koninklijke Ten Cate N.V. Aperam Average score (exl. companies with zero score) 97 DOW Benelux B.V. Forbo Flooring B.V. Percentage of companies with zero score 66% Aalberts Industries N.V. Holland Colours N.V. Number of new participants 8 Nedap N.V. OCI Batenburg Techniek N.V. Van Leeuwen Buizen Groep B.V Last year the sector industrial products AMG Advanced Metallurg. Gr. NV Constellium N.V. Brocacef Holding obtained an average score of 97 points, this Kramp Groep B.V. ABB B.V. has remained the same. The number of Ace Innovation Holding B.V. Air Products Nederland B.V. companies with a zero score is the highest in ArcelorMittal Netherlands B.V. Ardagh Group Netherlands B.V. Avery Dennison Materials Nederland B.V. this sector: as many as 39 companies B. Braun Medical B.V. Bosal Nederland B.V. received a zero score. C. den Braven Beheer B.V. Caldic B.V. De Hoop Terneuzen B.V. Denkavit Internationaal B.V. Denso Int. Europe B.V. Holland Colours N.V. is the best new Enviem Holding B.V. Flowserve participant within this sector with 77 points. Fokker Technologies Group B.V. Hertel Holding B.V. 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. Maasland N.V. Nedfast Holding B.V. Otra N.V. P.L. v. Merksteijn Hold. B.V. Rockwell Automation B.V. SABIC International Holdings B.V. Schoeller Allibert Holding B.V. SIHI Group B.V. Stork Synbra Holding B.V. Tata Steel Nederland B.V. Terberg Group B.V. Tetra Laval Holdings B.V. Voestalpine Automotive Netherlands Holding B.V. Yanmar Europe

Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal 37 5.4.8 Media and communications

TMG - Telegraaf Media Groep Number of companies 12 RELX Group N.V. Number of companies with zero score 5 Wolters Kluwer N.V. Number of companies with a score 7 Cimpress Average score (exl. companies with zero score) 75 de Persgroep Nederland B.V. Koninklijke Brill N.V. Percentage of companies with zero score 42% Audax B.V. Number of new participants 1 Chios Investments B.V. Global City Holdings N.V. The average score of the sector media and Koninklijke Wegener N.V. Sanoma Magazines B.V. communications is 75 points. This is an Stichting Nederlandse Publieke Omroep increase compared to last year when the average score was only 66 points. All companies within this sector have obtained a higher score than last year.

38 Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal 5.4.9 Pharmaceuticals

GALAPAGOS Number of companies 7 Fagron ESPERITE Number of companies with zero score 3 Kiadis Pharma N.V. Number of companies with a score 4 A&D Pharma Holdings N.V. Alliance Boots B.V. Average score (exl. companies with zero score) 30 Merck Sharp & Dohme B.V. Percentage of companies with zero score 43% Number of new participants 1

Just as last year the pharmaceuticals sector has the lowest amount of participants as well as the lowest average score. The average score has decreased from 34 to 30 points.

Just as last year GALAPAGOS is the company with the highest score within this sector: 53.

Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal 39 5.4.10 Retail

Royal Ahold Number of companies 40 Zeeman Groep B.V. Jumbo Groep Holding B.V. Number of companies with zero score 27 HEMA Number of companies with a score 13 PLUS Holding B.V. Beter Bed Holding N.V. Average score (exl. companies with zero score) 103 Stern Groep N.V. Percentage of companies with zero score 68% Coop Holding Ingka Holding B.V. Number of new participants 8 GrandVision N.V. A.S. Watson Health & Beauty Benelux B.V. Blokker Holding B.V. The retail sector has obtained a significantly Euretco B.V. AS Adventure Holding B.V. higher average score in comparison with last B & S International B.V. BMW Nederland B.V. year. Last year the sector had an average Cnova N.V. Coolblue Holding B.V. score of 85 points, this has been increased to Deen Holding Hoorn B.V. Detailresult Groep N.V. 103 point. ECCO EMEA B.V. Foot Locker Europe B.V. Hoogvliet B.V. Although the average score has significantly Intergamma B.V. Inter-Sprint Banden increased, the number of companies that Lohomij B.V. Markeur received a zero score has increased from Maxeda Nederland B.V. Mercedes-Benz Nederland B.V. 60% to 68%. 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. Scotch & Soda N.V. SPAR Holding B.V. St. Clair/ De Bijenkorf Tesla Motors Netherlands B.V. Yamaha Motor Europe N.V.

40 Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal 5.4.11 Technology

KPN Number of companies 37 Vodafone Siemens Nederland Number of companies with zero score 23 TKH Group N.V. Number of companies with a score 14 ASML Average score (exl. companies with zero score) 117 VimpelCom Ltd. ASM International N.V. Percentage of companies with zero score 62% Thales Nederland Number of new participants 3 Gemalto N.V. Tele2 Netherlands Holding N.V. BE Semiconductor Indus. N.V. The average score of the technology sector Neways Electronics International N.V. NXP Semiconductors Netherlands B.V. has increased from 101 points to 117 points. VDL Groep Acer Europe B.V. ALTICE Boston Scientic Int. B.V. Last year this sector had 14 new participants, Chemours Netherlands B.V. this year there are only 3 new participants. Cisco Systems International B.V. Dell Global B.V. None of these new participants received a Epson Europe B.V. Fujitsu Technology Solutions (Holding) B.V. score this year. Hewle-Packard The Hague B.V. Huawei Technologies Coöperatief U.A. Ingram Micro Juniper Networks International B.V. KYOCERA Document Solutions Europe B.V. Liberty Global Holding B.V. Nokia Solutions and Networks B.V. Plantronics B.V. Ricoh Europe SCM B.V. Saba Statia Cable Sysytem B.V. Samsung Electronics Benelux B.V. SAP Nederland B.V. Sensata Technol. Holding N.V. Tech Data Nederland B.V. Xerox Investments Europe

Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal 41 5.4.12 Transport

Schiphol Group Number of companies 23 NS Number of companies with zero score 14 Havenbedrijf Roerdam N.V. Number of companies with a score 12 Air France - KLM PostNL Average score (exl. companies with zero score) 122 ProRail B.V. Percentage of companies with zero score 61% TNT Express Number of new participants 0 GVB Amsterdam Vos Logistics Beheer B.V. Catom Enterprises B.V. Just like in the last two years the transport Connexxion sector has the highest average score. Last DAF Trucks N.V. year the average score was 156 points, this EEA Helicopter Operations B.V. Eur. Container Terminals B.V. has increased to 163 point. Ewals Holdings B.V. Gaiwin B.V. Handelsveem Beheer Besides the highest average score, this is the Raben Netherlands BV only sector where all companies received Samskip Stolt Tankers more than 100 points. Thomas Cook Nederland B.V. Universal Cargo Logistics Vroon Oshore B.V.

42 Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal 5.4.13 Universities and Medical Centers

Wageningen UR Number of organizations 24 TNO Number of organizations with zero score 0 Radboudumc Number of organizations with a score 17 Universitair Medisch Centrum Groningen Rijksuniversiteit Groningen Average score (exl. organizations with zero score) 127 Universiteit Maastricht Percentage of organizations with zero score 0% Universiteit Twente Number of new participants 0 Universiteit Leiden UMC Utrecht Universiteit Utrecht The sector Universities and Medical Centers Technische Universiteit Del has an average score of 90, compared to a Technische Universiteit Eindhoven Universiteit van Amsterdam score of 73 in 2015. Universiteit van Tilburg Erasmus MC Maastricht UMC+ Last year one of the universities did receive a Academisch Medisch Centrum zero score, this year none of the VUmc Leids Universitair Medisch Centrum organizations received a zero score. Nyenrode The Universitair Medisch Centrum Erasmus Universiteit Roerdam Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen Groningen is the fastest climber of the Vrije Universiteit Transparency Benchmark 2016. Last year the Open Universiteit company received 36 points, this year the company obtained 148 points.

Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal 43 5.4.14 Real Estate

Waterweg Wonen Number of companies 5 Wereldhave Manag. Holding B.V. Number of companies with zero score 0 Unibail Rodamco Number of companies with a score 5 Vastned Retail N.V. Average score (exl. companies with zero score) 102 Eurocommercial Properties Percentage of companies with zero score 0% Number of new participants 0

The real estate sector has an average score of 102 points. This is an increase compared to last year when the average score was 96 point.

Together with the sector Universities and Medical Centers these are the only two sectors without an company with a zero score.

44 Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal 5.4.15 Food and Beverage

Heineken N.V. Number of companies 45 Vitens N.V. Koninklijke Wessanen N.V. Number of companies with zero score 22 Koninklijke FrieslandCampina N.V. Number of companies with a score 23 VanDrie Group Albron Nederland B.V. Average score (exl. companies with zero score) 105 Bavaria N.V. Percentage of companies with zero score 49% Bidvest Deli XL Perfetti v. Melle Number of new participants 3 Vreugdenhil Groep B.V. Sligro Food Group N.V. Agri rm Group B.V. With an average score of 105 points the ForFarmers N.V. Farm Frites Beheer B.V. companies within the sector food and The Greenery B.V. Coöperatie AVEBE U.A. beverage slightly improved its performance Koninklijke Coöperatie Cosun U.A. Refresco Holding B.V. compared to last year when it obtained an Lucas Bols N.V. VION Holding N.V. average score of 104 point. DOC Kaas CZAV A-Ware Food Group B.V. Almost half of the companies within this 2 Sisters Europe B.V. Addasta Holding B.V. sector have received a zero score. Admidex B.V. Bakkersland Groep B.V. Cargill B.V. Glencore Grain B.V. H.L. Barentz B.V. Hoogwegt Groep B.V. IMCD Holding B.V. JACOBS DOUWE EGBERTS 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. Milkiland N.V. NVDU Acquisition B.V. Paridaans en Liebregts B.V. Plukon Food Group Theobroma B.V. Van Rooi Meat B.V.

Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal 45 5.4.16 Other

Koninklijke Vopak N.V. Number of companies 23 Airbus Group N.V. Number of companies with zero score 17 Kardan N.V. AerCap Holdings N.V. Number of companies with a score 6 Louis Dreyfus Average score (exl. companies with zero score) 51 Horedo/Rensa Advanced Travel Partners Nederland B.V. Percentage of companies with zero score 74% British American Tobacco International (Holdings) B.V. Number of new participants 2 Center Parcs Europe N.V. Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V. Clondalkin Industries B.V. Compared to last year the category other Dajesh B.V. De Kon. Nederlandse Munt N.V. received a significantly lower score than last Elopak B.V. Hyva Group B.V. year. Last year the companies within this Koninklijke Distill. Dirkzwager B.V. Mediq category received an average score of 91 Mosadex points, this year they only obtained an NetApp & Manufacturing Oce Depot International average of 51 points. Optiver Holding B.V. Shine 1 B.V. Vroegop Ruhe & Co. B.V. Both the number of companies with a zero score as the percentage of companies with a zero score remained the same, simply the scores of the companies are lower compared to last year.

46 Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal 5.5 Companies with zero scores

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

Overview zero scores 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total number of participants 469 473 460 409* 461* 483* Total of companies with zero score 236 242 200 165* 216* 231 Percentage of companies with zero score 50,32% 51,16% 43,48% 40,34% 46,85% 47,83% * Companies who have participated with their group report are excluded.

The Ministry aims to reduce the group of companies with zero scores. By organising workshops and approaching companies to fill in the self-assessment, we have aimed to reduce the amount of companies with a zero score. Unfortunately, this year the percentage companies with zero scores increased from 47% to 48%. The main reason for this increase is that 69 new companies have been added to the participants group of the Transparency Benchmark in 2016. From previous years we have learned that companies participating for the first time on the Transparency Benchmark, are more likely to receive a zero score. Of the 69 companies, 44 obtained a zero score, 19 had a positive score, 3 companies participated in the group report arrangement and 3 companies are listed as Public Interest Entity without activities in the Netherlands.

Most companies with a zero score can be found in the Industrial products sector: a total of 39 companies. However, the percentage of companies with a zero score is highest in the Consumer products sector (79%). Of all companies listed on the Amsterdam’s stock exchange (73), only three companies have a zero score. Although companies with a zero score are not visible on the Transparency Benchmark Ladder, obtaining a zero score is not an indication that a company is not sustainable, it is only an indication that the company is not transparent about its sustainability policies.

Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal 47 5.6 Corporate responsibility reporting in practice

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

Compared to last year, the number of respondents who Type of Report indicated that they have some form of Integrated (Analysis based on 245 (2015) and 252 (2016) respondents) Reporting in place remained exactly the same with 41%. 100% Of those reports, 8% is based on the framework for

90% 24% 21% Integrated Reporting of the IIRC (International 80% 2% Integrated Reporting Council). 1% Seperate CR Report 6% 9% 70% Other Relevant Information 60% None This year, 21% published a separate CSR report, this is a 33% 33% Integrated Report - Other 50% Integrated Report - IIRC decrease compared to last year. The percentage of 40% Financial Report companies that only publish a financial report has 30% 8% 8% decreased to 28%. 20% 10% 29% 28% 0% The biggest difference is in the percentage of compa- 2015 2016 nies that state not to publish a report, this increased from 6% to 9%.

48 Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal Use of GRI Guidelines GRI Version Used (Analysis based on 245 (2015) and 252 (2016) respondents) (Analysis based on 120 (2015) and 124 (2016) respondents)

100% 100% No 90% G4 core 80% 80% 51% 51% Yes G4 comprehensive 70% 48% 64% G3.1 60% 60% G3.0 50% 40% 40% 18% 30% 21% 20% 49% 49% 20% 26% 10% 11% 0% 0% 8% 4% 2015 2016 2015 2016

Just as last year almost half of the companies uses the guidelines of the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) to compose the annual reports.

The use of the GRI 3.1 and the GRI 3.0 version has significantly decreased compared to last year from 34% to 15%. This can be explained by the fact that GRI 3.1 can no longer be applied from 2015. As a logical consequence the use of the GRI G4 Core has increased from 48% to 64% and GRI G4 Comprehensive from 18% to 21%. This shows that the majority of companies follow the development of the GRI guidelines and are committed to meet these new standards.

Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal 49 Use of Internationally Recognized Frameworks (Analysis based on 73 (2015) and 89 (2016) respondents) 45% 43% 40% 35% 2015 32% 31% 30% 2016 25% 25% 25% 21% 19% 20% 19% 18% 17% 15% 10% 5% 4% 3% 1% 2% 0% International Carbon EMAS Sustainability ISO 26000 No use of Other Integrated Disclosure Accounting framework Reporting Project Standards Board for reporting Council (IIRC) framework

In addition to the use of the GRI guidelines (see above), 43% of the companies indicate that they make use of the framework for integrated reporting by the IIRC, this is an increase of 11%. The fact that the framework for integrated reporting by the IIRC is used more often explains the fact that the other frameworks are used less often. Only 19% of the companies indicate that they use the Carbon Disclosure Project as a framework, compared to 25% last year. The same trend is visible by the frameworks from EMAS (decrease of 2%), SASB (decrease of 2%) and ISO 26000 (decrease of 2%). This indicates that the IIRC-framework is adopted by most companies and together with the GRI-framework will form the reporting landscape regarding corporate responsibility.

Compared to last year the percentage of companies that indicates they used other frameworks also decreased, from 18% to 17%. It is remarkable that the only category, together with the IIRC framework that increased is the category where there has not been made us of a framework for reporting.

50 Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal Most important challenges in the process of CR reporting (Analysis based on 99 (2015) and 126 (2016) respondents) 60% 51% 50% 50% 48% 44% 2015 40% 2016 33% 30% 29% 21% 20% 19% 18% 13% 10% 6% 3% 0% Data collection Diculties with The report is The elaboration Lack of Other within the the interpretation not considered of the report is appropriate organization is of external a key point more knowledge/ complex guidelines timeconsuming expertise in the than initially elaboration expected of a CR report

Most of the respondents indicate the biggest challenges during the process of reporting can be found inside their own company, identifying in particular those related to data collection (51%) and time investment (48%). Besides that we see that less companies indicate that the report is not considered a key (decrease from 19% to 13%). This is a positive development and can be seen as one of the most important goals for the Transparency Benchmark.

Also more companies indicate that the possess more appropriate knowledge and expertise to elaborate a CR report (decrease from 6% to 3%). and a lack of priority (19%).

On the other hand, the number of respondents who expressed difficulties in interpreting external guidelines increased from 29% to 33%.

Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal 51 Use of OECD Guidelines (Analysis based on 71 (2015) and 106 (2016) respondents)

100% 11% 90% 16% Fully implemented OECD guidelines 80% 31% Used OECD guidelines as a 70% 28% starting point in the elaboration 60% of the code of conduct and corporate governance 50% Familiar with OECD guidelines, 40% 44% but not implemented 42% 30% Not familiar with the 20% OECD guidelines 10% 14% 14% 0% 2015 2016

Of the companies that answered this question, 44% apply the OECD guidelines for International Enterprises to some extent: while 28% use the guidelines only as the basis for their Code of Conduct and Corporate Governance Code, 16% have fully implemented the OECD guidelines. On the other hand, 42% of the companies indicated that, although they are familiar with the OECD guidelines, they have not integrated in their company policies. This is a slight decrease compared to last year. Finally, 14% of the companies indicated they are not familiar with the OECD guidelines, this percentage is the same as last year.

52 Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal 6 Theme: UN Sustainable Development Goals

6.1 What are the SDGs?

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are, developed by the United Nations, in cooperation with governments and the private sector. The SDGs consists of 17 objectives which express the shared ambitions for the world’s further development. The objectives are broadly formulated, from climate change and the availability of quality education, to the elimination of hunger, and the eradication of inequality and poverty. The SDGs constitute a shared vision of companies and governments worldwide to take concrete and effective actions in order to shape the world of tomorrow.

The different SDG objectives consist of multiple sub targets that should help companies to concretize their impact. These sub targets could also serve as a source of inspiration for companies with an ambition to have a positive contribution to society, but who are not able to identify the SDG on which they could have the most impact. The targets diverse in structure to allow companies from different sectors, as well as both service- and production companies to contribute to the same goals.

Moreover, for every SDG multiple Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) have been identified. These KPIs could be used by companies to monitor their performance or used as examples for companies which “Ours can be the first generation to end poverty – and the last have not yet included non-financial KPIs in their management generation to address climate change before it is too late.” dashboard. A distinct feature of the SDGs, in contrast to other Ban Ki-moon - Secretary General United Nations reporting guidelines, is the inclusion of a goal focused on profitability (SDG 8 – Decent Work & Economic Growth) which recognizes

Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal 53 companies’ core competencies, i.e. selling products or services. This reflects the United Nations’ approach to economic activities as an enabler of future development and acknowledge economic activity as one of the preconditions for a healthy private sector.

6.2 Why are the SDGs established?

Within the international business community guidelines have been developed for diverse issues such as quality management systems, governance codes and reporting guidelines. These rules and guidelines enable the business community to improve their performance allow for comparison with other companies, customers and suppliers. So as to facilitate a comparison between the efforts of different companies in the field of corporate responsibility, the United Nations and the finance ministers of the G8 countries established the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in 2005. These eight objectives where aimed at solving the most pressing world problems at the time, for example the elimination of HIV/AIDS and provision of maternity care for women all over the world.

With the rising urgency of climate change, and the increasing impact of companies on society, the MDGs where replaced in September 2015 by the Sustainable Development Goals, thereby broadening the scope of goals and subjects encompassed by the SDGs. The replacement of the MDGs by the SDGs results on the one hand from the (partially) achievement of the MDGs and on the other hand a lack of a universal language in which companies are able to express their impact on society and the environment. While one company was focusing on job creation in developing countries, other companies focused on equal rights for “With the presentation of the SDGs, the UN has again made a

women, basic education for everyone or reducing the CO2 emissions. valuable contribution to the debate regarding sustainability The SDGs have been designed broad enough so that any company reporting and taken a substantial step towards a global equal wherever in the world they may be located can now focus on the level playing field on sustainable development for all companies. shared agenda, by incorporating one or multiple SDGs within their strategy. By embedding the SDGs in its strategy a company can then The SDGs can give direction to define the purpose of a company. report on their progress towards such SDGs. Purpose is like the derivative of ‘license to operate’, it is not whether you deliver enough to compensate for what you take, it is whether you tackle the problems that humanity and our earth faces in a way that makes business sense.”

Jan Peter Balkenende - Partner EY, Professor Erasmus University Rotterdam and former Prime minister of the Netherlands.

54 Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal The SDGs provide guidance for companies to increase their positive impact and to mitigate their negative impacts. They also offer opportunities to collaborate with stakeholders and intensify and strengthen the relationship between companies and their stakeholders. After all, the shared objective and vision is clear. From a macro-economic perspective, the problems this planet is facing cannot be solved without the contribution of the business community. The business community does not only have an impact on trends like global warming, loss of biodiversity and scarcity of raw materials, vice versa these trends have an impact on the performance and continuity of the business community.

6.3 Analysis of the SDGs in the Transparency Benchmark 2016

This year, the e-tool of the self-assessment incorporated a question regarding the SDGs. The question prompted companies to indicate the extent to which they were acquainted with the Sustainable Development Goals. An analysis of the answers provided reveals the following:

Companies were given the opportunity to check multiple possible answers regarding the questions on the SDGs. In total, 127 companies answered the question, and 132 answers where given.

Hundred different companies stated that they are acquainted with the SDGs. Of these 100, almost 50% indicated that not only are they acquainted with the Use of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) SDGs, but they have also taken the first steps to (Analysis based on 127 respondents) adopt them or have the ambition to do so. About 40 12% pointed out that despite being aware of the 33 32 29 SDGs, they have trouble espousing and aligning 30 them with their organizational strategy. Some of the 23 companies that indicated an ambition to start 20 working with the SDGs also expressed difficulties in 15 translating the SDGs into their corporate strategy. 10 The main takeaway of this question is that the majority of the companies is acquainted with the 0 We are failiar with We are familiar with We are familiar with We are familiar with I am not familiar SDGs. However, while some frontrunners seem to the SDGs and we the SDGs and we have the SDGs but we have the SDGs but have with the SDGs have the ambitions taken (the rst) steps trouble adopting and no ambitions to already be able, or willing to work with the SDGs, to start working with towards adopting SDGs aligning the SDGs adopt SDGs in the SDGs with our company the near future the primary difficulty lies in the practical translation strategy of the SDGs to business strategies. In order to

Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal 55 provide these companies with more guidance regarding the Analysis SDGs leaders Transparency Benchmark ladder possible use of the SDGs we’ve dedicated one subchapter to the (In total 15 out of the 20 leaders have answered the questions regarding the SDGs) implementation of the SDGs. Next to looking at the general picture we have also zoomed into We are familiar with the SDGs and we have the ambitions to the top 20 of the Transparency Benchmark, which provided 13% start working with the SDGs contrasting insights. Within the top 20, 40% indicated to be We are familiar with the SDGs and we have taken (the rst) steps familiar with the SDGs and having the ambition to start working 40% towards adopting SDGs with them. Furthermore, 47% stated that they have already taken first steps towards their adoption in practice. None of the We are familiar with the SDGs but we have trouble adopting and aligning the SDGs with our company strategy companies in the top 20 indicated not being aware of the SDGs, or not having any ambition to adopt them. 47% We are familiar with the SDGs but have no ambitions to adopt SDGs in the near future

Finally, we have looked at the average scores of the companies, I am not familiar with the SDGs provinding some answer to this specific question. What we can derive from this is that those companies indicating familiarity with the SDGs and stating to at least have the ambition to start working with them, obtained a higher average score than companies that indicated that they are not familiar with the SDGs, or do not have Average scores of organizations with di erent answers the ambition to adopt them in the near future. What stands out even more is that companies that indicated that they have the ambition to adopt the SDG’s obtained a higher average score than I am not familiar with the SDGs the companies that indicated that they already adopted the SDGs. We are familiar with the SDGs but have no ambitions to adopt SDGs in the near future

We are familiar with the SDGs but we have trouble adopting and aligning the SDGs with our company strategy

We are familiar with the SDGs and we have taken (the rst) steps towards adopting SDGs

We are familiar with the SDGs and we have the ambitions to start working with the SDGs

0 40 80 120 160

56 Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal Analysis SDGs leaders Transparency Benchmark ladder 6.4 How to implement the SDGs (In total 15 out of the 20 leaders have answered the questions regarding the SDGs) As mentioned before, although the SDGs, derive from the MDGs they have a broader variety of impact areas. The number of objectives has more We are familiar with the SDGs and we have the ambitions to than doubled and the challenges they address have been selected based on their increased importance. At first glance this suggests also an 13% start working with the SDGs increased complexity. Therefore, and especially for the business community, the UN set up SDG 17 (Partnership for the goals) to encourage collaboration between companies and governments in order to give meaning to the SDGs and potentiate their success. Many companies have We are familiar with the SDGs and we have taken (the rst) steps already integrated corporate responsibility, value creation and realised impact within their reporting. Albeit valuable, this could also make it 40% towards adopting SDGs challenging to integrate the SDGs as yet another component. In order to provide companies with more insight in how the SDGs could be We are familiar with the SDGs but we have trouble adopting embedded into the corporate strategy, the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, the UN Global Compact and the Global and aligning the SDGs with our company strategy Reporting Initiative established the SDG Compass. The SDG Compass includes a roadmap which facilitates the integration of the SDGs into the 47% We are familiar with the SDGs but have no ambitions to adopt existing reporting frameworks, for more information on the SDG Compass see: http://sdgcompass.org/. SDGs in the near future

I am not familiar with the SDGs 1. Understanding the SDGs As a first step, companies are assisted in familiarizing themselves with the SDGs.

2. Defining Priorities To seize the most important business opportunities presented by the SDGs and reduce risks, companies are encouraged to define their priorities based on an assessment of their positive and negative, current and potential impact on the SDGs across their value chains.

3. Setting goals Goal setting is critical to business success and helps foster shared priorities and better performance across the company. By aligning company goals with the SDGs, the leadership can demonstrate its commitment to sustainable development

4. Integrating Integrating sustainability into the core business and governance, and embedding sustainable development targets across all functions within the company, is key to achieving set goals. To pursue shared objectives or address systemic challenges, companies increasingly engage in partner- ships across the value chain, within their sector or with governments and civil society company.

5. Reporting & communicating The SDGs enable companies to report information on sustainable development performance using common indicators and a shared set of priorities. The SDG Compass encourages companies to build the SDGs into their communication and reporting with stakeholders.

Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal 57 6.5 Opportunities and challenges

In contrast to many other guidelines, the SDGs provide opportunities, especially for companies without experience in CR reporting, due to their nature and structure. Each SDG has been designed following a specific structure (objectives – targets – KPIs), whereby inexperienced companies are able to begin with an empty ‘canvas’ and then select those SDGs most relevant for their company. In this way, it is possible to create an integrated vision within your company regarding the SDGs in with relative ease. Nonetheless, a company should select the most appropriate method for identifying its material topics that can then be associated with one or multiple SDGs.

For companies with a better understanding of CR reporting, it can be “The principle of common but differentiated responsibilites is the challenging to bridge the gap between their current reporting bedrock of our enterprise for a sustainable world” structure and a proper implementation of the SDGs. Material topics

that are measurable for a company (such as CO2 emissions), can be Narendra Modi - Indian Prime Minister translated to one of the SDGs more easily. This exercise becomes more complex for companies that have long focused on providing as clear an image as possible of their individual material themes, resulting in wide and very specific range of the associated KPIs. In such cases a company might want to think about restructuring such fragmented pieces of information to subsequently regroup them under the most relevant SDG. This is a challenge that may be faced by most leaders. The success of the SDGs depends on the extent to which the business community adopts them in their daily operations. The SDGs can inspire companies to set targets on sustainable development. By setting specific, measurable and timely non-financial targets a company can improve their business success and it helps to foster shared priorities and better performance across the company. By aligning company goals with the SDGs, the leadership can demonstrate its commitment to sustainable development. Due to the fact that more and more companies are committing themselves to the SDGs, it becomes more valuable for other companies to report on the SDGs. By using the SDGs as a communal language companies are able to compare and distinguish themselves with and from other companies.

58 Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal 6.6 Best practices

Although the SDGs have been introduced as of last year, there are some pioneering companies that already adopted the SDGs within their corporate strategies. In this chapter we will provide insight into ways these companies have adopted the SDGs and translated them into their business- or value creation models.

The company in the first example identified its material themes and then linked them to the corresponding SDGs. Rather than including the complete set of SDGs in its model, this company has opted for linking only those SDGs most relevant to its material topics. Moreover, some SDG’s (For example SDG 8 – Decent Work & Economic Growth) are linked to more than one material topic, meaning that multiple material topics can have impact, positive or negative, on one individual SDG simultaneously.

The second example illustrates a more pragmatic approach to SDGs commitments. This company has selected 5 SDGs and chose the most relevant sub targets linked to each of the SDGs. For some of these targets the companies has then identified the impact they could and/ or aim to have. The selected targets were adopted by the company as Example 1: The SDGs linked to material themes the means to contribute to the SDGs.

Although the direct link with material topics or the strategy is not made clear by this company, this approach also has a couple of advantages. This company is able to provide a clear insight into the direct impact of the company on these particular targets. This can be made very concrete and can be elaborated on a strategic level. Another advantage is the fact that the progress on these targets is very easy to monitor by stakeholders, due to the fact that the ambitions regarding the targets are very clear.

The company in the third and last example has chosen to link the SDGs with the different business units. This has advantages when the different business units are spread across different geographical regions. Every business unit is able to establish their own SDG agenda and will be able to investigate their local impact on the selected SDGs.

Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal 59 Finding the right balance between providing information and summarizing the relevant SDGs, can be challenging for many companies. Altogether, the SDGs help form an international ambition or a shared vision in which companies are able to shape their impact on this planet, without losing the legitimacy of companies out of sight.

Example 2: Selection of the SDGs and the impact on these SDGs by the company

Example 3: A selection of relevant SDGs per business unit

60 Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal 7 Appendices

7.1 New participating companies

In 2013 the Ministry of Economic Affairs has decided to expand the research group of the Transparency Benchmark every year, with the ultimate goal to include the 600 largest companies of the Netherlands. In 2016 this has resulted in in 69 new participants, of which 2 companies participated voluntary this year. The table below shows the new participants and in which sector they operate.

New Participant Sector New Participant Sector Air Products Nederland B.V. Industrial products CNH Industrial N.V. Industrial products AS Adventure Holding B.V. Retail Cnova N.V. Retail B. Braun Medical B.V. Industrial products Constellium N.V. Industrial products Baker Hughes (Nederland) B.V. Trading Coolblue Holding B.V. Retail Batenburg Techniek N.V. Industrial products Coöperatieve Vereniging Beko U.A. Trading BEE Holding B.V. Services Corendon Holding B.V. Services Beheer- en Beleggingsmaatschappij Trading CWT B.V. Services Zandbergen B.V. Dajesh B.V. Other Brand Loyalty Group B.V. Services Darling International NL Holdings B.V. Consumer products Brenntag Nederland B.V. Trading DAS Nederlandse Rechtsbijstand Banking and insurance Brihold B.V. Construction and maritime Verzekeringmaatschappij N.V. Brokking's Beheer B.V. Trading Deen Holding Hoorn B.V. Retail Cefetra B.V. Trading Diversey Europe Operations B.V. Services Chios Investments B.V. Media and communications Eastman Chemical B.V. Trading Citco Bank Nederland N.V. Banking and insurance ECCO EMEA B.V. Retail

Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal 61 New Participant Sector New Participant Sector Euronext N.V. Services Royal Reesink N.V. Trading Flow Traders N.V. Services Saba Statia Cable Sysytem B.V. Technology Fokker Technologies Group B.V. Industrial products SAP Nederland B.V. Technology Fondel Holding B.V. Trading Schoeller Allibert Holding B.V. Industrial products Fortuna Entertainment Group N.V. Other Scotch & Soda N.V. Retail GrandVision N.V. Retail Shine 1 B.V. Other GustoMSC Investments B.V. Construction and maritime STMicroelectronics N.V. Industrial products H.J. Heinz Supply Chain Europe B.V. Trading SUEZ Recycling & Recovery Netherlands Services B.V. Hametha B.V. Services Tauw Groep BV Services Holland Colours N.V. Industrial products Tesla Motors Netherlands B.V. Retail Home Credit B.V. Services Trimble Europe B.V. Trading Regionale Ontwikkelingsmaatschappij Services InnovationQuarter B.V. Triodos Bank N.V. Banking and insurance Juniper Networks International B.V. Technology Van Rooi Meat B.V. Real estate Kiadis Pharma N.V. Pharmaceuticals VvAA groep B.V. Banking and insurance Koninklijke Coöperatieve Bloemenveiling Trading Wensink Automotive B.V. Trading FloraHolland U.A. VvAA groep B.V. Banken & Verzekeraars Lucas Bols N.V. Real estate Wensink Automotive B.V. Handelsmaatschappij Nord Gold N.V. Other Oilinvest (Netherlands) B.V. Energy, oil and gas Ovostar Union N.V. Retail Paridaans en Liebregts B.V. Real estate Peterson Control Union Group B.V. Construction and maritime PP Groep Katwijk B.V. Trading Qiagen N.V. Pharmaceuticals RLG Europe B.V. Trading

62 Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal 7.2 Dutch companies with an international group report

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

This score, however, often does not do justice to the CSR efforts (and accountability on the international level) of the specific company. As of 2013, it is possible for these companies to choose a separate arrangement. According to this special arrangement these companys are not displayed on the ranking of the Transparency Benchmark. Instead, these companies will be placed on a different list, without a ranking (see below). In order to qualify for this arrangement, a report on group level should fulfil at least a minimum amount of criteria. These criteria can be found on the website of the Transparency Benchmark (www.transparantiebenchmark.nl/en). A company will be included in the Transparency benchmark as an company with zero score if the company fails to fulfil the required criteria for the arrangement concerning the international group report. In total 26 companies (2015: 24 companies) participated in the group report arrangement.

Companies Companies Abbott Healthcare Products B.V. Koninklijke Grolsch N.V. ASICS Europe B.V. Metro Distributie Nederland B.V. Astellas B.V. Neste Netherlands B.V. Atos Origin Nederland B.V. Nestlé Nederland B.V. BASF Nederland B.V. Nike Eur. Operat. Neth. B.V. BP Nederland Holdings B.V. Nord Gold N.V. Capgemini N.V. Nuon Energie N.V. CNH Industrial N.V. Sodexo Nederland B.V. Coca-Cola Ent. Nederl. B.V. STMicroelectronics N.V. Ericsson Holding Int. B.V. Teijin Aramid B.V. Essent T-Mobile GDF Suez TUI Nederland IBM Nederland BV Uniper Benelux

Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal 63 7.3 Foreign Public Interest Entities (PIE)

The Autoriteit Financiële Markten (AFM) in the Netherlands indicates Public Interest Entities as follows: “A public interest entity is an organization or institution whose size or function for the social and economic markets is of such a nature that an inadequate executed regulatory audit of the financial accounts can have a substantial influence on the trust of the public function of an assurance report”. The following organizations are marked as PIE’s: legal entities located in the Netherlands with securities are traded on a regulated market, this includes banks with domiciled in the Netherlands, credit institutions based in the Netherlands, insurers based in the Netherlands and organizations which are appointed as PIE’s by the government.

Opposite of previous years, this year we found that six organizations, which are marked as Public Interest Entities, are not active in the Netherlands. These organizations are based in the Netherlands but their shares are not traded on the Dutch stock exchange. Of these six organizations, three companies participated within the international group arrangement. The other three organizations did not comply with the criteria of the group arrangement. These companies are included in the overview below, they will not receive a Benchmark score.

Foreign Public Interest Entities Fortuna Entertainment Group N.V. Ovostar Union N.V. Qiagen N.V.

64 Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal 7.4 Companies with zero points awarded

This year are 213 companies categorized as ‘companies with zero score’.

Companies Companies Connexxion ECCO EMEA B.V. Coolblue Holding B.V. EEA Helicopter Operations B.V. Coöperatieve Vereniging Beko U.A. EFR Nederland B.V. Copaco Nederland B.V. Elopak B.V. Corendon Holding B.V. Enviem Holding B.V. CRH Nederland B.V. Epson Europe B.V. CWT B.V. Equens SE DAF Trucks N.V. Esso Benelux B.V. Dajesh B.V. Eur. Container Terminals B.V. Darling International NL Holdings B.V. Ewals Holdings B.V. De Hoop Terneuzen B.V. Flowserve De Kon. Nederlandse Munt N.V. Fokker Technologies Group B.V. De MandemakersGroep Holding B.V. Fondel Holding B.V. De Nederlandse Energie Maatschappij B.V. Foot Locker Europe B.V. Deen Holding Hoorn B.V. FUJIFILM Europe B.V. Dell Global B.V. Fujitsu Technology Solutions (Holding) B.V. Denkavit Internationaal B.V. Gaiwin B.V. Denso Int. Europe B.V. Glencore Grain B.V. Detailresult Groep N.V. Global City Holdings N.V. Diversey Europe Operations B.V. GustoMSC Investments B.V. Dutch Flower Group B.V. H.J. Heinz Supply Chain Europe B.V. Eastman Chemical B.V. H.L. Barentz B.V.

Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal 65 Companies Companies Hager-Minnema-Hutten Beheer B.V. JACOBS DOUWE EGBERTS B.V. Hametha B.V. Juniper Networks International B.V. Handelsveem Beheer Koninklijke De Heus B.V. Hertel Holding B.V. Koninklijke Distill. Dirkzwager B.V. Hewlett-Packard The Hague B.V. Koninklijke Wagenborg Hexion B.V. Koninklijke Wegener N.V. Hitachi Machinery N.V. Koninklijke Zeelandia Groep B.V. Holiday Holding Rotterdam B.V. Kuehne + Nagel N.V. Honeywell Netherl. Hold. B.V. Kuwait Petroleum B.V. Hoogvliet B.V. KYOCERA Document Solutions Europe B.V. Hoogwegt Groep B.V. Lekkerland Beheer Huawei Technologies Coöperatief U.A. Liberty Global Holding B.V. Hunter Douglas N.V. Loders Croklaan Group B.V. Huntsman Investments (Netherlands) B.V. Lohomij B.V. Hurks groep Loyens & Loeff N.V. Hyva Group B.V. LyondellBasell Industries N.V. IMCD Holding B.V. Maasland N.V. Inalfa Roof Systems Group B.V. Manpower Nederland B.V. Ingram Micro Markeur Interfood Holding Mars Nederland B.V. Intergamma B.V. Maxeda Nederland B.V. International Flavors & Fragrances I.F.F. (Nederland) B.V. MCB International B.V. Inter-Sprint Banden Mead Johnson B.V. INVISTA B.V. Meatpoint B.V.

66 Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal Companies Companies Mediq Philip Morris Holland B.V. Mercedes-Benz Nederland B.V. Plantronics B.V. Merck Sharp & Dohme B.V. Plukon Food Group Milkiland N.V. Poiesz Beheer B.V. Mitsubishi Motors Europe B.V. Pon Holdings B.V. Mosadex PP Groep Katwijk B.V. Mota-Engil Africa N.V. Raben Netherlands BV N.V. Deli Maatschappij Remeha Group B.V. Nedfast Holding B.V. Retailcom Beheer B.V. NetApp & Manufacturing RFS Holland Holding B.V. Nokia Solutions and Networks B.V. Ricoh Europe SCM B.V. NVDU Acquisition B.V. RLG Europe B.V. Office Depot International Roba Oilinvest (Netherlands) B.V. Rockwell Automation B.V. Omron Europe B.V. Saba Statia Cable Sysytem B.V. Optiver Holding B.V. SABIC International Holdings B.V. Oracle Nederland B.V. Samskip Otra N.V. Samsung Electronics Benelux B.V. Oxbow Netherlands Coöperatieve U.A. Sanoma Magazines B.V. P.L. v. Merksteijn Hold. B.V. SAP Nederland B.V. Paridaans en Liebregts B.V. Schoeller Allibert Holding B.V. Peterson Control Union Group B.V. Scotch & Soda N.V. Peugeot Nederland N.V. Sensata Technol. Holding N.V. PGA Nederland N.V. Shine 1 B.V.

Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal 67 Companies Companies SIHI Group B.V. United Parcel Service Nederland B.V. Smartwares B.V. Universal Cargo Logistics SPAR Holding B.V. Van den Ban Autobanden B.V. SPIE Nederland B.V. Van Rooi Meat B.V. St. Clair/ De Bijenkorf Voestalpine Automotive Netherlands Holding B.V. Stichting Nederlandse Publieke Omroep Vroegop Ruhe & Co. B.V. Stolt Tankers Vroon Offshore B.V. Stork Wavin N.V. Swarovski (Europe) Holding B.V. WE Europe B.V. Sweco Nederland BV Wensink Automotive B.V. Synbra Holding B.V. Xerox Investments Europe Tata Steel Nederland B.V. Xylem Water Solutions Nederland B.V. Tech Data Nederland B.V. Yamaha Motor Europe N.V. Terberg Group B.V. Yanmar Europe Tesla Motors Netherlands B.V. Yara Sluiskil B.V. Tetra Laval Holdings B.V. Theobroma B.V. Thomas Cook Nederland B.V. Toshiba Medical Systems Europe B.V. TOTAL Nederland N.V. TP Vision Europe B.V. Transm. and Engineer. Services Netherl. Trimble Europe B.V. Unit 4 N.V.

68 Transparency Benchmark 2016 The Crystal

This is a publication of the Ministry of Economic Affairs, The Hague.

Do you have any comments or feedback? Please send your comments to: [email protected]

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

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

Project team 2016: EZ: Saskia Böttcher, Rob Overkleeft NBA: Paul Hurks www.transparantiebenchmark.nl/en

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

Internet: www.rijksoverheid.nl/ez

November 2016 | Publication-nr. 96469