Upload
lyxuyen
View
221
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Transparency Benchmark 2015The Crystal 2015
In cooperation with the Netherlands Institute of Chartered Accountants (NBA)
Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 2015 1
Transparency Benchmark 2015The Crystal 2015
In cooperation with the Netherlands Institute of Chartered Accountants (NBA)
Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 20152
1 The Transparency Benchmark Ladder
The Transparency Benchmark Ladder provides an overview of the total scores of the participating organizations, including the sub scores
concerning 8 different criteria categories. The organizations that are included in the Transparency Benchmark are ranked in different groups:
Frontrunners, Followers, Peloton, Laggards and organizations with zero scores
Category transparancy ladder 2015 Ranking Positions
Leaders 1 - 20
Followers 21 - 70
Peloton 71 - 213
Laggards 214 - 245
Organisations with zero scores 246 - 461
Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 2015 3
1 - Company Profile and Business
Model
2 - Policy and Results
3 - Management Approach
4 - Relevance
5 - Clarity
6 - Reliability
7 - Responsiveness
8 - Coherence
The Transparency Benchmark Ladder
TMG - Telegraaf Media GroepJoh. Mourik & Co. Holding B.V.
Bavaria N.V.ASML
Facilicom Services GroupWageningen UR
CZ GroepUnibail Rodamco
NN GROUPVivat Verzekeringen
ProRail B.V.Koninklijke Wessanen N.V.
E.ON Benelux N.V.Koninklijke FrieslandCampina N.V.
Enexis B.V.Menzis Holding B.V.
VolkerWesselsAir France - KLM
SBM OdshoreRockwool Benelux Holding
PricewaterhouseCoopersKendrion N.V.
Holding Nationale Goede Doelen Loterijen N.V.Royal Imtech N.V.
Koninklijke Ahold N.V.Rabobank
Q Park N.V.Nederlandse Waterschapsbank NV
MNNV NOM Investerings- en Ontwikkelingsmaatschappij voor Noord-Nederland
Koninklijke Ten Cate N.V.ABN AMRO Group N.V.
SNS Bank N.V.Heijmans
TenneT Holding B.V.Ernst & Young Nederland
De Nederlandsche Bank N.V.Achmea
ANWB B.V.Vitens N.V.
PostNLBank Ned. Gemeenten N.V.
DSM N.V.Van Lanschot Bankiers
Nederlandse Gasunie N.V.ING Groep
Heineken N.V.Aegon N.V.Vodafone
Siemens NederlandAlliander N.V.
Havenbedrijf Ro_erdam N.V.Schiphol Group
KPNRoyal BAM Group
NSUnilever N.V.
Koninklijke Philips N.V.AKZO Nobel N.V. | 001
| 002| 003| 004| 005| 006| 007| 008| 009| 010| 011| 012| 013| 014| 015| 016| 017| 018| 019| 020| 021| 022| 022| 022| 022| 026| 027| 028| 028| 028| 031| 031| 031| 034| 035| 035| 037| 037| 037| 037| 037| 042| 042| 044| 045| 045| 047| 048| 049| 050| 051| 051| 053| 053| 055| 056| 056| 056| 056
196195194194193192191191189189186185182181181180179179177177176174174174174173172171171171170170170169168168167167167167167166166165163163162161159158157157156156155153153153153
LE
AD
ER
SF
OL
LO
WE
RS
0 50 100 150 200
Organisation Pos. Cat. Total score
Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 20154
1 - Company Profile and Business
Model
2 - Policy and Results
3 - Management Approach
4 - Relevance
5 - Clarity
6 - Reliability
7 - Responsiveness
8 - CoherenceWereldhave Manag. Holding B.V.
Roto Smeets Group N.V.PLUS Retail B.V.
Vos Logistics Beheer B.V.GVB Holding NV
Van OordStichting Exploitatie Nederlandse Staatsloterij
Waterweg WonenVreugdenhil Groep B.V.
Arcadis N.V.Vebego International N.V.
Sligro Food Group N.V.TNO
Universiteit TwenteBallast Nedam N.V.
Universiteit MaastrichtBeter Bed Holding N.V.
COVRA NVBidvest Deli XL
Corbion N.V.Wolters Kluwer N.V.
DOW Benelux B.V.Atradius N.V.
Universiteit van AmsterdamRijksuniversiteit Groningen
Delta Lloyd GroepRadboudumc
USG People N.V.Wavin N.V.
VimpelCom Ltd.TKH Group N.V.
Ontwikkelingsmaatschappij Oost Nederland NVVanDrie Group
TNT ExpressKoninklijke Vopak N.V.Albron Nederland B.V.
Beelen Groep B.V.Perfe_i v. Melle
N.V. HVCNidera B.V.
Zeeman Groep B.V.TBI Holdings
Industriebank LIOF N.V.EBN
Royal HaskoningDHVRELX Group N.V.
Jumbo Groep Holding B.V.Arla Foods B.V.
Accell GroupTUI Nederland
Randstad Holding N.V.Koninklijke Boskalis Westminster N.V.
Airbus Group N.V.Royal Dutch Shell
Nederlandse Financierings-Maatschappij voor Ontwikkelingslanden NVNutreco
Deloi_e Holding B.V.KPMG N.V.
Eneco Holding N.V.Ordina N.V.
GasTerra B.V.NIBC Bank N.V.Westland Infra
TMG - Telegraaf Media GroepJoh. Mourik & Co. Holding B.V. | 056
| 056| 056| 061| 062| 063| 064| 064| 066| 066| 068| 068| 070| 071| 072| 072| 074| 074| 074| 074| 074| 079| 079| 079| 079| 083| 084| 085| 086| 087| 087| 087| 090| 091| 092| 092| 092| 095| 095| 097| 098| 098| 100| 100| 100| 103| 104| 105| 106| 106| 108| 108| 110| 111| 111| 113| 113| 113| 116| 117| 118| 118| 120| 120| 120
153153153152151150148148147147146146144143140140139139139139139138138138138137136133132131131131130129128128128126126124122122121121121119118117116116115115114112112111111111110109108108105105105
FO
LL
OW
ER
SP
EL
OT
ON
0 50 100 150 200
Organisation Pos. Cat. Total score
Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 2015 5
1 - Company Profile and Business
Model
2 - Policy and Results
3 - Management Approach
4 - Relevance
5 - Clarity
6 - Reliability
7 - Responsiveness
8 - CoherenceUMC UtrechtYarden Holding B.V.
CZAVAgeas Insurance International N.V.
Academisch Medisch CentrumO.W.M. DSW Zorgverzekeraar UA
ICT AutomatiseringNieuwe Steen inv
Dura Vermeer GroepCoöperatie VGZ U.A.
Coöperatie AVEBE U.A.ONVZ Ziektekostenverzekeraar N.V.
Koninklijke Coöperatie Cosun U.A.GALAPAGOS
Brunel International N.V.Dela Uitvaartverzorging B.V.
BinckbankAmsterdam Commodities N.V.
Technische Universiteit EindhovenTechnische Universiteit Delb
ASM International N.V.Universiteit van Tilburg
AMG Advanced Metallurg. Gr. NVThe Greenery B.V.
Kardan N.V.Propertize B.V.
Unica Groep B.V.Broekhuis Holding
Brab. Ontw. Maatschappij N.V.TomTom N.V.
Nedap N.V.Stichting Zorgpartners Friesland
Stern Groep N.V.Nuon Energie N.V.
Core Laboratories N.V.Stichting Espria
Vastned Retail N.V.Eurocommercial Properties
ForFarmers Group B.V.Gemalto N.V.
Leids Universitair Medisch Centrum (LUMC)LeasePlan Corporation N.V.
Aalberts Industries N.V.IHC Merwede Holding B.V.
Fugro N.V.Macintosh Retail Group N.V.
Coop HoldingIKEA Nederland B.V.ASR Nederland N.V.
Holland CasinoHEMA
CoMoreBE Semiconductor Indus. N.V.
Tele2 Netherlands Holding N.V.Dutch Flower Group B.V.
Cooperative Agricrm U.A.Universiteit Leiden
Damen Shipyards Group N.V.Universiteit Utrecht
Grontmij N.V.Aperam
PGGMWereldhave Manag. Holding B.V.
Roto Smeets Group N.V.| 120| 123| 124| 125| 126| 127| 127| 127| 130| 130| 132| 132| 132| 132| 136| 137| 138| 138| 140| 140| 142| 143| 143| 143| 143| 147| 148| 149| 150| 150| 152| 153| 154| 154| 156| 157| 158| 159| 160| 160| 162| 162| 164| 164| 164| 167| 167| 167| 170| 171| 172| 172| 172| 175| 175| 175| 178| 178| 180| 180| 180| 183| 183| 185
10510310098979696969393929292929187858583838180808080767372717170686767666564626161595958585855555554535252525151515050494949474746
PE
LO
TO
N
0 50 100 150 200
Organisation Pos. Cat. Total score
Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 20156
Kramp Groep B.V.Audax B.V.
IMC TradingForbo Flooring B.V.
de Persgroep Nederland B.V.Maxeda Nederland B.V.
SHV Holdings N.V.Global City Holdings N.V.
The Royal Bank of ScotlandCimpress
Farm Frites Beheer B.V.Hertel Holding B.V.
ESPERITEVan Wijnen Groep N.V.Coöperatie Univé U.A.
VDL GroepBlokker Holding B.V.
Ultra-Centrifuge Ned. N.V.Brocacef Holding
Janssen De Jong Groep B.V.TMF Group Holding B.V.
NXP Semiconductors Netherlands B.V.Louis Dreyfus
De Goudse N.V.Exact Holding N.V.
APGDOCDATA N.V.
VION Holding N.V.DPA GROUP
Credit Europe Bank N.V.Value8
MonutaRobeco Groep N.V.
Koninklijke Brill N.V.GROOTHANDELSGEBOUW
FagronAerCap Holdings N.V.
NyenrodeB & S International B.V.
Radboud Universiteit NijmegenKAS BANK N.V.
Neways Electronics International N.V.Erasmus MCHurks groep
Oranjewoud N.V.Van Leeuwen Buizen Groep B.V
VUmcUniversitair Medisch Centrum Groningen (UMCG)
OCICentric Holding B.V.
StorkZorg en Zekerheid Groep
Euretco B.V.Erasmus Universiteit Ro_erdam
Legal & GeneralDelta N.V.
Allianz Nederland Groep N.V.Refresco Holding B.V.
Maastricht UMC+Open Universiteit
DOC KaasUMC Utrecht
| 185| 186| 187| 187| 189| 189| 189| 192| 193| 193| 195| 195| 197| 197| 197| 200| 200| 202| 203| 203| 205| 205| 207| 207| 209| 209| 209| 209| 209| 214| 215| 215| 217| 218| 219| 219| 219| 222| 222| 222| 222| 226| 227| 227| 229| 229| 231| 232| 233| 234| 234| 236| 237| 238| 239| 240| 241| 241| 243| 244| 245
46454444434343403939373736363635353433333232313130303030302928282726252525242424242322222121201918171716151413121010985
PE
LO
TO
NL
AG
GA
RD
S
Organisation Pos. Cat. Total score
Companies in the top 20 with the same rounded oU scores, were ranked based on a diUerence in decimal points, which were ultimately determined and awarded by the Panel of Experts.
1 - Company Profile and Business
Model
2 - Policy and Results
3 - Management Approach
4 - Relevance
5 - Clarity
6 - Reliability
7 - Responsiveness
8 - Coherence
0 50 100 150 200
Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 2015 7
Content
1 The Transparency Benchmark Ladder 2
2 Introduction 8
2.1 Preface 8
2.2 About this report 9
3 This year’s winners 10
4 What stands out? 11
4.1 Category comparison 11
4.2 Criteria comparison 12
4.2.1 Materiality 15
4.3 Sector comparison 18
4.3.1 Banking and insurance 19
4.3.2 Construction and maritime 20
4.3.3 Consumer products 21
4.3.4 Services 22
4.3.5 Energy, oil and gas 23
4.3.6 Trading 24
4.3.7 Industrial products 25
4.3.8 Media and communications 26
4.3.9 Pharmaceuticals 27
4.3.10 Retail 28
4.3.11 Technology 29
4.3.12 Transport 30
4.3.13 Universities and Medical Centres 31
4.3.14 Real estate 32
4.3.15 Food and beverage 33
4.3.16 Other 34
4.4 Corporate responsibility reporting in practice 35
5 In-depth theme:
The impact of Transparency 40
6 Explanation of the Transparency Benchmark 47
6.1 Goal 47
6.2 Differences to previous year 47
6.3 Boundary of publicly available accounting
information 48
6.4 Methodology 49
6.5 Criteria 50
6.6 Jury report 51
7 Appendices 56
7.1 New Participating organizations 56
7.2 Dutch organizations with an international
group report 59
7.3 Organizations with zero points awarded 60
7.4 Panel of Experts Transparency Benchmark 65
7.5 Jury of The Crystal 65
7.6 Literature 66
Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 20158
2 Introduction
2.1 Preface
This booklet contains the results of the Transparency Benchmark 2015, assessing organizations’ disclosures for the reporting year 2014.
The Transparency Benchmark provides insight into the degree of transparency from a corporate responsibility perspective of the 485 largest
organizations in the Netherlands.
The structure of the Transparency Benchmark 2015 is similar to the Transparency Benchmark 2014. The criteria were radically changed in 2014
to align them with the new GRI Guidelines and account for the trend in Integrated Reporting. This year, the criteria have not been changed with
regards to their content. However, some of the criteria have been redefined or provided with a supplement to enhance comprehensibility and
reduce room for interpretation. As a result of this fine-tuning, some elements of companies’ reports, which were eligible for points in 2014,
might have been rejected this year. The self-assessment methodology remained the same as last year:all organizations were invited to measure
the quality of their reports through an online self-assessment. By completing the online self-assessment, organizations obtained direct insights
into the strong elements of their report and those elements on which points were missed. The submitted answers of the self-assessment were
critically checked for accuracy by a team of researchers.
Additionally, the group of participating organizations was changed compared to last year. The executor of the Transparency Benchmark, EY,
has carefully checked the group,removing organizations that no longer belonged to the target group and adding new ones. Newly added
organizations were informed of their inclusion in the benchmark in March 2015. The participation protocol (available at www.transparantie-
benchmark.nl) describes the standards followed in defining the final participants group as well as the accounting information eligible for
obtaining points on the Transparency Benchmark Ladder.
An independent panel of experts has additionally assessed the top 20 based on their own criteria, which are also available on the website.
In addition, the website provides insights into all participating organizations and their respective scores.
The Crystal, developed in 2010 by the Ministry of Economic Affairs and the Netherlands Institute of Chartered Accountants (NBA), aims to be
the most prestigious award for the best corporate responsibility reporting . As such, it is presented to the organization with the highest score
on the Transparency Benchmark. The jury, consisting of Ms. Monika Milz, MBA (chairman), HRH Prince Carlos de Bourbon de Parme and
Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 2015 9
Professor. Leen Paape RA RO CIA, has chosen the winner from the top three. Next to the Crystal, additional awards are presented to the organiza-
tion that climbed the most places on the Transparency Benchmark ladder and the organization that addresses transparency in corporate
responsibility reporting in the most creative and innovative manner.
Stakeholders, like consumers, shareholders and governments expect an organization to be transparent about its tradeoffs and performance on
an environmental, social and governance level. By openly communicating on these matters, an organization assumes a vulnerable position as its
activities can be evaluated by its stakeholders. Transparency triggers the stakeholder dialogue, which can lead to adjustments in the company’s
policy. This has been the purpose of the Transparency Benchmark for the past11 years and it seems to work.
This year, the TB report includes an in-depth chapter in which transparency on social, environmental and governance elements is discussed.
What is it, how does it work and what is the impact of transparency on the way organizations conduct business today?
In order to gain a proper understanding of the Transparency Benchmark, it is important to emphasize that the benchmark is purely aimed at
measuring transparency in reporting. The Ministry gives no substantive judgment about the performance of organizations in the field of
corporate responsibility. However, the Transparency Benchmark goes beyond merely establishing scores for companies. The observed trends in
scores and patterns within sectors are also interesting to delve into. In this booklet, you will find more information in this respect, besides the
results of companies’ transparency over the reporting year 2014.
Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 201510
3 This year’s winners
The Jury has the task to determine the winners. The winners of 2015 are:
Fastest climber on the ladder of the Transparency Benchmark
Westland Infra has climbed this year from position 162 to position 56. An increase of a staggering 106 positions.
Most innovative report
The award for the most innovative report this year goes to Schiphol Group.
The Crystal Prize, First prize of the Transparency Benchmark
The third position is for Unilever, right behind number two, Philips. The winner of the Crystal Prize 2015 with 196 points is AkzoNobel.
The complete report with the considerations of the Jury can be found in paragraph 6.6.
Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 2015 11
4 What stands out?
This chapter will focus on the results of the Transparency Benchmark. The results concerning the criteria were based on the analyses of the
organizations that obtained a score on the Transparency Benchmark (245 organizations). Organizations with zero scores have thus not been
included in the analysis.
4.1 Category comparison
The criteria of the Transparency Benchmark have been divided into two main categories: content-oriented and quality-oriented criteria.
The content-oriented criteria are related to the content of the report, such as a description of the business model, policies and results,
and the management approach. The quality-oriented criteria provide insight into the quality of the report such as consistency of information,
reliability and relevance. The main categories are further divided into a total of eight subcategories. The graph below shows the average total
score and average scores for each subcategory.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Coherence
Responsiveness
Reliability
Clarity
Relevance
Qualitative criteria
Management Approach
Policy and Results
Company ProBle and Business Model
Content criteria
Total score A remarkable observation this year is that
organizations score on average higher on
the content-oriented criteria (53%) than
on the quality-oriented criteria (46%).
Similar to last year, 49.6% of the maximum
number of points have been obtained by
organizations in the participating group.
This corresponds to an average score of
99 points.
Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 201512
4.2 Criteria comparison
The next pages will provide more information on the criteria of the Transparency Benchmark 2015. The table below indicates the criteria with the
best and worst scores obtained by the participating organizations. The highest and lowest scoring criteria are the same criteria as in 2014.
This table is then followed by, an overview of the most relevant and remarkable results of the Transparency Benchmark 2015. The graphs included
in this overview present the average scores along the organizational classification of the TB Ladder (as defined in chapter 1). Comparison with last
year’s scores is made possible by including the 2014 results. Moreover, based on a complementary in-depth analysis, the texts accompanying each
graph highlight further observations of this year’s TB results, which are not directly derived from the graphs themselves.
TOP 3 HIGHEST SCORINING CRITERIA TOP 3 LOWEST SCORING CRITERIA
Score & Criteria Explanation criteria Score & Criteria Explanation criteria
82% of the organizations achieved
the maximum score concerning
criterion 13
Complete understanding of
the organizational structure
67% of the organizations
obtained the minimum score
concerning criterion 30
No inclusion of a signed statement from
an independent third party, who has
verified the corporate responsibility
information
79% of the organizations achieved
the maximum score on criterion 1
General information about the
organization, a quantitative summary
of the organization’s profile (amount
of employees, amount of supplied
goods/ services, etc.)
65% of the organizations has
obtained the minimum score
concerning criterion 31
Subject matter experts or stakeholders
have not been invited to express their
opinion in the report itself (e.g. quotes
have not been included)
61% of the organizations
achieved the maximum score
on criterion 35
Sharing a vision on relevant corporate
responsibility themes and creating
awareness / understanding with
stakeholders on these specific themes
61% of the organizations has
obtained the minimum score
concerning criterion 40
The achieved corporate responsibility
results are not compared with relevant
publications from external parties (e.g.
listings, benchmark information, trend
analyses and best practices)
Top 3 best scoring categories: Top 3 lowest scoring categories:
1. Company Profile and Business Model (59% of maximum attainable score) 1. Reliability (27% of maximum attainable score)
2. Clarity (58% of maximum attainable score) 2. Policy and Results (47% of maximum attainable score)
3. Management Approach (53% of maximum attainable score) 3. Coherence (48% of maximum attainable score)
Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 2015 13
69% of organizations report on the value chain in which it operates. (compared to 73% in 2014).
The percentage of organizations receiving the maximum score on this
criteria increased from 16% to 22%. The full score can be obtained by
providing an explanation about the main corporate social responsi-
bilities that are of importance within the value chain and including a
graphical representation.
Category: Organization and Business Model
Value Chain
0 20 40 60 80 100
Laggards
Peloton
Followers
Leaders
Total 2014
Total 2015 69%
73%
100%
98%
9%
67%
91%
33%
2%
0%
27%
31%
Yes No
Business Strategy
0 20 40 60 80 100
Laggards
Peloton
Followers
Leaders
Total 2014
Total 2015 86%
88%
100%
100%
38%
90%
63%
10%
0%
0%
12%
14%
Yes No This year, 86% of the organizations provide an explana-tion on the business strategy. The percentage of organizations that obtained the maximum score
increased from 50% in 2014 to 55%. These organizations provide
specific information on the strategy and present a coherent set of
strategic themes, priorities and objectives. Additionally, they explicitly
link the strategy with other components of the report.
Category: Organization and Business Model
74% of the organizations have formulated specific targets concerning corporate responsibility in 2015.
This is comparable with previous year.In total, 29% of the organizations obtained the maximum score on
this criteria (4% more than previous year). These organizations provide
quantitative targets and link them with the material aspects.
Categorie: Policy and results
Objectives
0 20 40 60 80 100
Laggards
Peloton
Followers
Leaders
Total 2014
Total 2015 74%
73%
100%
100%
16%
74%
84%
26%
0%
0%
27%
26%
Yes No
Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 201514
33% of organizations have a statement of an independent third party included in the corporate
responsibility report. In comparison with previous year, it is remarkable that the followers-
group scores on average significantly better: 76% of the followers
obtained an independent statement, compared to 63% in 2014.
In total, 11 organizations gained the maximum score on this criteria.
Category: Reliability
0 20 40 60 80 100
Laggards
Peloton
Followers
Leaders
Total 2014
Total 2015 33%
30%
100%
76%
3%
15%
97%
85%
24%
0%
70%
67%
Yes No
Third-party Assurance
0 20 40 60 80 100
Laggards
Peloton
Followers
Leaders
Total 2014
Total 2015 74%
76%
100%
13%
76%
88%
24%
0%
100% 0%
24%
26%
Yes No
Stakeholder Engagement 74% of the organizations indicate how they engage their stakeholders in the strategy, policy and activities of the organization. This is a slight decrease from last year. There is room for improvement since only 17% of the organizations
achieve the maximum score. These organizations report on the
outcomes of the stakeholder dialogue, the involvement of the highest
governance body during the dialogue and indicate how the
stakeholder dialogue is related to the organization’s strategy and
established targets.
Category: Reliability
67% of the organizations report on the challenges, issues or dilemma’s faced with regards to their business,
a slight increase from last year.Moreover, there is a clear increase in the percentage of organizations
that achieved the maximum score on this criteria. These organizations
include the description on challenges, issues or dilemmas as a
stand-alone recognizable part within the report.
Category: Responsiveness
0 20 40 60 80 100
Laggards
Peloton
Followers
Leaders
Total 2014
Total 2015 67%
66%
100%
13%
65%
88%
35%
0%
94% 6%
34%
33%
Yes No
Challenges and Dilemmas
Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 2015 15
64% of organizations clearly report how their strategy, activities and results with regards to corporate
responsibility align to the organization’s strategy. 50% of the organizations achived the maximum score on this criteria.
These organizations use their set of strategic priorities as a guidance
for an explanation of the developments, results and future expecta-
tions regarding corporate social responsibility.
Category: Coherence
0 20 40 60 80 100
Laggards
Peloton
Followers
Leaders
Total 2014
Total 2015 64%
65%
100%
0%
60%
100%
40%
0%
100% 0%
35%
36%
Yes No
Link between CR
and Strategic Aspects
4.2.1 Materiality
Internationally, the subject of materiality within reporting has been receiving more and more emphasis. This includes a sharpened focus on
materiality of CSR themes in sustainability reporting in particular, evident from the latest GRI G4 guidelines. To keep the ever-increasing amount of
non-financial information clearly structured and relevant for users, companies need to focus on those subjects, which are of most material impor-
tance to their own business and/or the users of the report. Therefore, this year special attention was dedicated to materiality in the formulation of
criteria for the Transparency Benchmark 2015, leading to a redefinition of some criteria. The next pages provide insight in the conclusions related to
the criteria about materiality.
The precentages of organizations that report about material themes is 72% in 2015 (which is a decrease of 7%
from last year). Despite this total decrease, the percentage of organizations that
provide additional insights into their material themes (insights into
the relative importance of the identified material themes and
graphical representation of this) increased from 27% to 38%.
Category: Organization and business model
0 20 40 60 80 100
Laggards
Peloton
Followers
Leaders
Total 2014
Total 2015 72%
79%
100%
9%
73%
91%
27%
0%
100% 0%
21%
28%
Yes No
Materiality I: General
Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 201516
0 20 40 60 80 100
Laggards
Peloton
Followers
Leaders
Total 2014
Total 2015 61%
82%
100%
3%
56%
97%
44%
0%
100% 0%
18%
39%
Yes No
Materiality II: RelevanceCriteria 22 was changed in comparison to last year. Whereas last year
the organizations could obtain the maximum score if they reported
on at least five of the total pool of identified material issues, this
year, organizations could only obtain the maximum score if they
report on all (and exclusively on) the material themes, which they
have identified themselves. Due to these changes, there is a
noticeable decrease in the percentage of organizations that obtained
points on this criteria (82% in 2014 to only 61% in 2015).
Despite the changes and the stricter interpretation of the criteria,
37% of the organizations obtained the maximum score.
Category: Relevance
Monetary value
A large number of organizations describe the impact of their products/services on society. Quantifying and monetizing the generated impact
is becoming more popular. The monetary value of environmental or social impact is the value (in Euros or other monetary value) of the effect
on the environment or society. It should be noted that there is a significant difference between the monetary value of a cost saving for the
organization (or the supply chain) and the monetary value of an effect (impact) for society. An investment in charity or an energy-saving
program expressed in Euros of costs saved is not similar to the monetary value of a social of environmental effect. Monetizing the impact of
training and education on employees, (future) employers and society is an example of such monetary value.
Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 2015 17
Criteria 11 and 12 were also changed in comparison to last year. In 2014, the organizations were awarded full points for explanations in their
reports about a number of standard environmental and social aspects, specifically included in the criteria (assuming relevant aspects are similar
for all organizations). This year, these criteria were reformulated such that a list of possible environmental and social aspects was no longer
provided. Rather, organizations could only get points if all the material environmental and social aspects (as identified in their own reports) are
explained, i.e. the criteria took into account the fact that companies have material aspects specific to their own organization).
0 20 40 60 80 100
Laggards
Peloton
Followers
Leaders
Total 2014
Total 2015 74%
100%
19%
74%
81%
26%
0%
100% 0%
26%
74% 26%
Yes No
Materiality III: Environmental Aspects 74% of the organizations report about their material environmental aspects of business practice. Although last year, the same percentage reported about material environmental aspects, in 2014 this criteria looked at a standardized list of aspects.This year, 65% of the organizations included a quantitative explanation
of at least one material environmental aspect. In total 6 organizations
obtained the maximum amount of points on this criteria: in order to
receive the maximum amount of points it is required to express the
environmental results in a monetary value (see box about monetary
value).
Category: Policy and results
76% of the organizations report about their material social aspects of business practice.
Next to this, it is worth noting that 7 organizations have gained the
maximum amount of points on this criteria and have expressed their
social results in a monetary value ( see box about monetary value) .
Category: Policy and results
0 20 40 60 80 100
Laggards
Peloton
Followers
Leaders
Total 2014
Total 2015 76%
100%
13%
78%
88%
22%
0%
100% 0%
24%
84% 16%
Yes No
Materiality IV: Social Aspects
Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 201518
4.3 Sector comparison
The participating organizations of the Transparency Benchmark have been divided into 16 different sectors (similar to last year). The organiza-
tions that could not be included in a specific sector form the sector ‘other’, a total of 19 organizations.
The dynamics in the operating environment and challenges vary per sector making a sector-based analysis essential and valuable. The various
sectors demonstrate differences in average points received. A lower average score provides insights into the transparency within a particular
sector and not necessarily about the performance regarding corporate responsibility of the sector.
Sector Average score
2015
Percentage
zero scores
2015
As in last year, the transport sector has the highest average
score in 2015 with 156 points.
The average score of all organizations is exactly the same as
last year (99 points).
There are substantial differences between the scores of
sectors. An illustrative example of this is the difference of in
total 122 points between the transport sector and the pharma-
ceuticals industry.
In addition, it is noticeable that some sectors consist majorly
of organizations with a zero score. For example, although in
the consumer products sector the average is 133 points, 86% of
the organizations in this sector received a 0-score. On the
contrary, the real estate sector only achieves an average score
of 95 points, however all organizations have achieved a
positive in this sector.
Banking and insurance 108 5%
Construction and maritime 110 23%
Consumer products 133 86%
Services 94 32%
Energy, oil and gas 129 42%
Trading 75 76%
Industrial products 97 67%
Media and communications 66 44%
Other 91 74%
Pharmaceuticals 34 50%
Retail 85 60%
Technology 101 60%
Transport 156 63%
Universities and Medical
Centres
73 4%
Real estate 96 0%
Food and beverage 104 52%
For this year’s sector comparison a general reclassification has been made. This entails that some organizations have been assigned
to another sector compared to last year. In addition, 80 new organizations have been added to the Transparency Benchmark. Only
these 80 organizations are considered as new participants within the sectors.
Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 2015 19
4.3.1 Banking and insurance
0 50 100 150 200
HDI-Gerling Verzekeringen N.V.
RFS Holland Holding B.V.
The Royal Bank of Scotland
Coöperatie Univé U.A.
De Goudse N.V.
Credit Europe Bank N.V.
Robeco Groep N.V.
KasBank
Zorg en Zekerheid Groep
Allianz Nederland Groep N.V.
Legal & General
Ageas Insurance International N.V.
O.W.M. DSW Zorgverzekeraar UA
Coöreratie VGZ U.A.
ONVZ Ziektekostenverzekeraar N.V.
Binckbank
Stichting Zorgpartners Friesland
ASR Nederland B.V.
Atradius N.V.
Delta Lloyd Groep
Ned. Financierings-Maatschappij voor Ontwikkelingslanden NV
NIBC Bank N.V.
CZ Groep
NN GROUP
Vivat Verzekeringen
Menzis Holding B.V.
Rabobank
MN
Nederlandse Waterschapsbank NV
ABN AMRO Group N.V.
SNS Bank N.V.
Achmea
De Nederlandse Bank N.V.
Bank Ned. Gemeenten N.V.
Van Lanschot Bankiers
ING Groep
Aegon N.V. 185
181
180
179
174
174
172
171
170
170
169
165
158
157
156
152
146
124
121
91
68
55
52
51
50
49
43
43
39
32
30
28
24
20
15
0
0
Number of organisations 37
Number of organisations with zero score 2
Number of organisation with a score 35
Average score (excl. organisation with zero score) 108
Percentage of organisation with zero score 5%
Number of new participants 5
The banking and insurance sector scored,
similar to last year, above average with an
average score of 108 points. However, this is a
decrease from last year, when an average of
116 points was obtained.
In this sector, only 5% of the organizations
have awarded zero-score.
Vivat Verzekeringen is the best scoring new
member of the participants group, with a
score of 158.
Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 201520
4.3.2 Construction and maritime
0 50 100 150 200
SPIE Nederland B.V.
Koninklijke Wagenborg
CRH Nederland B.V.
Bluewater Holding B.V.
A. Hakpark B.V.
Aan de Stegge Holding B.V.
Van Wijnen Groep N.V.
Janssen De Jong Groep B.V.
Hurks groep
Oranjewoud N.V.
Dura Vermeer Groep
Unica Groep B.V.
IHC Merwede Holding B.V.
Damen Shipyards Group N.V.
Van Oord
Ballast Nedam N.V.
Wavin N.V.
Beelen Groep B.V.
TBI Holdings
Koninklijke Boskalis Westminster N.V.
Joh. Mourik & Co. Holding B.V.
VolkerWessels
SBM ORshore
Royal Imtech N.V.
Heijmans
Royal BAM Group 193173
168167166
153143
138132
128115
10996
8364
513534
2319
000000
Number of organisations 26
Number of organisations with zero score 6
Number of organisation with a score 20
Average score (excl. organisation with zero score) 110
Percentage of organisation with zero score 23%
Number of new participants 2
This year, the construction and maritime
sector obtained an above-average score of
110 points. This is a decrease from an average
score of 120 points in 2014.
Oranjewoud N.V. is within this sector the
best new participant in the group with a
score of 35.
Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 2015 21
4.3.3 Consumer products
0 50 100 150 200
WE Europe B.V.
Van den Ban Autobanden B.V.
Tommy Hil<ger Europe
Swarovski (Europe) Holding B.V.
Smartwares B.V.
Remeha Group B.V.
Philip Morris Holland B.V.
Lekkerland Beheer
Hunter Douglas N.V.
Honeywell Netherl. Hold. B.V.
FUJIFILM Europe B.V.
De MandemakersGroep Holding B.V.
Canon Europa N.V.
Cabot Norit Activated Carbon
Bose Products
Apollo Vredestein B.V.
Action Service & Distributie
A.S. Watson B.V.
TomTom N.V.
Accell Group
Unilever N.V. 194139
67000000000000000000
Number of organisations 21
Number of organisations with zero score 18
Number of organisation with a score 3
Average score (excl. organisation with zero score) 133
Percentage of organisation with zero score 86%
Number of new participants 2
Despite the fact that only three
organizations in this sector received a score,
the average score (excluding zero scores) is
133 points.
The consumer products sector is the sector
with the highest percentage of organizations
with a 0-score: 86%.
Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 201522
4.3.4 Services
0 50 100 150 200
Xylem Water Solutions Nederland B.V.Van Gansewinkel Groep
United Parcel Service Nederland B.V.Unit 4 N.V.
Twynstra GuddeTP Vision Europe B.V.Oracle Nederland B.V.
Omron Europe B.V.Manpower Nederland B.V.
Loyens & LoeI N.V.ISS Holding Nederland B.V.
Holiday Holding RoNerdam B.V.Equens SE
EcurionCGI Nederland B.V.
Booking.com B.V.BCD Travel Holding
Amlin Corporate InsuranceADG dienstengroep B.V.
Adecco Nederland Holding B.V.Accenture B.V.
IMC TradingTMF Group Holding B.V.
Exact Holding N.V.DOCDATA N.V.
APGDPA GROUP
Value8Monuta
Centric Holding B.V.Yarden Holding B.V.ICT Automatisering
Nieuwe Steen invBrunel International N.V.
Dela Uitvaartverzorging B.V.Propertize B.V.
Broekhuis HoldingBrab. Ontw. Maatschappij N.V.
Stichting EspriaLeasePlan Corporation N.V.
Fugro N.V.Holland Casino
CoMoreGrontmij N.V.
PGGMStichting Exploitatie Nederlandse Staatsloterij
Arcadis N.V.Vebego International N.V.
TNOCOVRA NV
USG People N.V.Ontwikkelingsmaatschappij Oost Nederland NV
N.V. HVCIndustriebank LIOF N.V.
Royal HaskoningDHVRandstad Holding N.V.
DeloiNe Holding B.V.KPMG N.V.Ordina N.V.
Facilicom Services GroupPricewaterhouseCoopers
Holding Nationale Goede Doelen Loterijen N.V.NV NOM Investerings- en Ontwikkelingsmaatschappij voor Noord-Nederland
Ernst & Young NederlandANWB B.V. 176
174
171
167
167
155
150
148
147
140
139
138
136
129
126
117
114
112
111
110
103
98
92
92
83
80
72
66
65
62
55
54
51
50
47
37
29
28
27
25
25
25
24
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Number of organisations 65
Number of organisations with zero score 21
Number of organisation with a score 44
Average score (excl. organisation with zero score) 94
Percentage of organisation with zero score 32%
Number of new participants 8
The service sector has the highest number of
participating organizations, in total there are
65 organizations included in this sector. The
average score is, just like last year, 94 points.
About one third of the organizations have a
0-score in this sector.
Propertize B.V. is within this sector the best
new participant in the group with a score of
62.
Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 2015 23
4.3.5 Energy, oil and gas
0 50 100 150 200
Yara Sluiskil B.V.
TOTAL Nederland N.V.
New World Resources
Neste Oil Netherlands B.V.
Kuwait Petroleum B.V.
Heerema Marine Contractors Holding Nederland B.V.
Essent
Delek Nederland B.V.
De Nederlandse Energie Maatschappij B.V.
Argos Group Holding B.V.
Ultra-Centrifuge Ned. N.V.
Delta N.V.
Nuon Energie N.V.
Core Laboratories N.V.
EBN
Royal Dutch Shell
Eneco Holding N.V.
GasTerra B.V.
Westland Infra
E.ON Benelux N.V.
Enexis B.V.
TenneT Holding B.V.
Nederlandse Gasunie N.V.
Alliander N.V. 189181
174163162
153151
148146
1387171
4322
0000000000
Number of organisations 24
Number of organisations with zero score 10
Number of organisation with a score 14
Average score (excl. organisation with zero score) 129
Percentage of organisation with zero score 42%
Number of new participants 3
The energy, oil and gas sector has achieved a
higher average score than last year. Last year,
the sector has achieved an average score of
124 points, while this year the average score
is 129.
Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 201524
4.3.6 Trading
0 50 100 150 200Transm. and Engineer. Services Netherl.
Toshiba Medical Systems Europe B.V.Scania Europe
RobaOxbow Coal B.V.
Momentive Specialty Chemicals BVMCB International B.V.
Interfood HoldingHager-Minnema-HuJen Beheer B.V.
Getinge Arjo Holding Netherlands B.V.Copaco Nederland B.V.
Auctus Holding B.V.N.V. Deli Maatschappij
SHV Holdings N.V.Amsterdam Commodities N.V.
Dutch Flower Group B.V.Nidera B.V. 137
9355
130000000000000
Number of organisations 17
Number of organisations with zero score 13
Number of organisation with a score 4
Average score (excl. organisation with zero score) 75
Percentage of organisation with zero score 76%
Number of new participants 3
The trading sector has an average score of 75
points, which is higher than the average of
last year: 73 points.
Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 2015 25
4.3.7 Industrial products
0 50 100 150 200
Yanmar EuropeVoestalpine Automotive Netherlands Holding B.V.
Tetra Laval Holdings B.V.Terberg Group B.V.
Tata SteelSynbra Holding B.V.
SIHI Group B.V.Scheuten Glass Holding B.V.
SABIC International Holdings B.V.Rockwell Automation B.V.P.L. v. Merksteijn Hold. B.V.
Otra N.V.Nedschroef Nederland B.V.
MHI Equipment Europe B.V.LyondellBasell Industries N.V.
Kuehne + Nagel N.V.INVISTA B.V.
International Flavors & Fragrances I.F.F. (Nederland) B.V.Inalfa Roof Systems Group B.V.
Huntsman Investments (Netherlands) B.V.Hitachi Machinery N.V.
FlowserveEnviem Holding B.V.
Denkavit Internationaal B.V.De Stiho Groep B.V.
De Hoop Terneuzen B.V.Citadel Enterprises B.V.
Caldic B.V.C. den Braven Beheer B.V.
Bosal Nederland B.V.Avery Dennison Materials Nederland B.V.
Ardagh Group Netherlands B.V.ArcelorMittal Netherlands B.V.
Ace Innovation Holding B.V.ABB B.V.
Sulzer Netherlands HoldingKramp Groep B.V.
Forbo Flooring B.V.Hertel Holding B.V.
Brocacef HoldingVan Leeuwen Buizen Groep B.V
StorkAMG Advanced Metallurg. Gr. NV
Nedap N.V.Aalberts Industries N.V.
AperamCorbion N.V.
DOW Benelux B.V.Rockwool Benelux Holding
Kendrion N.V.Koninklijke Ten Cate N.V.
DSM N.V.Koninklijke Philips N.V.
AKZO Nobel N.V. 196
195
179
171
167
167
121
119
100
81
67
59
37
35
22
17
10
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Number of organisations 54
Number of organisations with zero score 36
Number of organisation with a score 18
Average score (excl. organisation with zero score) 97
Percentage of organisation with zero score 67%
Number of new participants 9
Last year, the sector had an average score of
89 points,while this year, the sector scores an
average of 97 points.
The industrial products sector is, a_er the
technology sector, the sector with the most
new participants.
Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 201526
4.3.8 Media and communications
0 50 100 150 200Stichting Nederlandse Publieke Omroep
Stage Entertainment B.V.Sanoma Magazines B.V.
RTL Nederland B.V.Nielsen N.V.
Koninklijke Wegener N.V.Endemol B.V.
Audax B.V.de Persgroep Nederland B.V.
Global City Holdings N.V.Cimpress
Koninklijke Brill N.V.Roto Smeets Group N.V.
Wolters Kluwer N.V.RELX Group N.V.
TMG - Telegraaf Media Groep 153139
121105
301614
108
0000000
Number of organisations 16
Number of organisations with zero score 7
Number of organisation with a score 9
Average score (excl. organisation with zero score) 66
Percentage of organisation with zero score 44%
Number of new participants 3
The average score of the media sector is 66
points. This is a sharp decline from the
average of 96 points last year. Remarkably,
all the organizations in this sector score
lower than last year.
Global City Holdings NV is within this sector
the best new participant in the group with a
score of 14.
Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 2015 27
4.3.9 Pharmaceuticals
0 50 100 150 200
Astellas B.V.
Alliance Boots B.V.
A&D Pharma Holdings N.V.
ESPERITE
Fagron
GALAPAGOS 5330
180
00
Number of organisations 6
Number of organisations with zero score 3
Number of organisation with a score 3
Average score (excl. organisation with zero score) 34
Percentage of organisation with zero score 50%
Number of new participants 4
Same as last year, the pharmaceuticals
sector has the smallest number of
participants and the lowest average score.
Four of the six organizations within this
sector are new compared to last year.
GALAPAGOS is within this sector the best
new participant in the group with a score
of 53.
Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 201528
4.3.10 Retail
0 50 100 150 200
Yamaha Motor Europe N.V.
V&D Group
St. Clair/ De Bijenkorf
SPAR Holding B.V.
Retailcom Beheer B.V.
Pon Holdings B.V.
Poiesz Beheer B.V.
PGA Nederland N.V.
Peugeot Nederland N.V.
Mitsubishi Motors Europe B.V.
Miss Etam B.V.
Mercedes-Benz Nederland B.V.
Markeur
Lohomij B.V.
Inter-Sprint Banden
Intergamma B.V.
Hoogvliet B.V.
Foot Locker Europe B.V.
Dirk van den Broek/Dekamarkt
Da Holding B.V.
BMW Nederland B.V.
Maxeda Nederland B.V.
Blokker Holding B.V.
B & S International B.V.
Euretco B.V.
Stern Groep N.V.
Macintosh Retail Group N.V.
Coop Holding
IKEA Nederland B.V.
HEMA
PLUS Retail B.V.
Beter Bed Holding N.V.
Zeeman Groep B.V.
Jumbo Groep Holding B.V.
Koninklijke Ahold N.V. 168
139
138
116
105
92
87
85
85
70
39
31
21
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Number of organisations 35
Number of organisations with zero score 21
Number of organisation with a score 14
Average score (excl. organisation with zero score) 85
Percentage of organisation with zero score 60%
Number of new participants 6
The retail sector has achieved a higher
average score than last year. The sector
achieved an average score of 84 points in
2014, this year the average score is 85.
B & S International B.V. is within this sector
the best new participant in the group with a
score of 31.
Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 2015 29
4.3.11 Technology
0 50 100 150 200
Xerox Investments Europe
Verizon Business International Holdings B.V.
Tech Data Nederland B.V.
Specialist Computer Holdings Nederland B.V.
Sensata Technol. Holding N.V.
Saphin B.V.
Samsung Electronics Benelux B.V.
Plantronics B.V.
Nokia Solutions and Networks B.V.
Liberty Global Holding B.V.
KYOCERA Document Solutions Europe B.V.
Ingram Micro
IBM Nederland BV
Huawei Technologies Coöperatief U.A.
Fujitsu Technology Solutions (Holding) B.V.
Dell Global B.V.
Cisco Systems International B.V.
Chemours Netherlands B.V.
Boston ScientiYc Int. B.V.
ALTICE
Acer Europe B.V.
VDL Groep
NXP Semiconductors Netherlands B.V.
Neways Electronics International N.V.
OCI
ASM International N.V.
Gemalto N.V.
BE Semiconductor Indus. N.V.
Tele2 Netherlands Holding N.V.
VimpelCom Ltd.
TKH Group N.V.
ASML
Vodafone
Siemens Nederland
KPN 192
189
186
153
128
128
93
92
80
58
36
33
24
21
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Number of organisations 35
Number of organisations with zero score 21
Number of organisation with a score 14
Average score (excl. organisation with zero score) 101
Percentage of organisation with zero score 60%
Number of new participants 14
The technology sector has the most new
participants in the group of the Transparency
Benchmark 2015, in total there are 14 new
organizations in this sector.
The average score of the sector increased
this year from 92 points to 101 points.
Vimpelcom Ltd. is within this sector the best
new participant with a score of 128.
Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 201530
4.3.12 Transport
0 50 100 150 200
Vroon Group B.V.
Thomas Cook Nederland B.V.
Sundio Group B.V.
Stolt Tankers
Samskip
Raben Group B.V.
Post-Kogeko Logistics B.V.
Handelsveem Beheer
Gaiwin B.V.
Ewals Holdings B.V.
Eur. Container Terminals B.V.
EEA Helicopter Operations B.V.
De Rijke Continental B.V.
DAF Trucks N.V.
Connexxion
Catom Enterprises B.V.
Universal Cargo Logistics
Vos Logistics Beheer B.V.
GVB Holding NV
TNT Express
Koninklijke Vopak N.V.
ProRail B.V.
Air France - KLM
PostNL
Schiphol Group
Havenbedrijf RoRerdam N.V.
NS 194191191
177166
159131131
108108
00000000000000000
Number of organisations 27
Number of organisations with zero score 17
Number of organisation with a score 10
Average score (excl. organisation with zero score) 156
Percentage of organisation with zero score 63%
Number of new participants 1
Similar to last year, the transport sector has
the highest average score. The sector
achieved an average score of 126 points in
2014. This year the average score is 156
points.
In addition, it is the only sector in which all
organizations with a score have achieved
more than 100 points.
Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 2015 31
4.3.13 Universities and Medical Centres
0 50 100 150 200
Vrije Universiteit
Nyenrode
Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen
Erasmus MC
VUmc
Universitair Medisch Centrum Groningen (UMCG)
Erasmus Universiteit RoBerdam
Maastricht UMC+
Open Universiteit
UMC Utrecht
Academisch Medisch Centrum
Technische Universiteit Eindhoven
Technische Universiteit DelJ
Universiteit van Tilburg
Leids Universitair Medisch Centrum (LUMC)
Universiteit Leiden
Universiteit Utrecht
Universiteit Twente
Universiteit Maastricht
Universiteit van Amsterdam
Rijksuniversiteit Groningen
Radboudumc
Wageningen UR 156
126
122
122
116
115
97
96
80
59
58
58
49
47
45
44
40
36
36
33
32
31
0
Number of organisations 23
Number of organisations with zero score 1
Number of organisation with a score 22
Average score (excl. organisation with zero score) 73
Percentage of organisation with zero score 4%
Number of new participants 6
The universities and medical centers (UMC)
sector has 6 new participants compared to
last year. This is caused by the fact that the
vast majority of UMC’s received
dispensation from the government last year.
The UMC’s did not publish their reports
before the 1st of June 2014, and therefore
they could not be included in last year’s
Transparency Benchmark.
This year, the average score of the sector is
73 in comparison to 85 points in 2014.
The Leids Universitair Medisch Centrum
(LUMC) is within this sector the best new
participant with a score of 80.
Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 201532
4.3.14 Real estate
0 50 100 150 200GROOTHANDELSGEBOUW
Refresco Holding B.V.
Vastned Retail N.V.
Eurocommercial Properties
Wereldhave Manag. Holding B.V.
Waterweg Wonen
Unibail Rodamco
Q Park N.V. 170157
111105
7673
4430
Number of organisations 8
Number of organisations with zero score 0
Number of organisation with a score 8
Average score (excl. organisation with zero score) 96
Percentage of organisation with zero score 0%
Number of new participants 1
This year, the real estate sector scores an
average of 96 points. This is a decrease from
last year when the average score was 107.
In the sector none of the participating
organizations ended with a zero score.
Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 2015 33
4.3.15 Food and beverage
0 50 100 150 200
Theobroma B.V.Storteboom Group B.V.
Plukon Food GroupNVDU Acquisition B.V.
Milkiland N.V.Mijwo Beheer B.V.
Meatpoint B.V.Mead Johnson B.V.
Mars Nederland B.V.Loders Croklaan Group B.V.
Koninklijke Zeelandia Groep B.V.Koninklijke De Heus B.V.
IMCD Holding B.V.Hoogwegt Groep B.V.
Hanos (Apeldoorn B.V.)H.L. Barentz B.V.
Glencore Grain RoSerdam B.V.DE Masterblenders 1753
Danone Baby and Medical Nutrition B.V.Cargill B.V.
Bakkersland Groep B.V.A-Ware Food Group B.V.
Addasta Holding B.V.Farm Frites Beheer B.V.
VION Holding N.V.DOC Kaas
CZAVKoninklijke Coöperatie Cosun U.A.
Coöperatie AVEBE U.A.The Greenery B.V.
ForFarmers Group B.V.Cooperative Agri]rm U.A.
Vreugdenhil Groep B.V.Sligro Food Group N.V.
Bidvest Deli XLVanDrie Group
Albron Nederland B.V.PerfeSi v. MelleArla Foods B.V.
Bavaria N.V.Koninklijke Wessanen N.V.
Koninklijke FrieslandCampina N.V.Vitens N.V.
Heineken N.V. 182
177
163
161
153
139
133
131
130
118
112
111
96
80
61
52
52
49
46
26
17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Number of organisations 44
Number of organisations with zero score 23
Number of organisation with a score 21
Average score (excl. organisation with zero score) 104
Percentage of organisation with zero score 52%
Number of new participants 6
With an average score of 104 points, the
food and beverage sector improved their
average in comparison to last year’s average
score of 97 points.
About half of the organizations in the food
and beverage sector has received a zero
score.
Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 201534
4.3.16 Other
0 50 100 150 200
Vroegop Ruhe & Co. B.V.
Optiver Holding B.V.
O;ce Depot International
NetApp & Manufacturing
Mosadex
Mediq
Koninklijke Distill. Dirkzwager B.V.
Hyva Group B.V.
Horedo/Rensa
Elopak B.V.
De Kon. Nederlandse Munt N.V.
Clondalkin Industries B.V.
Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V.
Center Parcs Europe N.V.
British American Tobacco International (Holdings) B.V.
Beleggingsmij. Braverassa B.V.
Advanced Travel Partners Nederland B.V.
Louis Dreyfus
AerCap Holdings N.V.
Kardan N.V.
TUI Nederland
Airbus Group N.V.
Nutreco 147
144
140
61
30
24
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Number of organisations 23
Number of organisations with zero score 17
Number of organisation with a score 6
Average score (excl. organisation with zero score) 91
Percentage of organisation with zero score 74%
Number of new participants 1
Compared to last year, the industry sector
‘other’ has obtained a higher score. The
composition of the sector has signiicantly
changed compared to last year, a possible
explanation for the higher average score of
91 points this year. In 2014, the average score
was 53 points.
Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 2015 35
4.4 Corporate responsibility reporting in practice
The participating organizations that filled in the self-assessment were asked to (voluntarily) answer some additional questions about reporting
and the process of developing a report.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
20152014
Seperate CR Report
Other Relevant Information
None
Integrated Report - Other
Integrated Report - IIRC
Financial Report
Type of Report(Analysis based on 244 (2014) and 245 (2015) respondents)
24%
1%6%
33%
8%
29%
30%
14%
1%
22%
7%
26%
Compared to last year, the number of respondents who
indicated that they have some form of Integrated
Reporting in place increased from 37% to 41%. Of those
reports, 8% is based on the framework for Integrated
Reporting of the IIRC (International Integrated Reporting
Council).
This year, 24% publish a separate CSR report, a decrease
from last year. The percentage of organizations that only
publish a financial report has also risen (to 29%).
The biggest difference is in the percentage of organiza-
tions that state not to publish a report, decreasing from
14% to 6%.
Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 201536
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
20152014
No
Yes
Use of GRI Guidelines(Analysis based on 244 (2014) and245 (2015) respondents)
51%
49%
48%
52%
0%
10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
20152014
G4 core
G4 comprehensive
G3.1
G3.0
48%
18%
26%
8%
20%
11%
17%
52%
GRI Version Used(Analysis based on 126 (2014) and 120 (2015) respondents)
Almost half of the organizations use the guidelines of the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) in the preparation of the
(corporate social responsibility) report.
The use of the GRI 3.1 version has significantly decreased compared to last year from 52% to 26%partly explained by the
fact that GRI 3.1 can no longer be applied from 2015. As a logical consequence the use of the GRI G4 Core has increased
from 20% to 48% and GRI G4 Comprehensive from 11% to 18%. This shows that the majority of organizations follow
the development of the GRI guidelines and are committed to meet these new standards.
Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 2015 37
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
OtherNo useof frameworkfor reporting
ISO 26000SustainabilityAccounting
Standards Board
EMASCarbonDisclosure
Project
InternationalIntegratedReporting
Council (IIRC)framework
Use of Internationally Recognized Frameworks(Analysis based on 90 (2014) and 73 (2015) respondents)
31% 32%
23%25%
0%3% 4% 4%
20% 21%24% 25%
30%
18%
2014
2015
In addition to the use of the GRI guidelines (see above), 32% of organizations indicate that they make use of the
framework for integrated reporting by the IIRC, while 25% use the Carbon Disclosure Project. Compared to last year,
the number of organizations that indicate their use of another internationally recognized framework has fallen from
30% to 18%. Furthermore, it is remarkable that once again a quarter of organizations do not use any framework for its
reporting.
Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 201538
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
OtherLack of appropriateknowledge/
expertisein the elaboration
of a CR report
The elaboration of the report is more time-consuming
than initially expected
The report is not
considered a key point
DiHculties with the interpretation
of external guidelines
Data collectionwithin the
organisationis complex
Most important challenges in the process of CR reporting(Analysis based on 137 (2014) and 99 (2015) respondents)
48% 50%
34%29%
18% 19%
45% 44%
9%6%
20% 18%
2014
2015
Most of the respondents indicate that the biggest challenges during the process of reporting can be found inside their
own organization, identifying in particular those related to data collection (50%), time investment (44%) and a lack of
priority (19%).
Compared to last year, the number of respondents who expressed difficulties in interpreting external guidelines
decreased from 34% to 29%.
Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 2015 39
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
20152014
Fully implemented
OECD guidelines
Not familiar with
OECD guidelines
Familiar with OECD
guidelines, but not
implemented
Used OECD guidelines as a starting point in the elaboration of the code of conduct and corporate governance
Use of OECD Guidelines(Analysis based on 108 (2014) and 71 (2015) respondents)
11%
14%
44%
31%
46%
12%
32%
10%
Of the organizations that answered this question, 42%
apply the OECD guidelines for International Enterprises
to some extent: while 31% use the guidelines only as the
basis for their Code of Conduct and Corporate
Governance Code, 11% have fully implemented the OECD
guidelines. On the other hand, 44% of the organizations
indicated that, although they are familiar with the OECD
guidelines, they don’t have them integrated in their
company policies. This is a slight decrease compared to
last year. Finally, 14% of the organizations indicated that
they are not familiar with the OECD guidelines.
Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 201540
5 In-depth theme: The impact of Transparency
IntroductionThe Transparency Benchmark focuses – as one can already imagine – on Transparency. Online dictionaries (www.financiële begrippen.com)
explain transparency as: the extent to which the management of a business is clear. In order to achieve transparency, companies will have to
communicate, i.e. provide useful information. However, the precise definition of ‘useful information’ differs per (group of ) stakeholders.
As a result, ‘transparency’ also carries a different meaning for different stakeholders. Furthermore, communication is not only about the
receiver, but it also concerns the sender of such information. The organization (i.e. the sender) has its own opinion of how often and in which
way useful information should be provided to the receiver.
Currently, people and organizations are in the position to know a lot more about one another due to the widespread usage of the internet,
which provides the opportunity to obtain a vast amount of relevant information. This makes transparency even more important,
allowing the right kind of information to reach the right receiver. Needless to say, information has an impact.
This section will focus on the existing relationship between the organization and its stakeholders by taking a so-called agency perspective
to clarify the choices that companies can make when communicating their information (through an annual report). Furthermore,
this section will include insights into the extent to which the organizations address the information needs of their stakeholders.
Agency TheoryAgency theory is a well-known and respected theory originating in both economics and business research. It explains the relationship between
principals (client) and agents (executor) in business. The traditional agency theory (Jensen & Meckling, 1976) reasons from the perspective that
ownership and management in (large) enterprises is separated. The shareholders (principals) transfer the management of the organization
(in which they have invested) to the board (the agents) of the organization. Agency theory argues that the principal and the agents could have
conflicting interests, due to the fact that principals have less knowledge about the activities and results of the organization. This situation is
referred to the presence of information-asymmetry.
Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 2015 41
However, next to the shareholders, other diverse parties including (social) organizations and persons may also have some stake in an organiza-
tion. The modernistic agency theory approach focuses on this larger basket of principals, i.e. the stakeholders. The concept of information
asymmetry is also applicable to these stakeholders (employees, clients, suppliers, banks, the government, interest groups and others).
CommunicationIn order to reduce the effect of information asymmetry (i.e. stakeholders having less knowledge about the organization), organizations should
provide adequate and useful information. This information should enable stakeholders to make justified choices in relation to the organization
(investing, procurement, employee relations, social level of acceptance and more), also referred to as ‘incremental information paradigm’.
Information asymmetry is only one element of agency theory. Another element important in the discussion of transparency is the conflicting
interests between the management of an organization and its stakeholders. This conflict of interests influences the way in which management
decides to provide information, leaving the stakeholders in a position of dependency within this process of information-sharing. The question
that arises is then: to what extent is the management of an organization able to reduce the asymmetry of information, given the conflicts of
interests? Providing information can thus be seen as an instrument of the management of an organization.
Annual reportingNowadays, organizations are primarily sharing information through their annual public reporting, the most common forms of which include
the financial statements, a management report, a sustainability report, and/oran integrated report. Additionally, organizations often communi-
cate other messages through their websites or additional publications. In the context of the Transparency Benchmark, this chapter will especially
focus on the communication of accounting information, which is periodically released through the annual reports.
The annual report of an organization includes the financial statement (a factual overview of the financial results of an organization) and the
management report (the board of an organization provides an explanation of the results of the organization and the related risks at year-end).
In addition to the management report, some organizations also report a so-called sustainability report, or integrate the results related to
sustainability in the management report. The financial statement primarily includes quantitative information, whereas the management report
mainly includes qualitative information. Basically, the management report can be viewed as an explanation of how the company is performing
through the perspective of the board of an organization.
Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 201542
The board of an organization asks itself the following question: whom do I want to reach through this annual report, what do message do I want
to convey and how am I going to realize this? In answering these questions, the board of an organization will make certain choices that will
influence the way in which the report will be presented. A reporting strategy will be formulated but not formally included in the report itself.
Communication StrategyAn important characteristic of the annual report is that it serves as a channel for the organization to communicate its corporate image.
As a result, the annual reports constitute a showcase of ‘company pride’ for the management of an organization. Though in essence a potentially
positive characteristic, this element of ‘company pride’ brings about a risk of presenting a biased picture for the readers of the report.
Deegan (2002) provides additional insights into the communication strategies that have been elaborated by Lindblom. In reporting information
an organization stands to: (1) provide full transparency about recent events related to the organization, (2) influence the perception of the
stakeholders, (3) manipulate the perception of the stakeholder by diverging attention, and (4) influence the expectations concerning the results
of the organization. In order to realize the communication strategy, the board of the organization has a wide set of reporting-instruments at its
disposal.
Communicating is making choices
The communication instruments available to management can be categorized into: design, presentation and phrasing.
Design Design can help accentuate important parts of information. The reader’s attention to certain elements in the report can be
influenced through different aspects in the design of the report itself. Some of these aspects refer to the positioning of
disclosures in the report, the layout/design of the different pages, the use of colors,pictures and graphics to convey a
particular message, and the use of different font types and text boxes throughout the report.
Presentation The presentation of information is related to the design of the report. As such, ‘presentation’ focuses on the selection of
topics to include, the right balance between positive and negative disclosures, the decision to provide insights into
dilemmas, the structure in which topics are introduced and elaborated on, the degree of detail in information, ,as well as a
balance between quantitative and qualitative information on the one hand, and prospective and retrospective information
on the other.
Phrasing Finally, information can also become biased as a result of the choices in phrasing. A message can be delivered in many ways,
positively or negatively formulated, in an easily comprehensible way, or with a series of very technical terms. Much research
Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 2015 43
has been done on the comprehensibility of reporting. Students of the University of Groningen have, for example, researched
this theme with great interest. The main findings across researchers highlight that annual reports are difficult to read.
This is based on word-phrase characteristics in the text (length and amount). This research, however, does not take into
account characteristics of the reader (e.g. level of expertise, experience, education and degree to which the person is
interested).
When managing the introduced instruments, many choices have to be made. The table below provides examples of relevant choices.
These choices are not meant as an either/or decision, but rather should be considered as two extremes of a continuum.
Choices made when drafting a sustainability report
• Separate or integrated report
• Annual report in pdf or printed versus and online report
• Graphical representations versus textual guidance
• Differences in lay-out
• Negative versus positive results
• Retrospective versus prospective information
• Verification or no verification of annual report
• Qualitative information versus quantitative information
• Detailed information versus general information
• Stakeholder relevance versus management relevance
• Absolute versus relative
• Comparable results (peer group related to time)
• All including annual reports (‘take a lot approach’) versus focused reports (materiality)
• Information grouped by theme or integrated in the subjects
• Measured information versus non-measureable information
• Information about targets or about results
• Information about actions or about the impact of the organization
• Vague versus specific formulations
• Simple usage of language or academic usage of language
• Neutrally comparing versus subjectively comparing
Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 201544
The stakeholder as starting point
It is of great importance – also within the Transparency Benchmark – that
organizations consult their stakeholders in order to discover which themes
and topics they consider to be important for the organization. Figure 1
provides an overview of an ideal situation regarding the development of an
annual report. The strategy of an organization and an adequate stakeholder
engagement constitute the basis for the reporting process. Based on this, the
organization can by means of a materiality analysis identify which themes
(ranked by importance) are most material to report on: the reporting strategy.
In doing so, the organization may decide to rely on sustainability reporting
standards such as GRI G4, SASB, and/or the criteria of the Transparency
Benchmark. The reader should also in this ideal situation realize that even
when an organization chooses to carry out a stakeholder consultation in
combination with a materiality analysis, the final decisions regarding the
annual report rest with the management.
StrategyStakeholder
consultation
Materiality
analysis
Reporting
strategy
External reporting
criteria
Annual report
Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 2015 45
Voluntary or mandatory?
Frameworks for reporting
The quality of sustainability reporting has increased through the development of sustainability reporting guidelines. The most well-known
sustainability reporting guidelines are those developed by the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI G4), Raad voor de Jaarverslaggeving (RF400),
the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) and the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC). Within the Dutch reporting
landscape, the criteria of the Transparency Benchmark are also used by organizations. All the aforementioned reporting guidelines are ‘princi-
ples based’ and their implementation is therefore voluntary.
External pressure
Much academic research has focused on the question: which factors explain transparency of organizations (organizational characteristics,
financial results, board composition, composition of the board of directors, industry associations and others). Many research approaches make
use of certain institutional theories such as isomorphism. Organizations experience pressure from society (government, NGO’s, Transparency
Benchmark) to publish sustainability reports (coercive isomorphism). Additionally, many organizations imitate each other’s behavior.
These organizations look at what other organizsations are doing and replicate it within their own situations (mimetic isomorphism).
Given these organizational behavior patterns, to what extent is sustainability reporting really voluntary? A negative approach in answering such
question implies that an organization negatively differentiating itself from its competitors when it chooses not publish a sustainability report.
In addition, it should also be noted that organizations that do business with the government are increasingly being questioned on their
sustainability policy, and as such, the sustainability report becomes an important component of this ‘accountability to the state’.
Legislation?
A concrete example of external pressure can be found in legislation. Since the beginning of sustainability reporting, the value of relevant
legislation has been a matter of constant debate. A downside of legislation, which is often referred to, is the risk to compliance-related behavior,
‘use the law as a checklist’. This risk is also evident when looking at the Transparency Benchmark. An important advantage of legislation is
however the fact that it will create a framework for both the writer as well as the reader of the report, increasing the comparability across reports.
This is also an advantage of the Transparency Benchmark.
Financial reporting is important for society and is thus governed by rules related to financial reporting. Reasoning from the same societal
perspective, sustainability reporting should also include more relevant reporting rules. Whether this will eventually lead to real transparency
– given the wide variety of organizations and qualitative nature of subjects – remains a subject of speculation.
Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 201546
Does transparency impact the organization?
It is not an easy task to determine whether the degree of transparency impacts the reporting organizations. Will stakeholders do more business
with organizations because of increased transparency? Examples of situations where this has indeed been the case abound, such as the recent
the news of ABP’s decision to dispose its investments in Mylan. Academic research shows that investors’ decisions are increasingly being guided
by information other than financial information. There are however also examples of organizations that operate in an extremely sustainable
way, and which, despite not reporting on their sustainable efforts, still make a profit and see an increase in their revenue.
Financial statements have been mandatory for years, but who reads them? The same question can be posed related to sustainability reports.
Observations from practice do show, however, that creating an annual report, and providing it with external assurance, contributes to the better
performance of an organization. Many organizations communicate to their accountant or advisor their intentions of publishing a sustainability
report. These organizations are thus actually starting at the end of the process. Theoretically speaking, better communication of sustainability
performance should start with the creation of a vision, mission and a strategy. In practice, however, it seems that after the publication of a first
sustainability report, organizations want to progress more and more. For example, these organizations then expect to report better results the
next year. This means that they then will need to improve their actual results by for example developing policies, targets and ways of measuring
information. If the performance of organizations suddenly drops instead of rises, what can be done about this?
The quality of reporting by organizations has progressed and changed over the years. Research conducted on the factors that influence the
quality of reporting (based on the criteria of the Transparency Benchmark) shows that the Transparency Benchmark has been an influence in this
process.
Reporting seems to be an institutionalized phenomenon: the audience is limited, but the mechanism in itself is an important element of the
checks and balances of an organization. An important challenge for the coming years is to further develop the Transparency Benchmark in order
to help expand the understanding of transparency and impact.
* Please refer to Appendix 7.6 for an overview of literature used in this section.
Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 2015 47
6 Explanation of the Transparency Benchmark
6.1 Goal
The Transparency Benchmark aims to provide an opinion on the content and quality of external reporting on corporate responsibility issues.
To this end, the accounting information of the largest Dutch organizations is reviewed against 40 criteria related to corporate responsibility
aspects of the organizations and their operations. The Transparency Benchmark does not explicitly give an opinion on the actual performance
of organizations.
6.2 DiMerences to previous year
Compared to the previous year the following parts of the Transparency Benchmark have been changed:
1. The criteria
In 2014, the criteria of the Transparency Benchmark have been refined and adjusted to account for new international developments,
such as the new GRI guidelines (the G4), the framework for integrated reporting of the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC),
the OECD Guidelines for International Enterprises and the EU directive concerning reporting on non-financial information and diversity for PIEs
(Public Interest Entity) with more than 500 employees. This year, some criteria have been refined to enhance the comprehensibility and reduce
room for interpretation. Furthermore, three criteria regarding materiality have been adjusted with the purpose of aligning closely to
the international reporting guidelines.
Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 201548
2. The participation protocol and the participating organizations
The participants group was developed by incorporating the following different categories:
• Public Interest Entities (PIE’s) with more than 500 employees
• Organizations listed in Amsterdam’s stock exchange
• Organizations with substantial activities in the Netherlands related to revenue and/or amount of employees
• (Partly) State-owned companies
• Universities and University Medical Centres (UMC)
• Large organizations (more than 250 employees) who have been included in the participants group on a voluntary basis in the past.
Based on the aforementioned criteria, the final participants group increased this year to 485 organizations (compared to 429 in 2014). The list of
new participating companies can be found in the Appendix. The entire participation protocol can be downloaded from the website of the
Transparency Benchmark (www. Transparantiebenchmark.nl)
Dutch organizations with an International group report
An organization may be excluded from participation in the Transparency Benchmark when it is a subsidiary and the report of the parent
company meets the guidelines of the expected EU directive proposal on non-financial reporting. This means that information on the
environment, social and labor-related issues, human rights, anti-corruption, bribery, and diversity on the board should be included in
the annual report. For these organizations a separate overview was prepared, without a benchmark. These organizations receive no score.
In total, 24 of the 485 organizations participated in the group arrangement. A list of these organizations is included in the appendix.
An organization that meets the requirements to participate in this arrangement, and also publishes its own Dutch report, can choose to
submit the Dutch report voluntarily for the purpose of the benchmark.
6.3 Boundary of publicly available accounting information
The scores on the Transparency Benchmark are awarded based on the publicly available reports over the reporting year 2014. Different types of
reports qualify, such as annual reports, financial reports and corporate responsibly reports. The main condition is that reports should be publicly
available. This implies that the report (the information) of the participant should be available at no additional fees, or should be available for
downloading from the corporate website. Reports that are only available at the Chamber of Commerce do not meet the eligibility criteria and
can therefore not be used as available accounting information (no points will be received). Additionally, the report should published periodically
Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 2015 49
and concentrated on accounting information of the reporting year 2014 (ended in 2014). Only reporting information published before the 1st of
July 2015 has been included the Transparency Benchmark.
6.4 Methodology
The overall process consists of the six following steps:
• The self-assessment: organizations can assess their own information based on the criteria of the Transparency Benchmark. This year 158
organizations have filled in the self-assessment.
• Evaluation of the self-assessment and/or integrated assessment: in order to secure the quality of provisional scores and remedy interpreta-
tion differences of participants, all self-assessment have been assessed by a team of reviewers. Participants that did not fill in the self-assess-
ment themselves, were also provided with a provisional score by the reviewing team, based on the publicly available annual reports.
Commentary period: Participants that did not agree with the determined provisional score were given the opportunity to submit their
comments at the level of the individual criteria by using the e-tool. The comments of the participants have been reviewed and a reaction was
formulated by the executor of the Transparency Benchmark. After this process the final scores of the Transparency Benchmark have been
determined and communicated to the different participants.
• Communication with the Panel of Experts: Even after the determination of the final score by the reviewing team, an organization may wish
to express disagreement with the score. Such disagreement tends to originate mainly from a difference in interpretation of a criterion between
the executor of the Transparency Benchmark and the participant. Interaction with the Panel of Experts took place in the event of disagreement
about the final score. The Panel of Experts assessed in these cases the final score. In total, 6 organizations have requested the involvement of
the Panel of Experts. As a result, the comments of 3 organizations (5 criteria) upheld. The final scores have been set after the period of
communication with the Panel of Experts. The composition of the Panel of Experts can be found in the Appendix.
• Panel Assessment: The 20 highest scoring participants were also separately evaluated by the Panel of Experts. The reports of these organiza-
tions have been assessed based on so-called ‘panel criteria’ (these criteria can be found in the appendix of the criteria 2015, to be downloaded
from the website of the Transparency Benchmark: www.transparantiebenchmark.nl ).
• Winner of the Crystal Price’: The Jury ultimately determines the winner of the ‘Crystal Price’. The composition of the Jury can be found in the
Appendix. An overview of the jury criteria of 2015 can be found on the following website: www.kristalprijs.nl. Next to the Crystal Price, the Jury
awards the organization that addresses transparency in corporate responsibility reporting in the most creative and innovative manner.
Similar to last year participating organizations could use the e-tool; a web based application that assisted them through the first three steps of
the process.
Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 201550
6.5 Criteria
The Transparency Benchmark is based on 40 criteria. An overview of the criteria can be downloaded from the website of the Transparency
Benchmark (www.transparantiebenchmark.nl). The criteria have been divided into two categories: content-related (three criteria subcategories)
and quality-related (five criteria subcategories). A maximum of 200 points can be scored; 100 points for content and quality respectively.
The total score can be calculated by adding the total score obtained for both content and quality. The maximum amount of points varies per
criteria subcategory (see figure).
Inhoudsgericht normenkader 100
1. Onderneming en bedrijfsprojel 33 2. Beleid en resultaten 34 3. Management aanpak 33
1A. Projel en waardeketen 10 2A. Beleid en (zelf opgelegde) verplichtingen 5 3A. Governance en
remuneratie
10
1B. Proces van waardecreatie 10 2B. Doelstellingen 5 3B. Sturing en beheersing 8
1C. Omgevingsanalyse
(incl. risico’s en kansen)
8 2C. Economische aspecten van
ondernemen
8 2D. Milieu-aspecten van
ondernemen
8 2E. Sociale aspecten
van ondernemen
8 3C. Toekomst verwachting 5
1D. Strategische conext 5 3D. Verslaggevingscriteria 10
Kwaliteitsgericht normenkader 100
4. Relevantie 20 5. Duidelijkheid 20 6. Betrouwbaarheid 20 7. Responsiviteit 20 8. Samenhang 20
Materialiteit 8 Begrijpelijkheid 6 Juistheid, volledigheid 17 Gerichtheid op
belanghebbenden
13 Strategische focus 5
Reikwijdte en anakening 6 Beknoptheid 4 Voorzichtigheid 3 Bijdrage aan
maatschappelijk
debat
2 Contextuele samenhang 6
Tijdigheid 6 Inzichtelijkheid 7 Durf 5 Integratie 6
Toegangkelijkheid 3 Vergelijkbaarheid 3
Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 2015 51
6.6 Jury report
This year, the Crystal Award will presented for the sixth consecutive time. The jury acknowledges and therefore rewards the positive develop-
ments in building a culture of transparency in reporting. Companies’ efforts in the area of sustainability reporting are indeed observable and
the jury recognizes their potential to lead to increasingly positive results. To stimulate the continuous development of sustainability reporting in
the Netherlands, the Ministry of Economic Affairs adjusted and sharpened the criteria of the Transparency Benchmark in 2014. After an initial
decrease of the average score, the top-20 organisations score 4 points higher this year. In general, sustainability is more and better integrated in
the business model of companies..
Criteria, materiality and taxes
Sustainability reporting – and transparency within such reporting in particular – should be considered as a process in continuous development.
With the purpose of aligning to such developments, the evaluation criteria were radically adjusted for the Transparency Benchmark 2014.
In doing so, the framework of the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC), the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) and the EU directive
on non-financial reporting have all been used as a starting point.
In 2015, the criteria remained mostly unchanged from the previous year, although lessons learned from the previous year and developments
observed in the reporting practice motivated the fine-tuning and sharpening of several criteria. On the one hand, some criteria had presented
large room for interpretation, and as such, they were rephrased . However, the most important adjustment was driven by the increased focus
on materiality within reporting. Compared to last year, companies were assessed on the extent to which they report on specifically those topics
that are most relevant, i.e. material, for their organizations and their stakeholders.
Reporting with the concept of materiality in mind, is indeed an art of omission. When companies strive for a concise report, they allow for those
aspects of most importance to receive the attention they deserve. The jury recognizes this is as a special challenge faced by many organizations.
Concise reporting thus constitutes a potential differentiator in todays’ reporting landscape. As such, the jury placed strong emphasis on
conciseness in selecting the recipient of the Award to the Most Innovative Report 2015.
A particularly positive development observed by the jury is the way in which companies have opted to elaborate on who they are and what they
actually do in their course of business.
Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 201552
Portrayals of the business model in the context of the value that a company creates have developed into a core component of reporting.
What is more, these value creation narratives are increasingly becoming more intelligible and accessible through, among other, the use of
graphic representations.
These observations on materiality and conciseness align with a wider-reaching development in the business world: sustainability is ever more
embedded in the business model. The jury is therefore convinced that this increased focus on sustainability from the strategic perspective
translates into an emerging culture of transparency in reporting. Companies who manage to constantly communicate on their sustainability
performance in a transparent manner, stand more resilient whenever dilemma’s or scandals may arise. The more a company’s contribution
towards society is recognized, the more forgiving this society will react to potential drawbacks and incidents. This does require companies to
communicate pro-actively on what went wrong. By providing insight in the causes and lessons-learned of incidents, companies have a chance
to show society they are striving for continuous improvement. Some leading companies are already doing this, but it is not yet a widely accepted
practice. This so called ‘license to operate’ is, next to traditional ethical arguments, an additional motivation to be transparent about both the
positive as well as the negative aspects of business on society.
In this respect, the Transparency Benchmark aims to stimulate a culture of transparency. Yet, when considering the current extent of transpar-
ency in reporting, a next step in this culture development process is the open communication on tax obligations. As such, the jury also urges
companies to become ever more transparent on this particularly sensitive subject. It comes as no surprise that the topic of tax obligations is of
social importance and is in fact encompassed in the broader contribution a business makes to society. The OECD has been striving to reduce
harmful tax competition for a long time. This has caused companies to increasingly pay taxes in the countries where they operated, and to be
more open about their tax payments. There is, however, still significant room for improvement. Especially multi-national organizations should
disclose more information on their tax policies and payments. Country-by-country reporting, for instance, is still an exception to the rule. In this
case, an attitude of ‘better safe than sorry’ should also be adopted, whereby communication on tax obligations and payments serves to minimize
or avoid reputational damage due to potential incidents.
This year’s winners
The jury is commissioned with the task to determine the ultimate winner of the awards accompanying the Benchmark. In such responsibility,
they are supported by the Panel of Experts of the Transparency Benchmark when making content-related considerations. The jury is thus grateful
to the Panel for their contributions in the process. The winners of this year’s Transparency Benchmark’s awards are presented as follows:
Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 2015 53
The Highest Climber Award: N.V. Holding Westland Infra
The highest climber in the Transparency Benchmark 2015 is Westland Infra. The company obtained 69 points in total in the 2014 benchmark.
With a total of 153 points obtained this year, Westland infra climbed from rank 162th last year to number 56 in 2015. A raking improvement
of 106 positions.
The jury acknowledges the accomplishments of Westland Infra in the area of corporate social responsibility reporting, which they developed
along the Global Reporting Initiative’s G4 guidelines.
In their reporting over the period 2014, the company has stressed the concepts of value creation and materiality. Westland Infra has included
a materiality matrix in their report and has achieved to elaborate on all identified material topics. In doing so, the company has been able to
meet the pertinent criteria of the Transparency Benchmark, especially given this year’s stricter view on materiality. Additionally, Westland infra
provides clear insights into the value chain within which it operates, presenting a comprehensive value creation model and an accompanying
summary of all relevant quantitative indicators.
The Award to Most Innovative Report: N.V. Luchthaven Schiphol
The Award to the Most Innovative Report is a token of merit for the organization, which succeeded in the most creative way to contribute to
the discourse on the most relevant corporate social responsibility aspects of their business.
This year, the jury has decided to present Schiphol Group with this award. The Integrated Report of Schiphol Group opens with their value
creation model, even before providing insight into their most prominent performance results. In doing so they have set out the connecting
thread that leads the reader through the whole report, making it reader friendly. Similarly, the key characteristics of the company and its external
environment, as well as the results in 2014 are also presented in the first few pages of the report. As a result, Schiphol Group has thrived in
concisely bringing to the forefront what is most important.
Another innovative aspect of the company’s reporting is the description of its own value chain, in which Schiphol Group specifies the extent to
which they have influence on each part of the chain and which parts require cooperation with partners. This results in a report that is not only
innovative in itself but also accessible for a wider audience.
The Crystal Award, the main award of the Transparency Benchmark
After the assessment by the Panel of Experts, the jury has decided which of the three highest-ranked companies wins this year’s Crystal Award.
Even though the reports are substantially different from each other, the scores and quality of the reports are rather similar.
Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 201554
The third position this year is for Unilever N.V., claiming a spot in the top three of the Transparency Benchmark for the first time. The jury values
the large steps taken by Unilever in improving their corporate social responsibility reporting over the past couple of years. The company set itself
ambitious objectives and has developed into an international frontrunner in the area of sustainability. This consistent emphasis on sustainability
as a core element of the organization and its strategy has hence translated into a robust and reliable reputation.
The jury is therefore pleased to observe that Unilever has also strengthened their reporting, as they make it increasingly clear how external
developments at a global scale influence their business. Unilever’s mission and objectives are comprehensibly introduced in the context of the
Sustainability Living Plan, which was launched back in 2010. However, the jury still identifies an opportunity for further progress if Unilever
decides to improve the clarity with which it communicates on those aspects that are of a more negative nature (e.g. weaker than expected
performance).
Koninklijke Philips N.V. is placed second in the 2015 Transparency Benchmark. Philips’ reporting has already been recognized with high scores in
the Benchmark of previous years. The company’s choice to present its role within society linked to external environment trends (such as aging
population and urbanization), has in fact concretized into a core element of Philips’ reporting. The jury therefore wishes to acknowledge the way
in which the company has achieved to convert its reporting into a tool for contributing towards raising awareness into these and other topics
relevant for society.
Additionally noteworthy is how Philips highlights the importance of corporate social responsibility information by seeking the same level of
assurance for these type of disclosures as for their financial reporting. In this regard, Philips can take pride in being one of the few organizations
at the forefront, both in the Netherlands as well as internationally. Yet, a next step could consist of aiming for a more concise report, by reducing
the amount of product information.
Winner of the Crystal Award
The jury presents the Crystal Award 2015 to Akzo Nobel N.V.. Despite the close scores between the top 3 of this year, AkzoNobel’s report differenti-
ates itself both in relation to content as well as presentation. From simply looking at the report it becomes clear that sustainability is an integral
part of the company’s strategy and organizational culture. Value creation and the relevant results are in fact presented at the level of individual
business units. As such, the reader can in one glance gain insights into both the positive as well as negative effects of business operations.
It is easy for the reader to track where these take place and in which way they influence the value creation potential of the company.
Additionally, the company’s report is a good example of achieving a ‘balanced image’ of the organization. The jury has decided to reward
AkzoNobel for their willingness to elaborate in detail on those aspects of their business that are concerning sources of issues, even when these
may well lie outside of the company’s scope of influence. AkzoNobel clearly indicates its progress on its strategic sustainability goals in the first
Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 2015 55
section of the report. It is also open about the fact that two goals require significant improvement. In doing so, AkzoNobel assumes – and
communicates – its responsibility for the chain and the sector in which it operates. The jury is therefore convinced that this level of openness
and vulnerability that such a company is prepared to shoulder, will support the development of a culture of transparency in the Netherlands.
Society as a whole stands to benefit from this, and AkzoNobel deserves special recognition for their contribution.
AkzoNobel’s strong profile in the area of sustainability is also clear when taking into account the consistent high scores in the Transparency
Benchmark: the company has consecutively claimed a spot in the top 3 in the past couple of years. This is a particularly noteworthy achievement,
given that organizations operating in the business-to-business segments may tend to regard public communication tools, such as sustainability
reports, as being of lesser commercial value
Beyond these consistently admirable results in the Transparency Benchmark, the importance that AkzoNobel places on sustainability reporting is
evident from the innovative steps taken to improve it. The company developed the 4D methodology, which allows for the more insightful
presentation of the impacts of AkzoNobel’s activities along indicators: ‘environment’, ‘human’, ‘social’, and ‘financial’. In its report, the company
elaborates on the lessons learned from a pilot project applying this methodology, and explains the conclusions on the extent to which it can be
implemented in a feasible and valuable manner. The jury deems such initiative praiseworthy and hopes that it will be followed up both internally
as well as externally.
6.7 Organizations with zero scores
The category of organizations with zero scores consists of organizations that are included in the participants group but did not achieve a score
(0-score) . An organization can fall into the this category if:
• The report was not publicly available for free
• The report was not published in a timely manner, and previous-year reports have already been included in an earlier edition of the
Transparency Benchmark.
• The organization is a subsidiary of a group but did not refer to a report from the parent on group level in the Dutch (financial) report and/or
did not apply for the group report arrangement.
Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 201556
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Total number of participants 469 473 460 409* 461*
Total of organisations with zero score 236 242 200 165* 216*
Percentage of organisations with zero score 50,32% 51,16% 43,48% 40,34% 46,85%
* Companies who have participated with their group report are excluded
The Ministry aims to reduce the group of organizations with zero scores. Unfortunately, this year the percentage organizations with zero scores
increased from 40% to 47%. The main reason for this increase is that 80 new organizations have been added to the participants group of the
Transparency Benchmark in 2015. Of these 80 organizations, 53 obtained a zero score, 21 had a positive score and 6 organizations participated in
the group report arrangement.
To gain more insight into the type of organizations that obtained a zero score , the organizations are divided into Business-to-Business (B2B) and
Business-to-Consumer (B2C) organizations (this table can be found in the appendix):
132 organizations with a zero score are active in the B2B segment
73 organizations with a zero score are active within the B2C segment
11 organizations with a zero score are active in both segments
Most organizations with a zero score can be found in the Industrial products sector, involves total of 36 organizations. However, the percentage
of companies with a zero score is highest in the Consumer products sector (86%). Of all listed companies(73), only two companies have a zero
score.
Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 2015 57
7 Appendices
7.1 New Participating organizations
In 2015, the Ministry of Economic Affairs decided to expand the Transparency Benchmark and include the 485 largest organizations.
This has resulted in 80 new participants. The table below shows the new participants and in which sector they operate.
New Participant Sector
A&D Pharma Holdings N.V. Pharmaceuticals
Academisch Medisch Centrum Universities and Medical
Centres
Ace Innovation Holding B.V. Industrial products
Addasta Holding B.V. Food and beverage
Ageas Insurance International N.V. Banking and insurers
Alliance Boots B.V. Pharmaceuticals
ALTICE Technology
ASICS Europe B.V. Consumer products
Auctus Holding B.V. Trading
Avery Dennison Materials Nederland B.V. Industrial products
B & S International B.V. Retail
BMW Nederland B.V. Retail
CGI Nederland B.V. Services
Chemours Netherlands B.V. Technology
Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V. Other
De Nederlandse Energie Maatschappij B.V. Energy, oil and gas
New Participant Sector
Dell Global B.V. Technology
DPA GROUP Services
Erasmus MC Universities and Medical
Centres
ESPERITE Pharmaceuticals
Fujitsu Technology Solutions (Holding) B.V. Technology
Gaiwin B.V. Transport
GALAPAGOS Pharmaceuticals
GDF Suez Energy, oil and gas
Getinge Arjo Holding Netherlands B.V. Trading
Global City Holdings N.V. Media and communications
GROOTHANDELSGEBOUW Real estate
H.L. Barentz B.V. Food and beverage
Hager-Minnema-Hutten Beheer B.V. Trading
HDI-Gerling Verzekeringen N.V. Banking and insurance
Hewlett-Packard The Hague B.V. Technology
Holiday Holding Rotterdam B.V. Services
Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 201558
New Participant Sector
Huawei Technologies Coöperatief U.A. Technology
Huntsman Investments (Netherlands) B.V. Industrial products
International Flavors & Fragrances I.F.F.
(Nederland) B.V.
Industrial products
INVISTA B.V. Industrial products
Leids Universitair Medisch Centrum
(LUMC)
Universities and Medical
Centres
Liberty Global Holding B.V. Technology
LyondellBasell Industries N.V. Industrial products
Maastricht UMC+ Universities and Medical
Centres
Mead Johnson B.V. Food and beverage
Media Markt Saturn Holding Nederland B.V. Retail
Mercedes-Benz Nederland B.V. Retail
Merck Sharp & Dohme B.V. Pharmaceuticals
Mijwo Beheer B.V. Food and beverage
Milkiland N.V. Food and beverage
Neste Oil Netherlands B.V. Energy, oil and gas
Nielsen N.V. Media and communications
NN GROUP Banking and insurance
Nokia Solutions and Networks B.V. Technology
NVDU Acquisition B.V. Food and beverage
OCI Technology
Oranjewoud N.V. Construction and maritime
Peugeot Nederland N.V. Retail
Plantronics B.V. Technology
New Participant Sector
Propertize B.V. Services
Retailcom Beheer B.V. Retail
Ricoh Europe SCM B.V. Technology
Robeco Groep N.V. Banking and insurance
SABIC International Holdings B.V. Industrial products
Samsung Electronics Benelux B.V. Technology
Saphin B.V. Technology
Smartwares B.V. Consumer products
SPIE Nederland B.V. Construction and maritime
Stichting Nederlandse Publieke Omroep Media and communications
Swarovski (Europe) Holding B.V. Consumer products
Tech Data Nederland B.V. Technology
Tetra Laval Holdings B.V. Industrial products
TMF Group Holding B.V. Services
TOTAL Nederland N.V. Energy, oil and gas
TP Vision Europe B.V. Services
UMC Utrecht Universities and Medical
Centres
United Parcel Service Nederland B.V. Services
Universitair Medisch Centrum Groningen
(UMCG)
Universities and Medical
Centres
Verizon Business International Holdings
B.V.
Technology
VimpelCom Ltd. Technology
Vivat Verzekeringen Banking and insurance
Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 2015 59
New Participant Sector
Voestalpine Automotive Netherlands
Holding B.V.
Industrial products
Xylem Water Solutions Nederland B.V. Services
Yamaha Motor Europe N.V. Retail
Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 201560
7.2 Dutch organizations with an international group report
Organizations in the participants group, which are part of a multinational organization and do not provide public accounting information
on the Dutch activities were placed in the category ‘organizations with zero scores’ until 2013. This classification was based on the consideration
that if an organization merited its inclusion in the participants group (due to substantial Dutch operations), it should also report on its activities
in the Netherlands.
This score, however, often does not do justice to the CSR efforts ( and accountability on the international level) of the specific organization.
As of 2013, it is possible for these organizations to choose a separate arrangement. According to this special arrangement these organizations
are not displayed on the ranking of the Transparency Benchmark. Instead, these organizations will be placed on a different list, without a
ranking (see below). In order to qualify for this arrangement, a report on group level should fulfill at least a minimum amount of criteria.
These criteria can be found on the website of the Transparency Benchmark (www.transparantiebenchmark.nl). An organization will be included
in the Transparency benchmark as an organization with zero score if the organization fails to fulfil the required criteria for the arrangement
concerning the international group report. In total 24 organizations participated in the group report arrangement.
Company
Abbott Healthcare Products B.V.
ASICS Europe B.V.
Atos Origin Nederland B.V.
BASF Nederland B.V.
BP Nederland Holdings B.V.
Capgemini N.V.
Coca-Cola Ent. Nederl. B.V.
DENSO INTERNATIONAL EUROPE B.V.
Epson Europe B.V.
Ericsson Holding Int. B.V.
Esso Benelux B.V.
GDF SUEZ Energie Nederland N.V.
Company
Hewlett-Packard The Hague B.V.
Koninklijke Grolsch N.V.
Media Markt Saturn Holding Nederland B.V.
Merck Sharp & Dohme B.V.
Metro Cash & Carry Nederland B.V.
Nestlé Nederland B.V.
Nike Eur. Operat. Neth. B.V.
Ricoh Europe SCM B.V.
Sodexo Nederland B.V.
Teijin Aramid B.V.
Thales Nederland
T-Mobile
Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 2015 61
7.3 Organizations with zero points awarded
This year are 216 organizations categorized as ‘organizations with zero score’.
Company B2B / B2C
A&D Pharma Holdings N.V. B2B & B2C
A. Hakpark B.V. B2B
A.S. Watson B.V. B2C
Aan de Stegge Holding B.V. B2B & B2C
ABB B.V. B2B
Accenture B.V. B2B
Ace Innovation Holding B.V. B2B
Acer Europe B.V. B2B
Action Service & Distributie B2C
Addasta Holding B.V. B2B
Adecco Nederland Holding B.V. B2B
ADG dienstengroep B.V. B2B
Advanced Travel Partners Nederland B.V. B2C
Alliance Boots B.V. B2B & B2C
ALTICE B2B & B2C
Amlin Corporate Insurance B2B
Apollo Vredestein B.V. B2C
ArcelorMittal Netherlands B.V. B2B
Ardagh Group Netherlands B.V. B2B
Argos Group Holding B.V. B2B
Astellas B.V. B2B
Auctus Holding B.V. B2B
Company B2B / B2C
Avery Dennison Materials Nederland B.V. B2B
A-Ware Food Group B.V. B2B
Bakkersland Groep B.V. B2C
BCD Travel Holding B2C
Beleggingsmij. Braverassa B.V. B2B
Bluewater Holding B.V. B2B
BMW Nederland B.V. B2C
Booking.com B.V. B2C
Bosal Nederland B.V. B2B
Bose Products B2B & B2C
Boston Scientific Int. B.V. B2B
British American Tobacco International (Holdings) B.V. B2C
C. den Braven Beheer B.V. B2B
Cabot Norit Activated Carbon B2B
Caldic B.V. B2B
Canon Europa N.V. B2C
Cargill B.V. B2B
Catom Enterprises B.V. B2B
Center Parcs Europe N.V. B2C
CGI Nederland B.V. B2B
Chemours Netherlands B.V. B2B
Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V. B2B
Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 201562
Company B2B / B2C
Cisco Systems International B.V. B2C
Citadel Enterprises B.V. B2B
Clondalkin Industries B.V. B2B
Connexxion B2C
Copaco Nederland B.V. B2B
CRH Nederland B.V. B2B
Da Holding B.V. B2C
DAF Trucks N.V. B2B
Danone Baby and Medical Nutrition B.V. B2C
De Hoop Terneuzen B.V. B2B
De Kon. Nederlandse Munt N.V. B2B
De MandemakersGroep Holding B.V. B2C
DE Masterblenders 1753 B2C
De Nederlandse Energie Maatschappij B.V. B2C
De Rijke Continental B.V. B2B
De Stiho Groep B.V. B2B
Delek Nederland B.V. B2B
Dell Global B.V. B2C
Denkavit Internationaal B.V. B2B
Dirk van den Broek/Dekamarkt B2C
Ecurion B2C
EEA Helicopter Operations B.V. B2B
Elopak B.V. B2B
Endemol B.V. B2C
Enviem Holding B.V. B2B
Company B2B / B2C
Equens SE B2B
Essent B2B
Eur. Container Terminals B.V. B2B
Ewals Holdings B.V. B2B
Flowserve B2B
Foot Locker Europe B.V. B2C
FUJIFILM Europe B.V. B2C
Fujitsu Technology Solutions (Holding) B.V. B2C
Gaiwin B.V. B2B
Getinge Arjo Holding Netherlands B.V. B2B & B2C
Glencore Grain Rotterdam B.V. B2B
H.L. Barentz B.V. B2B
Hager-Minnema-Hutten Beheer B.V. B2B
Handelsveem Beheer B2B
Hanos (Apeldoorn B.V.) B2B
HDI-Gerling Verzekeringen N.V. B2B
Heerema Marine Contractors Holding Nederland B.V. B2B
Hitachi Machinery N.V. B2B
Holiday Holding Rotterdam B.V. B2B
Honeywell Netherl. Hold. B.V. B2C
Hoogvliet B.V. B2C
Hoogwegt Groep B.V. B2B
Horedo/Rensa B2B
Huawei Technologies Coöperatief U.A. B2C
Hunter Douglas N.V. B2B
Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 2015 63
Company B2B / B2C
Huntsman Investments (Netherlands) B.V. B2B
Hyva Group B.V. B2B
IBM Nederland BV B2B
IMCD Holding B.V. B2B
Inalfa Roof Systems Group B.V. B2B
Ingram Micro B2C
Interfood Holding B2B
Intergamma B.V. B2C
International Flavors & Fragrances I.F.F. (Nederland) B.V. B2B
Inter-Sprint Banden B2B
INVISTA B.V. B2B
ISS Holding Nederland B.V. B2B
Koninklijke De Heus B.V. B2B
Koninklijke Distill. Dirkzwager B.V. B2B
Koninklijke Wagenborg B2C
Koninklijke Wegener N.V. B2C
Koninklijke Zeelandia Groep B.V. B2B
Kuehne + Nagel N.V. B2B
Kuwait Petroleum B.V. B2C
KYOCERA Document Solutions Europe B.V. B2B
Lekkerland Beheer B2B
Liberty Global Holding B.V. B2C
Loders Croklaan Group B.V. B2B
Lohomij B.V. B2C
Loyens & Loeff N.V. B2C
Company B2B / B2C
LyondellBasell Industries N.V. B2B
Manpower Nederland B.V. B2C
Markeur B2B
Mars Nederland B.V. B2C
MCB International B.V. B2B
Mead Johnson B.V. B2C
Meatpoint B.V. B2C
Mediq B2C
Mercedes-Benz Nederland B.V. B2C
MHI Equipment Europe B.V. B2B
Mijwo Beheer B.V. B2B
Milkiland N.V. B2C
Miss Etam B.V. B2C
Mitsubishi Motors Europe B.V. B2B
Momentive Specialty Chemicals BV B2B
Mosadex B2C
N.V. Deli Maatschappij B2B
Nedschroef Nederland B.V. B2B
Neste Oil Netherlands B.V. B2B
NetApp & Manufacturing B2C
New World Resources B2B
Nielsen N.V. B2C
Nokia Solutions and Networks B.V. B2C
NVDU Acquisition B.V. B2B
Office Depot International B2C
Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 201564
Company B2B / B2C
Omron Europe B.V. B2C
Optiver Holding B.V. B2B
Oracle Nederland B.V. B2B
Otra N.V. B2B
Oxbow Coal B.V. B2B
P.L. v. Merksteijn Hold. B.V. B2B
Peugeot Nederland N.V. B2C
PGA Nederland N.V. B2C
Philip Morris Holland B.V. B2B
Plantronics B.V. B2B & B2C
Plukon Food Group B2C
Poiesz Beheer B.V. B2C
Pon Holdings B.V. B2B
Post-Kogeko Logistics B.V. B2C
Raben Group B.V. B2B
Remeha Group B.V. B2C
Retailcom Beheer B.V. B2B
RFS Holland Holding B.V. B2C
Roba B2B
Rockwell Automation B.V. B2B
RTL Nederland B.V. B2C
SABIC International Holdings B.V. B2B
Samskip B2B
Samsung Electronics Benelux B.V. B2C
Sanoma Magazines B.V. B2C
Company B2B / B2C
Saphin B.V. B2C
Scania Europe B2B
Scheuten Glass Holding B.V. B2B
Sensata Technol. Holding N.V. B2B
SIHI Group B.V. B2B
Smartwares B.V. B2B
SPAR Holding B.V. B2C
Specialist Computer Holdings Nederland B.V. B2B
SPIE Nederland B.V. B2B
St. Clair/ De Bijenkorf B2C
Stage Entertainment B.V. B2B
Stichting Nederlandse Publieke Omroep B2C
Stolt Tankers B2B
Storteboom Group B.V. B2B
Sulzer Netherlands Holding B2C
Sundio Group B.V. B2C
Swarovski (Europe) Holding B.V. B2C
Synbra Holding B.V. B2B
Tata Steel B2B
Tech Data Nederland B.V. B2B
Terberg Group B.V. B2C
Tetra Laval Holdings B.V. B2B
Theobroma B.V. B2B
Thomas Cook Nederland B.V. B2C
Tommy Hilfiger Europe B2C
Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 2015 65
Company B2B / B2C
Toshiba Medical Systems Europe B.V. B2B
TOTAL Nederland N.V. B2B & B2C
TP Vision Europe B.V. B2B
Transm. and Engineer. Services Netherl. B2B
Twynstra Gudde B2B
Unit 4 N.V. B2B
United Parcel Service Nederland B.V. B2B & B2C
Universal Cargo Logistics B2B
V&D Group B2C
Van den Ban Autobanden B.V. B2B
Van Gansewinkel Groep B2B & B2C
Verizon Business International Holdings B.V. B2B
Voestalpine Automotive Netherlands Holding B.V. B2B
Vrije Universiteit B2C
Vroegop Ruhe & Co. B.V. B2B
Vroon Group B.V. B2B
WE Europe B.V. B2B
Xerox Investments Europe B2B
Xylem Water Solutions Nederland B.V. B2B & B2C
Yamaha Motor Europe N.V. B2C
Yanmar Europe B2B
Yara Sluiskil B.V. B2B
Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 201566
7.4 Panel of Experts Transparency Benchmark
The Panel of Experts controls the quality of the assessments and communicates with organizations that had comments regarding their final
score. Additionally, the Panel of Experts assesses the top 20 of the Transparency Benchmark; the highest scoring reports plus additional periodic
information. The Panel of Experts focuses on the quality-related criteria (relevance, clarity, reliability, responsiveness and coherence) and adjusts
these by a maximum of 15% (positive or negative) based on their own set of criteria. The Panel of Experts nominated the resulting top 3 organiza-
tions for the Crystal Awards, after which the winner is ultimately determined by the jury. The panel of Experts also advises the Ministry on
possible revision of criteria.
The Panel of Experts consists of the following members:
• Chairman: miss Nancy Kamp-Roelands (external expert);
• Member on behalf of the organization for entrepreneurs: miss Linda van Beek;
• Member on behalf of academic expertise: mr. André Nijhof;
• Member on behalf of GRI expertise: miss Teresa Fogelberg;
• Member based on personal title: mr. Ernst van Weperen;
• Member on behalf of communication advisors: mr. Gijs Dröge;
• Member on behalf of investors: mr. Giuseppe van der Helm;
• Member on behalf of corporate responsible organizations: mr. Tim Steinweg.
7.5 Jury of The Crystal
The jury selects the winner of the Crystal Award out of the three nominated reports. The jury provides an explanation for their decision in the jury
report. IN 2015, the jury adopted, similar to last year, the criteria: ‘show who you are’ in choosing the winner of the top 3 organizations. In
addition, the jury determines the winners of the complementary awards (for the most creative and innovative report and for the fastest climber)
and determines the theme for theme award for the following year.
Transparency Benchmark 2015 The Crystal 2015 67
The jury that determines the top 3 of the Transparency Benchmark and selects the winner of The Crystal Award consists of the following
members:
• voorzitter: mevr. Monika R. Milz
• lid: Z.K.H. Prins Carlos de Bourbon de Parme
• lid: dhr. Leen Paape
7.6 Literature
Overview of literature used for chapter 5:In-depth theme: The impact of Transparency.
C. Deegan: “The legitimacy effect of social and environmental disclosure – a theoretical foundation”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability
Journal, vol 15, no 3, 2002, pp. 282-311.
P.J. DiMaggio en W.W. Powell: “The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields”, American
Sociological Review, vol 48, 1983, pp. 146-160.
D. Feenstra: “Ontwikkeling in het leesbaarheidsonderzoek van narratieve accountingteksten”, MAB jaargang 86 no 6. juni 2012, pp. 222-234.
M.C. Jensen en W.H. Meckling: ”Theory of the firm: managerial behavior agency costs and ownership structure”, Journal of financial economics
3, 1976, pp. 305-360.
R. de Jong: “Indicatoren voor transparantie”, masterscriptie Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, 2015.
D.A. de Waard: “Als de vos de passie preekt…”, oratie Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, januari 2011.
D.A. de Waard: “De bomen en het bos”, oratie University of Curaçao dr. Moises da Costa Gomez, oktober 2014.
This is a publication of
the Ministry of Economic A7airs, ’s-Gravenhage
Do you have additional reactions or feedback?
Please send your reactions/comments to:
This publication is digitally available via
www.rijksoverheid.nl/ez
The Crystal, the main award of the Transparency Benchmark
is an initiative of the Ministry of Economic A7airs and
the Netherlands Institute for Chartered Accountants (NBA)
Project team 2015
EZ: Margo Stam
NBA: Marc Schweppe
www.transparantiebenchmark.nl www.kristalprijs.nl
Directorate-General for Enterprise & Innovation
Bezuidenhoutseweg 73
Postbus 20401
2500 EK | ’s-Gravenhage
Internet: www.rijksoverheid.nl/ez
November 2015 | Publication-nr. 87579