Walking the talk? - Stockholm School of Economics · i Walking the talk? A RepoRt on the...
28
WALKING THE TALK? A REPORT ON THE SUSTAINABILITY COMMUNICATION OF THE NASDAQ OMX STOCKHOLM LARGE CAP INDEX COMPANIES The Mistra Center for Sustainable Markets (MISUM) and Corporate Donor Relations at the Stockholm School of Economics
Transcript of Walking the talk? - Stockholm School of Economics · i Walking the talk? A RepoRt on the...
i
Walking the talk?A RepoRt on the SuStAinAbility CommuniCAtion of the nASDAQ omX StoCkholm lARge CAp inDeX CompAnieS
the mistra Center for Sustainable markets (miSum) and Corporate Donor Relations at the Stockholm School of economics
ii
Walking the talk?: A Report on the Sustainability Communication of the nasdaq omX Stockholm large Cap index Companies© 2015 Stockholm School of economicsiSbn 978-91-7258-980-3 (printed) iSbn 978-91-7258-981-0 (pdf)
Published by:mistra Center for Sustainable markets (miSum)Stockholm School of economicsp.o box 6501, Se-113 83 Stockholm, Swedenhttps://www.hhs.se/en/research/institutes/misum-startpage/
Production: helena lundin
Front cover Photo: “the never ending path” by highlights6 (flickr) licenced under CC by-nC-nD 2-0. Available at http://flic.kr/p/nuaSZJ.
1
published in october 2015, this report explores how Sweden’s largest listed companies communi-cate their sustainability work. the report analyses which companies communicate, what they say that they will do, and what they have done within Sustainability/Corporate Responsibility (S/CR). We call this “talk” (what they discuss) and “walk” (how they report back on what they do). the report was commissioned by miSum (the mistra Center for Sustainable markets at the Stockholm School of economics) and Stockholm School of economics’ (SSe) Corporate Donor Relations. the data was collected and coded by SSe mSc students uta hönemann and elisabet Ålander with the supervision of Acting professor and miSum’s executive Director, Dr. lin lerpold.
the main aim of this report is to explore sustain-ability communication by companies listed on the nasdaq omX Stockholm large Cap index, of which there are 72. in particular, we hope to understand what information external stakehold-ers can access about companies’ sustainability strategies and initiatives, as well as the extent to which those companies report on implementation. our variables and indicator schemes are broadly based in extant research and have support in practitioner best practice as it relates corporate sustainability communication. our purpose is to facilitate the inclusion of external stakehold-ers’ input into discussions around corporate
1. ForeWord
sustainability communication and how it can be developed. by comparing the corporate communi-cation of different companies, we hope to support the development of clearer and more coherent S/CR communication across different sectors, and to identify companies that can serve as role mod-els to others.
the channels we examined were corporate web-sites, sustainability reports and/or annual reports for the financial year 2014. We deliberately chose to include only publicly available information in our study, but appreciate that publicly communi-cated sustainability efforts may exclude key initia-tives not yet finalized or published. furthermore, we are also aware that sector, size and govern-ance may have an impact on indicators, and that the indicators themselves are open to discus-sion. nonetheless, similar to in other studies, we believe that publicly available information is the most relevant material to examine since 1) it is what is accessible to external stakeholders, and 2) it has important signaling effects. We also believe that comparing companies through what they communicate is powerful and can form the basis for further constructive development.
for inquiries about the report, methods or the results, please feel free to contact miSum. our contact information is available at the end of this report.
2
We find that the nasdaq omX large Cap compa-nies “talk” more than they “walk”. for instance, 88 percent of the listed companies (63 compa-nies) communicate more about S/CR (in general) than about specific actions related to their com-municated aspirations. in particular, the top-level commitments and formal structures of the organi-zation reflect little in the way of S/CR. only 25 percent of the companies has a leadership team with an explicit formal responsibility for S/CR matters and only 11 percent has gender-balanced boards of Directors. of the 89 percent of the boards that exhibit gender unbalance, there is not a single company in which the number of women outnumbers the number of men.
one of our more positive findings was that most companies have defined S/CR targets, and that these targets typically address more than one dimension of S/CR. Similarly, S/CR policies are widely publicized and often integrated into the companies’ Codes of Conduct. Where companies
2. eXecutive suMMary
have such policies, reports on follow-up actions in the area of anti-corruption is the most common (70 percent of all companies have such a policy) and reports on environmental policy follow-ups are the least common (43 percent of all compa-nies have such a policy).
there is also variation between sectors. for instance, companies classified as Basic Materials, on average, scored double the walk points of those classified as Financial Services. Companies in Technology scored, on average, three times higher in the walk section than companies in the Oil and Gas sector. there was also considerable variation among companies in the same sectors.
Although our study examines all of the 72 compa-nies listed on the nasdaq omX Stockholm large Cap, we encourage future studies which also examine these kpis: both for listed companies in other countries and for large unlisted companies in Sweden and abroad.
3
3.1 about us
the cross-disciplinary research center, miSum, was launched in January 2015. With initial fund-ing from the Swedish foundation for Strategic environmental Research (mistra), miSum aims to go beyond traditional research and to cre-ate research-based and business-relevant solu-tions for sustainable markets. the researchers of miSum aspire to generate concrete solutions and processes that contribute directly to sustainable economic development and by doing so creating a world-class, cross-disciplinary center of excel-lence that will enhance the understanding for, and create new insights, into sustainable mar-kets. miSum functions as a platform and meeting place for many kinds of national and international stakeholders: academics, practitioners, firms and other organizations. miSum’s mission also includes providing expert advice to political lead-ers and policy developers and collaborating with other research centers.
3.2 background and aiM
the role of business in society has often been problematized and different views have been pit-ted against each other. Sustainability/Corporate Responsibility (S/CR) is not a univocal concept, let alone a set of clear-cut prac tices embedded in practitioner or academic consensus. We view S/CR broadly. We have operationalized it through 26 key performance indicators (kpis) that cover the areas which are considered to be pertinent, namely economic, environmental and social sus-tainability.
At the practitioner level, growing stakeholder pressure to hold companies accountable for their social and environmental externalities has
3. introduction
been accompanied by a proliferation of S/CR reports and S/CR ratings and rankings. Reporting on environmental and social matters has been commonplace for many decades, with particular growth over the past decade. today, S/CR report-ing has become a key way in which companies communicate with diverse stakeholders about their S/CR activities and has become a way to achieve legitimacy.
publicly available information is often the only way these stakeholders find out about a com-pany’s S/CR work and S/CR activities are often argued as superficial or windowdressing by exter-nal stakeholders. Consequently, companies and their managers are asked to walk their S/CR-talk; that is, to practice what they preach.
At a practice level, we know little about practition-ers’ interpretations and conceptualizations of S/CR. Although some scholars suggest that aspi-rational S/CR talk has performative qualities and thus effects companies’ actual S/CR performance, no significant studies have been made to trace how corporate action is related (or unrelated) to corporate aspirations. no studies have been made to investigate if, and in that case how, there are any differences in this regard between corpora-tions on the large Cap index.
As mentioned, the main aim of our study is to map and examine the sustainability communi-cation among Swedish large Cap companies. in order to contribute to sustainable economic development of Swedish companies and to develop concrete solutions and processes it is highly important to get a deeper understanding of Swedish companies’ current S/CR communication and performance. further, it is highly important to get qualified insights into the ways these impor-tant market players think about sustainability. this
4
study therefore conducts a study of the largest listed Swedish companies, zooming in on both what they say (“talk”) and what they do (“walk”) when it comes to S/CR. based on this comparison, we then map out these talk and walk scores in order to compare them to each other, and across companies. in so doing, we hope to support the development of clear and coherent S/CR com-munication standards across different sectors, and help identify companies that can serve as role models to others.
3.3 overvieW and research design
We scored each company on what they say that they will do, and what they say that they have done with regards S/CR. kpis from the talk section relate to corporate communications on sustain-ability, while kpis from the walk section assess the information that is available on the follow-up and the actual sustainability work. Companies could score a maximum of 17 points for “talk” and a maximum of 17 points for “walk” communication.
We decided to assess a wide range of different kpis in order to comprehensively examine the companies’ communication with regards to S/CR. there were 26 kpis in total (see Appendix for details). twenty of these made use of a binary scale (0 or 1) and six made use of a scale from either 0 to 2 or 0 to 3. note that we only included indicators that we could measure for all of the companies in the sample and that are relevant for all companies, irrespective of sector. the scoring scheme enabled us to compare the level of talk, as well as the level of walk, for all companies. in addition, we calculated the difference between these companies’ talk and walk.
each company was given an opportunity to respond to its own score and any omissions prior to the publication of this report. Seventeen companies responded to their scores within the 10 days we gave them to respond, while two more companies contacted us after the deadline. based on their feedback we updated some scores, in particular on policies and follow-up actions we had clearly missed. We assessed the mate-rial through the lenses of an external stakeholder and if, from this point of view, no clear connec-tion to S/CR could be identified, no points were rewarded.
for more information on the different kpis and the scoring scheme, please see the Appendices.
3.4 coMPany selection
the study uses a sample of 72 companies from seven different sectors and is intended to repre-sent the largest companies in Sweden. As such, we examined those companies that have a market value over one billion euro and are therefore listed on the nasdaq omX large Cap index in Stockholm. please note that our selection of companies represents the companies listed on the index as of march 2014. We relied on nasdaq omX’s defined sectors, which it derives from the iCb sector classification.1
1. The Industry Classification Benchmark (ICB) is a product of FTSE Inter
national Limited. It is a detailed and comprehensive structure for sector and
industry analysis, facilitating the comparison of companies across four levels
of classification and national boundaries. The classification system allocates
companies to the subsectors whose definition closely describes the nature of
its business as determined from the source of its revenue or the source of the
majority of its revenue.
Sector No. of companies
basic materials 6
industrials 19
Consumer goods 8
health Care 5
Consumer Services 5
telecommunications 4
financials 19
technology 3
oil and gas 3
total 72
Table 1: the nasdaq omX companies included in this study, by sector.
5
3.5 inForMation selection and screening
We assessed the available materials from each company for the 2014 financial year. these data sources include annual reports, sustainability/corporate governance reports, Codes of Conduct, and policies. in total, we screened approximately 9 000 pages of corporate information. We also included the websites of all sample companies in the study. S/CR initiatives that were not communi-cated through these materials were not included.
6
each company’s position is plotted, based on its score in the talk section (x-axis) and its score in the walk section (y-axis) in figure 1. the dotted lines show the average talk and walk score for the sample. tables one and two show the com-position of the metrics, as well as the frequency distribution of companies in each scoring metric. the orange circles represent the companies that scored the same amount of points in the talk and the walk section. further, the companies that score higher in the walk section than in the talk section are highlighted using green circles.
for this graph we use the average talk and walk score levels (the dotted lines) to divide the results into four quarters. the bottom left quarter shows the companies with talk and walk scores below the average, or what we have called silent low-performers. the top left quarter shows the com-panies that have a walk score above average but a talk score below average, or what we call silent walkers. the bottom right quarter shows the companies that have a walk score below the aver-age, but a talk score above the average. We call them talking low-performers. the final, top right, quarter shows the companies that have a talk and a walk score that is higher than the average. We labelled these companies talking walkers.
4. results and analysis
7
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Wal
k
Talk
Lundin Petroleum
AAK
Hexagon; Nobia
Alfa Laval
Assa Abloy
Sandvik
Axfood
Axis
Balder
Lundberg-företagen
Com Hem; Industrivärden;Melker Schörling
Lifco
Investor
Hufvudstaden
Svenska Handelsbanken Getinge
Intrum Justitia
Loomis
Ratos
SEB
Volvo
Stora Enso
Atlas Copco, SCA
NCC
SSAB
Electrolux
Boliden; TeliaSonera
BillerudKorsnäs
ABB; Hexpol; Swedbank
ICA
SAABWallenstam
Meda; Millicom
Lundin Mining
Betsson
J M
Nordea
Securitas; Husqvarna
Tele2
Fabege; MTG
Oriflame
Trelleborg
Sobi
Skanska
AstraZeneca
Autoliv; EnQuest;
Castellum
H&M
Kinnevik
Africa Oil; Elekta
talk average: 9,6
walk average: 6,1
NIBETieto
Holmen
Ericsson
Swedish Match
Indutrade
Atrium Ljungberg
Latour
Peab
SKF
talk = walk
talk < walk
11 talk ing low-performers
28 ta lk ing walkers
28 si lent low-performers
5 s i lent walkers
Figure 1: Relative performance of companies listed on the nasdaq omX large Cap index.
8
talk
kPi
s: c
oM
Posi
tio
n a
nd
dis
trib
uti
on
focu
s a
rea
KP
Is
sco
rin
g
po
int
ran
ge
/
dis
trib
uti
on
sco
rin
g s
cale
0 p
oin
tsp
rere
qu
isit
e f
or
1 p
oin
tp
rere
qu
isit
e f
or
2 p
oin
tsp
rere
qu
isit
e f
or
3 p
oin
ts
CO
MM
UN
ICA
TE
D
S/C
Rth
is f
ocu
s a
rea
con
tain
s k
pis
tha
t m
easu
re i
f S/
CR
is
pa
rt o
f a
co
mp
an
y’s
self
pre
sen
tati
on
.
We
bsi
te0
–2 p
oin
ts
no
or
very
litt
le S
/CR
info
rma
-tio
n is
co
mm
unic
ate
d t
hro
ugh
the
gro
up w
ebsi
te.
furt
her,
this
inf
orm
atio
n is
no
t ea
sy
to f
ind
.
S/C
R in
form
atio
n is
pa
rt o
f th
e w
ebsi
te a
nd c
an
be
foun
d ea
sily
.
S/C
R in
form
atio
n is
hig
h-lig
hted
on
the
sta
rt p
ag
e a
nd
a m
ajo
r p
art
of
the
web
site
is
dev
ote
d t
o i
t. A
dd
itio
nally
, a
wid
e ra
nge
of
dif
fern
et m
ate
-ri
als
on
the
top
ic a
re p
rovi
ded
th
roug
h it.
—
% o
f co
mp
ani
es:
8%
39
%5
3%
—
CE
O s
tate
me
nt
0–1
po
ints
the
Ceo
sta
tem
ent
do
es n
ot
cove
r S/
CR.
the
Ceo
sta
tem
ent
cove
rs
S/C
R.—
—
% o
f co
mp
ani
es:
37,5
%6
2,5
%—
—
Mis
sio
nV
isio
nC
ore
va
lue
s
0–1
po
ints
the
mis
sio
n st
ate
men
t d
oes
no
t en
com
pa
ss S
/CR.
*th
e m
issi
on
sta
tem
ent
enco
m-
pa
sses
S/C
R.—
—
% o
f co
mp
ani
es:
76
%2
4%
0–1
po
ints
the
visi
on
sta
tem
ent
do
es n
ot
enco
mp
ass
S/C
R.*
the
visi
on
sta
tem
ent
enco
m-
pa
sses
S/C
R.—
—
% o
f co
mp
ani
es:
75
%2
5%
——
0–1
po
ints
the
core
va
lue
sta
tem
ent
do
es
not
enco
mp
ass
S/C
R.*
the
core
va
lue
sta
tem
ent
enco
mp
ass
es S
/CR.
——
% o
f co
mp
ani
es:
62
,5%
37,5
%—
—
* o
r co
mp
ani
es t
hat
do
no
t ha
ve o
r d
o n
ot
com
mun
ica
te
such
a s
tate
men
t.
STR
ATE
GIC
D
IREC
TIO
Nth
is f
ocu
s a
rea
cont
ain
s k
pis
tha
t m
easu
re i
f S/
CR
emb
edd
ed i
n th
e co
mm
unic
ate
d o
vera
ll p
lann
ing
and
st
rate
gic
dir
ectio
n o
f a
n o
rga
nisa
tion.
S/C
R i
n C
orp
ora
te
Str
ate
gy
0–2
po
ints
the
corp
ora
te s
tra
teg
y d
oes
no
t re
fer
to S
/CR.
S/C
R is
pa
rt o
f th
e co
rpo
rate
st
rate
gy,
but
is
des
crib
ed
in g
ener
al
term
s a
nd n
ot
spec
ifie
d a
s a
n o
wn
stra
teg
ic
them
e.
S/C
R is
a c
ritic
al
pa
rt o
f th
e co
re s
tra
teg
y, r
efle
cted
th
roug
h a
n o
wn
stra
teg
ic
them
e.
—
% o
f co
mp
ani
es:
56
%2
2%
22
%—
S/C
R i
n R
isk
Mg
mt
Se
ctio
n
0–1
po
ints
the
risk
ma
nag
emen
t se
ctio
n d
oes
no
t en
com
pa
ss S
/CR
issu
es.
the
risk
ma
nag
emen
t se
ctio
n en
com
pa
sses
S/C
R is
sues
.—
—
% o
f co
mp
ani
es:
50
%5
0%
——
De
fin
ed
S/C
R
Targ
ets
0–2
po
ints
no
ta
rget
s th
at
ad
dre
ss S
/CR
are
def
ined
.
Def
ined
ta
rget
s a
re a
dd
ress
o
nly
one
asp
ect
of
S/C
R, f
or
exa
mp
le e
nvir
onm
enta
l to
pic
s.
Def
ined
ta
rget
s a
re c
om
mu-
nica
ted
tha
t a
dd
ress
a r
ang
e o
f d
imen
sio
ns o
f S/
CR,
fo
r ex
am
ple
env
iro
nmen
tal,
as
wel
l a
s, s
oci
al
go
als
.
—
% o
f co
mp
ani
es:
30
%1
9%
51
%—
9
PR
INC
IPLE
D
CO
MM
ITM
EN
Tth
is f
ocu
s a
rea
co
n-ta
ins
kpi
s th
at
eva
lu-
ate
whi
ch d
iffe
rent
p
olic
es a
co
mp
any
ha
s d
efin
ed.
Co
de
of
Co
nd
uct
0–1
po
ints
A C
oC
is
not
pub
licly
a
vaila
ble
.A
Co
C i
s p
ublic
ly a
vaila
ble
.—
—
% o
f co
mp
ani
es:
10
%9
0%
Su
pp
lie
r C
od
e
of
Co
nd
uct
0–1
po
ints
A S
upp
lier
Co
C i
s no
t p
ublic
ly
ava
ilab
le.
A S
upp
lier
Co
C i
s p
ublic
ly
ava
ilab
le.
——
% o
f co
mp
ani
es:
44
%5
6%
——
Hu
ma
n R
igh
ts
Po
licy
0–1
po
ints
A h
uma
n Ri
ght
s po
licy
is n
ot
pub
licly
ava
ilab
le n
or
is a
p
art
of
the
Co
C d
edic
ate
d t
o th
is t
op
ic.
A h
uma
n Ri
ght
s po
licy
is
pub
licly
ava
ilab
le o
r a
pa
rt
of
the
Co
C i
s d
edic
ate
d t
o th
is t
op
ic.
——
% o
f co
mp
ani
es:
28
%7
2%
Em
plo
yee
He
alt
h
an
d S
afe
ty P
oli
cy
0–1
po
ints
An
emp
loye
e h
ealth
and
Sa
fety
po
licy
is n
ot
pub
licly
a
vaila
ble
no
r is
a p
art
of
the
Co
C d
edic
ate
d t
o t
his
top
ic.
An
emp
loye
e h
ealth
and
Sa
fety
po
lic p
olic
y is
pub
licly
a
vaila
ble
or
a p
art
of
the
Co
C
is d
edic
ate
d t
o t
his
top
ic.
——
% o
f co
mp
ani
es:
51
%4
9%
An
ti-C
orr
up
tio
n
Po
licy
0–1
po
ints
An
Ant
i-C
orr
uptio
n po
licy
is
not
pub
licly
ava
ilab
le n
or
is a
p
art
of
the
Co
C d
edic
ate
d t
o th
is t
op
ic.
An
Ant
i-C
orr
uptio
n po
licy
is
pub
licly
ava
ilab
le o
r a
pa
rt
of
the
Co
C i
s d
edic
ate
d t
o th
is t
op
ic.
——
% o
f co
mp
ani
es:
10
%9
0%
En
vir
on
me
nt
P
oli
cy
0–1
po
ints
An
envi
ronm
ent
polic
y is
no
t p
ublic
ly a
vaila
ble
no
r is
a
pa
rt o
f th
e C
oC
ded
ica
ted
to
this
to
pic
.
An
envi
ronm
ent
polic
y is
p
ublic
ly a
vaila
ble
or
a p
art
o
f th
e C
oC
is
ded
ica
ted
to
this
to
pic
.
——
% o
f co
mp
ani
es:
29
%7
1%
Tab
le 2
: th
e co
mp
osi
tion
of
the
“ta
lk”
kpi
s a
nd f
req
uenc
y d
istr
ibut
ion
of
the
com
pa
nies
’ p
erfo
rma
nce.
10
Wa
lk k
Pis:
co
MPo
siti
on
an
d d
istr
ibu
tio
n
focu
s a
rea
KP
Is
sco
rin
g
po
int
ran
ge
/
dis
trib
uti
on
sco
rin
g s
cale
0 p
oin
tsp
rere
qu
isit
e f
or
1 p
oin
tp
rere
qu
isit
e f
or
2 p
oin
tsp
rere
qu
isit
e f
or
3 p
oin
ts
RE
PO
RTIN
G
AC
CO
UN
TAB
ILIT
Y th
is f
ocu
s a
rea
con
tain
s a
ll k
pis
tha
t a
im a
t m
easu
re
the
deg
ree
to w
hic
h a
co
mp
an
y re
po
rts
in a
n a
cco
un
tab
le
ma
nn
er.
Inte
gra
ted
R
ep
ort
ing
0–1
po
ints
the
rep
ort
ing
is
not
in a
cco
rd-
anc
e w
ith t
he <
iR>
sta
nda
rd.
the
rep
ort
ing
ref
ers
to t
he
iiRC
or
the
inte
rna
tiona
l <
iR>
fra
mew
ork
, o
r is
in
flue
nced
by
the
fra
mew
ork
th
roug
h p
art
icip
atio
n in
<iR
>
net
wo
rks.
——
% o
f co
mp
ani
es:
99
%1
%
Exte
rna
l A
ssu
ran
ce
0–1
po
ints
no
ext
erna
l a
ssur
anc
e
of
S/C
R re
po
rtin
g.ex
tern
al
ass
ura
nce
of
S/C
R re
po
rtin
g.—
—
% o
f co
mp
ani
es:
65
%3
5%
GR
I R
ep
ort
ing
0–2
po
ints
the
rep
ort
ing
is
not
in a
cco
rd-
anc
e w
ith a
ny o
f th
e g
Ri
fra
mew
ork
s.
the
rep
ort
ing
is
in a
cco
rda
nce
with
the
gRi
3 f
ram
ewo
rk.
the
rep
ort
ing
is
in a
cco
rda
nce
with
the
gRi
4 f
ram
ewo
rk.
—
% o
f co
mp
ani
es:
33
%3
1%
36
%
FOLL
OW
-UP
A
CTI
ON
Sth
is f
ocu
s a
rea
cont
ain
s k
pis
tha
t a
sses
s if
co
mm
uni-
cate
d t
arg
ets,
co
des
a
nd p
olic
ies
are
fo
llow
ed u
p.
De
fin
ed
S/C
R
Targ
ets
Fo
llo
w-u
p
0–3
po
ints
S/C
R ta
rget
s a
re n
ot
def
ined
a
t a
ll, o
r th
ey a
re n
ot
def
ined
in
a q
uant
ifia
ble
wa
y. (
this
m
eans
tha
t th
e sc
op
e o
f th
e ta
rget
is
not
clea
rly
nam
ed
and
/or
tha
t no
due
da
te i
s st
ate
d.)
S/C
R ta
rget
s a
re d
efin
ed a
nd
qua
ntif
iab
le w
ith r
ega
rd t
o sc
op
e a
nd t
ime.
S/C
R ta
rget
s a
re d
efin
ed a
nd
are
qua
ntif
iab
le w
ith r
ega
rd t
o sc
op
e a
nd t
ime.
Ad
diti
ona
lly,
the
com
pa
ny r
epo
rts
on
its
curr
ent
per
form
anc
e to
wa
rds
go
al
ach
ieve
men
t.
S/C
R ta
rget
s a
re d
efin
ed
and
the
y a
re q
uant
ifia
ble
, w
ith r
ega
rd t
o s
cop
e, a
s w
ell
as,
tim
e. A
dd
itio
nally
, th
e co
mp
any
do
es n
ot
onl
y re
po
rt
on
its c
urre
nt p
erfo
rma
nce
tow
ard
s g
oa
l a
chie
vem
ent
but
als
o e
mb
eds
its t
arg
ets
in
a l
ong
er-t
erm
sus
tain
ab
ility
st
rate
gy.
% o
f co
mp
ani
es:
33
%1
4%
39
%1
4%
Su
pp
lie
r C
od
e o
f C
on
du
ct F
oll
ow
-up
0–2
po
ints
ther
e is
no
inf
orm
atio
n re
ga
rdin
g a
fo
llow
-up
on
an
exis
ting
Sup
plie
r C
od
e o
f C
ond
uct.
ther
e is
a S
upp
lier
Co
de
of
Co
nduc
t a
nd t
he n
umb
er o
f a
udits
on
sup
plie
rs’
com
pli-
anc
e is
dis
clo
sed
, a
s w
ell.
ther
e is
a S
upp
lier
Co
de
of
Co
nduc
t a
nd t
he n
umb
er o
f a
udits
on
sup
plie
rs’
com
pli-
anc
e is
dis
clo
sed
, a
s w
ell.
Ad
diti
ona
lly t
he s
hare
of
aud
ited
to
all
sup
plie
rs i
s d
iscl
ose
d.
—
% o
f co
mp
ani
es:
53
%2
9%
18
%
Hu
ma
n R
igh
ts
Po
licy
Fo
llo
w-u
p
0–1
po
ints
ther
e is
no
inf
orm
atio
n re
ga
rdin
g a
fo
llow
-up
on
an
exis
ting
hum
an
Rig
hts
polic
y.
ther
e is
inf
orm
atio
n re
ga
rd-
ing
a f
ollo
w-u
p o
n a
n ex
istin
g h
uma
n Ri
ght
s po
licy.
——
% o
f co
mp
ani
es:
54
%4
6%
—
11
Tab
le 3
: th
e co
mp
osi
tion
of
the
“wa
lk”
kpi
s a
nd f
req
uenc
y d
istr
ibut
ion
of
the
com
pa
nies
’ p
erfo
rma
nce.
FOLL
OW
-UP
A
CTI
ON
S(C
ont
inue
d f
rom
p
revi
ous
pa
ge)
Em
plo
yee
He
alt
h
an
d S
afe
ty P
oli
cy
Fo
llo
w-u
p
0–1
po
ints
ther
e is
no
inf
orm
atio
n re
ga
rdin
g a
fo
llow
-up
on
an
exis
ting
em
plo
yee
hea
lth a
nd
Safe
ty p
olic
y.
ther
e is
inf
orm
atio
n re
ga
rd-
ing
a f
ollo
w-u
p o
n a
n ex
istin
g em
plo
yee
hea
lth a
nd S
afe
ty
polic
y.
——
% o
f co
mp
ani
es:
71
%2
9%
An
ti-C
orr
up
tio
n
Po
licy
Fo
llo
w-u
p
0–1
po
ints
ther
e is
no
inf
orm
atio
n re
ga
rdin
g a
fo
llow
-up
on
an
exis
ting
Ant
i-C
orr
uptio
n po
licy
ther
e is
inf
orm
atio
n re
ga
rd-
ing
a f
ollo
w-u
p o
n a
n ex
istin
g A
nti-
Co
rrup
tion
polic
y—
—
% o
f co
mp
ani
es:
31
%6
9%
En
vir
on
me
nt
Po
licy
Fo
llo
w-u
p
0–1
po
ints
ther
e is
no
inf
orm
atio
n re
ga
rdin
g a
fo
llow
-up
on
an
exis
ting
env
iro
nmen
t po
licy.
ther
e is
inf
orm
atio
n re
ga
rd-
ing
a f
ollo
w-u
p o
n a
n ex
istin
g en
viro
nmen
t po
licy.
——
% o
f co
mp
ani
es:
69
%3
1%
TOP
-LEV
EL
CO
MM
ITM
EN
Tth
is f
ocu
s a
rea
co
n-ta
ins
kpi
s th
at
ass
ess
the
top
-lev
el s
truc
ture
a
nd c
onc
rete
act
ions
b
y th
is l
evel
to
emb
edd
S/C
R in
the
o
rga
niza
tion.
Co
C s
ign
ed
by
CE
O0
–1 p
oin
tsC
oC
is
not
pub
licly
ava
ilab
le
or
not
sig
ned
by
the
Ceo
.
Co
C i
s no
t o
nly
pub
licly
ava
il-a
ble
but
sig
ned
by
the
Ceo
, a
s w
ell.
——
% o
f co
mp
ani
es:
62
,5%
37,5
%
S/C
R E
xecu
tive
in G
rou
p M
gm
t
0–2
po
ints
the
S/C
R ex
ecut
ive
is n
ot
pa
rt o
f th
e g
roup
ma
nag
men
t te
am
.—
the
S/C
R ex
ecut
ive
is p
art
of
the
gro
up m
ana
gm
ent
tea
m.
—
% o
f co
mp
ani
es:
75
%2
5%
Ge
nd
er
Ba
lan
ce i
n
Bo
ard
of
Dir
ect
ors
0–1
po
ints
the
sha
re o
f ei
ther
gen
der
in
the
bo
ard
of
Dir
ecto
rs i
s no
t in
th
e ra
nge
of
40
-60
%.
the
sha
re o
f ei
ther
gen
der
in
the
bo
ard
of
Dir
ecto
rs i
s in
th
e ra
nge
of
40
-60
%.
——
% o
f co
mp
ani
es:
89
%11
%
12
the following sections present our five main find-ings in detail.
#1 Companies talk more than
they walk
there is room for improvement in how companies follow-up and communicate their S/CR aspirations and efforts.
•overall, 88 percent of the companies (63 companies) talks more about S/CR in general than about specific undertakings as part of their communicated aspirations and S/CR practices.
•only one company scores the maximum 17 points for the talk side, while the highest score for walk was 14. no single company obtained full points for its walk: the highest score was 14
5. Main Findings
out of 17 points, obtained by two companies.
•We group the companies into four categories: Silent walkers (5 companies), silent lower-performers (28 companies), talking lower-per-formers (11 companies) and talking walkers (28 companies).
•only six companies (8 percent) score higher in their walk than in their talk, and only three companies (4 percent) achieve the same scores in both sections.
•on average the companies score 9.6 out of 17 points for talking and 6.1 points out of 17 points for walking (the mean score). however, there are larger differences between companies when it comes to talk (a standard deviation of 3.9) than when it comes to walk (a standard deviation of 0.7).
Table 4: Companies talk more than they walk.
Talk score > Walk score
Talk score < Walk score
Talk score = Walk score
Did the companies in the sample walk their S/CR talk?
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68 72
4%8%88%
no. of companies
13
#2 Low top-level commitment
the formal structures of the companies do not really reflect S/CR practices.
•Among the companies, 75 percent does not have a leadership team with an explicit formal responsibility for handling S/CR matters.
•moreover, 89 percent of the companies has a board of directors with an unbalanced share of women and men. We define a board of direc-tors as “balanced” if each gender occupied a minimum of 40 to 60 percent of board seats.
Table 5: top-level Commitment to S/CR is low.
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68 72
The prerequisites are fulfilled
no. of companies
The prerequisites are not fulfilled.
Is the S/CR Executive part of the group management team?
Are both genders equally represented; that is, do both men and women occupy 40 to 60 percent of Board of Director seats?
11%
25%75%
89%
14
#3 S/CR Targets are prevalent
and multi-faceted
the majority of the nasdaq omX large companies (71 percent) has defined S/CR targets.
•most of these companies have targets for at least two of the environmental, social and cor-porate governance aspects of S/CR. indeed, 73 percent out of the companies that have defined S/CR targets address two or more dimensions of S/CR.
however, we see that companies formulated their targets differently:
•three companies do not formulate their S/CR targets in a measurable way. this meant that neither the scope of these targets nor the time
frames for obtaining them are communicated. As a consequence, these companies do not score any points for this kpi in the walk section of the study.
•in total, 38 of the companies who communi-cated S/CR targets also talk about how well they achieved these goals. these companies make up almost 53 percent of all sample companies, and 79 percent of those companies with defined S/CR targets.
•interestingly, only 10 companies communi-cate S/CR goals that were not focused on the short-term, defined as extending beyond 2016. moreover, none of these “more long-term” sustainability strategies go beyond 2020. the majority of S/CR targets that we can identify within the materials therefore took a rather short-term perspective.
Table 6: Defined S/CR targets are prevalent and multi-faceted.
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68 72
Are S/CR targets defined?
The defined targets cover one aspect of S/CR.(14 companies)
The defined targets cover two or more aspects of S/CR.(37 companies)
no. of companies
No targets are defined.(21 companies)
51%19%29%
15
Table 7: Defined S/CR targets do not show quantifiable, long-term strategies.
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68 72
Are S/CR targets defined?
The targets’ scope and time frames are defined, but not beyond 2016.(38 companies)
The targets’ scope and time frames are defined and extend beyond 2016.(10 companies)
no. of companies
No targets are defined or they are not defined in a quantifiable way.(24 companies)
14%53%33%
16
#4 S/CR Policies are common
and often integrated
in the Code of Conduct
most of the companies tackle one or several of the following: Human Rights, Employee Health and Safety, Corruption or the Environment. this is either through specific policies or as part of their Code of Conduct. however, companies communi-cate on what they do to follow-up on policies to a lower extent. out of the 71 percent of companies that has an environmental policy, only 43 percent of them report on follow-up actions.
•Corruption is the area most commonly discussed by the companies examined (90 percent), fol-lowed by Human Rights (73 percent) and the Environment (71 percent). these three areas are addressed by at least two thirds of all compa-nies with the help of policies or their corporate Codes of Conduct. in contrast, less than half of the companies (49 percent) address Employee Health and Safety explicitly, whether through a policy or their Code of Conduct.
•not only is Corruption tackled by 90 percent of the sample companies, its scope and follow-up rate is also the highest: 70 percent of all companies with an anti-corruption policy also communicated how they aim to put their aspira-tions into practice.
Table 8: S/CR policies are widely publicized and are often integrated in the Code of Conduct.
0
12
24
36
48
60
72
HumanRightsPolicy
EHS Policy Anti-Corruption
Policy
EnvironmentPolicy
Number of companies that communicate follow-up actions regarding that policy.
Number of companies with such a policy. 63% 60%
70% 43%
Follow-up levelPercentage of companies that not only communicate the respective policy, but follow-up actions, as well.
0
12
24
36
48
60
72
HumanRightsPolicy
EHS Policy Anti-Corruption
Policy
EnvironmentPolicy
Number of companies that communicate follow-up actions regarding that policy.
Number of companies with such a policy. 63% 60%
70% 43%
Follow-up levelPercentage of companies that not only communicate the respective policy, but follow-up actions, as well.
17
a median score of only 3 points and have the smallest average talk score.
•the 10 companies with the highest over-all scores come from four different sectors (Industrials, Consumer Services, Basic Materials and Consumer Goods). the 12 highest individual company scores came from 7 different sectors.
•please note that the Financial companies in our study generally communicate less on S/CR matters than e.g. manufacturing and consumer goods companies. this might be expected as investment companies’ environmental and social impact is reflected in the companies in which they invest, rather than through their own operations. these companies generally have rel-atively fewer employees and a business model that builds on investments and not production. nevertheless there is room for improvement for the S/CR communication regarding how these investments are made.
#5 Clear differences
across industry sectors
Comparing companies’ performances by sector reveals additional interesting findings. however, these findings should be used with some reserva-tion, as some sectors are represented through a much smaller number of companies in the sample than others:
•Companies from the sector Basic Materials, making up 8 percent of the companies, have on average the highest talk score in the sample (12 points), whereas companies from the sector Financial, making up 26 percent of the total, score on average only 6 points and also have the smallest average talk score.
•Companies from the sector Technology have, on average, the highest walk among all nasdaq omX large Cap companies (9 points), while companies from the sector Oil and Gas have
Table 9: Walk and talk levels differ between different industry sectors.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Mean Walk Score per sector
Mean Talk Score per sector
Mean Talk Score (all companies) 9,6 points
Mean Walk Score (all companies) 6,1 points
9,6p
6,1p
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
9,6p
6,1p
Basic Materials Industrials Consumer Goods Health Care Consumer Sevices
Tele communications
Financials Technology Oil & Gas
18
19
aPPendiX a: scoring scheMe
this table contains a description of all kpis that we apply and the prerequisites for the different points. it is comprised of two parts. part 1 covers the kpis relating to talk while part 2 covers the kpis relating to walk.
6. aPPendiX
20 sco
rin
g s
ch
eMe
talk
kPi
s
focu
s a
rea
KP
Isd
esc
rip
tio
n
sco
rin
g
po
int
ran
ge
/
dis
trib
uti
on
sco
rin
g s
cale
0 p
oin
tsp
rere
qu
isit
e f
or
1 p
oin
tp
rere
qu
isit
e f
or
2 p
oin
tsp
rere
qu
isit
e f
or
3 p
oin
ts
CO
MM
UN
ICA
TE
D
S/C
Rth
is f
ocu
s a
rea
con
tain
s k
pis
tha
t m
easu
re i
f S/
CR
is
pa
rt o
f a
co
mp
an
y’s
self
pre
sen
tati
on
.
We
bsi
teth
e g
rou
p w
ebsi
te i
s a
key
co
mm
un
ica
tio
n to
ol
for
com
pa
nie
s a
nd
is
an
esse
nti
al
sou
rce
of
info
rma
tio
n fo
r m
an
y d
ifff
ern
et
sta
keh
old
ers.
0–2
po
ints
no
or
very
litt
le S
/CR
info
rma
-tio
n is
co
mm
unic
ate
d t
hro
ugh
the
gro
up w
ebsi
te.
furt
her,
this
inf
orm
atio
n is
no
t ea
sy
to f
ind
.
S/C
R in
form
atio
n is
pa
rt o
f th
e w
ebsi
te a
nd c
an
be
foun
d ea
sily
.
S/C
R in
form
atio
n is
hig
h-lig
hted
on
the
sta
rt p
ag
e a
nd
a m
ajo
r p
art
of
the
web
site
is
dev
ote
d t
o i
t. A
dd
itio
nally
, a
wid
e ra
nge
of
dif
fern
et m
ate
-ri
als
on
the
top
ic a
re p
rovi
ded
th
roug
h it.
—
CE
O s
tate
me
nt
the
Ceo
sta
tem
ent
in t
he a
nnua
l re
po
rt r
efle
cts
whi
ch a
rea
s th
e co
mp
any
co
nsid
ers
mo
st i
mp
ort
ant
to
sta
keho
lder
s.
emp
hasi
zing
S/C
R in
the
Ceo
sta
tem
ent
sig
nals
exe
cutiv
e co
mm
itmen
t to
S/C
R a
s w
ell
as
und
erst
and
ing
fo
r st
ake
hold
er
inte
rest
.
0–1
po
ints
the
Ceo
sta
tem
ent
do
es n
ot
cove
r S/
CR.
the
Ceo
sta
tem
ent
cove
rs
S/C
R.—
—
Mis
sio
nV
isio
nC
ore
va
lue
s
the
mis
sio
n st
ate
men
t is
cri
tica
l a
s it
is a
wri
tten
dec
lara
tion
of
an
org
ani
zatio
n’s
core
pur
po
se a
nd f
ocu
s.0
–1 p
oin
tsth
e m
issi
on
sta
tem
ent
do
es
not
enco
mp
ass
S/C
R.*
the
mis
sio
n st
ate
men
t en
com
-p
ass
es S
/CR.
——
the
visi
on
sta
tem
ent
is c
onn
ecte
d t
o a
co
mp
any
’s m
issi
on
and
is
the
asp
ira
tiona
l d
escr
iptio
n o
f w
hat
an
org
ani
zatio
n st
rive
s to
a
chie
ve i
n th
e m
id-
or
long
-ter
m f
utur
e.0
–1 p
oin
tsth
e vi
sio
n st
ate
men
t d
oes
no
t en
com
pa
ss S
/CR.
*th
e vi
sio
n st
ate
men
t en
com
-p
ass
es S
/CR.
——
the
core
va
lue
sta
tem
ent
sum
ma
rize
s w
hat
is m
ost
im
po
rta
nt
to a
co
mp
any
.0
–1 p
oin
tsth
e co
re v
alu
e st
ate
men
t d
oes
no
t en
com
pa
ss S
/CR.
*th
e co
re v
alu
e st
ate
men
t en
com
pa
sses
S/C
R.—
—
All
thre
e co
ncep
ts p
rese
nt i
mp
orta
nt c
omm
unic
ati
on m
essa
ges
b
eca
use
they
are
lon
g-te
rm o
rien
ted
and
sho
w h
ow a
com
pa
ny
def
ines
it
iden
tity
and
its
rol
e in
the
bus
ines
s w
orld
and
in
soci
-et
y. M
oreo
ver,
the
y p
rovi
de
insi
ght
s in
to a
n co
mp
any
’s u
nder
ly-
ing
bel
iefs
and
va
lues
. H
ighl
ight
ing
S/C
R in
the
se c
once
pts
d
epic
t a
str
ong
sig
nal
for
a c
omp
any
’s c
once
rn f
or t
he m
att
er.
* o
r co
mp
ani
es t
hat
do
no
t ha
ve o
r d
o n
ot
com
mun
ica
te
such
a s
tate
men
t.
STR
ATE
GIC
D
IREC
TIO
Nth
is f
ocu
s a
rea
cont
ain
s k
pis
tha
t m
easu
re i
f S/
CR
emb
edd
ed i
n th
e co
mm
unic
ate
d o
vera
ll p
lann
ing
and
st
rate
gic
dir
ectio
n o
f a
n o
rga
nisa
tion.
S/C
R i
n C
orp
ora
te
Str
ate
gy
the
corp
ora
te s
tra
teg
y p
lays
an
imp
ort
ant
ro
le i
n co
rpo
rate
co
mm
unic
atio
n a
s it
serv
es a
s a
pla
n fo
r th
e up
com
ing
rep
ort
-in
g p
erio
d a
nd r
evea
ls t
he m
ain
str
ate
gic
the
mes
of
the
corp
o-
ratio
n. i
t re
flec
ts t
o w
hat
exte
nt S
/CR
is c
ons
ider
ed a
bus
ines
s im
per
ativ
e a
nd p
art
of
the
core
str
ate
gy.
0–2
po
ints
the
corp
ora
te s
tra
teg
y d
oes
no
t re
fer
to S
/CR.
S/C
R is
pa
rt o
f th
e co
rpo
rate
st
rate
gy,
but
is
des
crib
ed
in g
ener
al
term
s a
nd n
ot
spec
ifie
d a
s a
n o
wn
stra
teg
ic
them
e.
S/C
R is
a c
ritic
al
pa
rt o
f th
e co
re s
tra
teg
y, r
efle
cted
th
roug
h a
n o
wn
stra
teg
ic
them
e.
—
S/C
R i
n R
isk
Mg
mt
Se
ctio
n
the
risk
ma
nag
emen
t se
ctio
n o
f th
e a
nnua
l re
po
rt p
rovi
des
in
form
atio
n o
n ke
y ri
sks
a c
om
pa
ny h
as
iden
tifie
d a
nd h
ow
it
pla
ns t
o m
itig
ate
the
m.
0–1
po
ints
the
risk
ma
nag
emen
t se
ctio
n d
oes
no
t en
com
pa
ss S
/CR
issu
es.
the
risk
ma
nag
emen
t se
ctio
n en
com
pa
sses
S/C
R is
sues
.—
—
De
fin
ed
S/C
R
Targ
ets
in o
rder
to
be
a g
oo
d c
orp
ora
te c
itize
n a
nd t
o t
ake
res
po
nsib
il-ity
fo
r th
eir
op
era
tions
ma
ny c
om
pa
nies
dev
elo
p s
usta
ina
bili
ty
stra
teg
ies
and
def
ine
S/C
R ta
rget
s.0
–2 p
oin
tsn
o t
arg
ets
tha
t a
dd
ress
S/C
R a
re d
efin
ed.
Def
ined
ta
rget
s a
re a
dd
ress
o
nly
one
asp
ect
of
S/C
R, f
or
exa
mp
le e
nvir
onm
enta
l to
pic
s.
Def
ined
ta
rget
s a
re c
om
mu-
nica
ted
tha
t a
dd
ress
a r
ang
e o
f d
imen
sio
ns o
f S/
CR,
fo
r ex
am
ple
env
iro
nmen
tal,
as
wel
l a
s, s
oci
al
go
als
.
—
21sco
rin
g s
ch
eMe
talk
kPi
s
focu
s a
rea
KP
Isd
esc
rip
tio
n
sco
rin
g
po
int
ran
ge
/
dis
trib
uti
on
sco
rin
g s
cale
0 p
oin
tsp
rere
qu
isit
e f
or
1 p
oin
tp
rere
qu
isit
e f
or
2 p
oin
tsp
rere
qu
isit
e f
or
3 p
oin
ts
CO
MM
UN
ICA
TE
D
S/C
Rth
is f
ocu
s a
rea
con
tain
s k
pis
tha
t m
easu
re i
f S/
CR
is
pa
rt o
f a
co
mp
an
y’s
self
pre
sen
tati
on
.
We
bsi
teth
e g
rou
p w
ebsi
te i
s a
key
co
mm
un
ica
tio
n to
ol
for
com
pa
nie
s a
nd
is
an
esse
nti
al
sou
rce
of
info
rma
tio
n fo
r m
an
y d
ifff
ern
et
sta
keh
old
ers.
0–2
po
ints
no
or
very
litt
le S
/CR
info
rma
-tio
n is
co
mm
unic
ate
d t
hro
ugh
the
gro
up w
ebsi
te.
furt
her,
this
inf
orm
atio
n is
no
t ea
sy
to f
ind
.
S/C
R in
form
atio
n is
pa
rt o
f th
e w
ebsi
te a
nd c
an
be
foun
d ea
sily
.
S/C
R in
form
atio
n is
hig
h-lig
hted
on
the
sta
rt p
ag
e a
nd
a m
ajo
r p
art
of
the
web
site
is
dev
ote
d t
o i
t. A
dd
itio
nally
, a
wid
e ra
nge
of
dif
fern
et m
ate
-ri
als
on
the
top
ic a
re p
rovi
ded
th
roug
h it.
—
CE
O s
tate
me
nt
the
Ceo
sta
tem
ent
in t
he a
nnua
l re
po
rt r
efle
cts
whi
ch a
rea
s th
e co
mp
any
co
nsid
ers
mo
st i
mp
ort
ant
to
sta
keho
lder
s.
emp
hasi
zing
S/C
R in
the
Ceo
sta
tem
ent
sig
nals
exe
cutiv
e co
mm
itmen
t to
S/C
R a
s w
ell
as
und
erst
and
ing
fo
r st
ake
hold
er
inte
rest
.
0–1
po
ints
the
Ceo
sta
tem
ent
do
es n
ot
cove
r S/
CR.
the
Ceo
sta
tem
ent
cove
rs
S/C
R.—
—
Mis
sio
nV
isio
nC
ore
va
lue
s
the
mis
sio
n st
ate
men
t is
cri
tica
l a
s it
is a
wri
tten
dec
lara
tion
of
an
org
ani
zatio
n’s
core
pur
po
se a
nd f
ocu
s.0
–1 p
oin
tsth
e m
issi
on
sta
tem
ent
do
es
not
enco
mp
ass
S/C
R.*
the
mis
sio
n st
ate
men
t en
com
-p
ass
es S
/CR.
——
the
visi
on
sta
tem
ent
is c
onn
ecte
d t
o a
co
mp
any
’s m
issi
on
and
is
the
asp
ira
tiona
l d
escr
iptio
n o
f w
hat
an
org
ani
zatio
n st
rive
s to
a
chie
ve i
n th
e m
id-
or
long
-ter
m f
utur
e.0
–1 p
oin
tsth
e vi
sio
n st
ate
men
t d
oes
no
t en
com
pa
ss S
/CR.
*th
e vi
sio
n st
ate
men
t en
com
-p
ass
es S
/CR.
——
the
core
va
lue
sta
tem
ent
sum
ma
rize
s w
hat
is m
ost
im
po
rta
nt
to a
co
mp
any
.0
–1 p
oin
tsth
e co
re v
alu
e st
ate
men
t d
oes
no
t en
com
pa
ss S
/CR.
*th
e co
re v
alu
e st
ate
men
t en
com
pa
sses
S/C
R.—
—
All
thre
e co
ncep
ts p
rese
nt i
mp
orta
nt c
omm
unic
ati
on m
essa
ges
b
eca
use
they
are
lon
g-te
rm o
rien
ted
and
sho
w h
ow a
com
pa
ny
def
ines
it
iden
tity
and
its
rol
e in
the
bus
ines
s w
orld
and
in
soci
-et
y. M
oreo
ver,
the
y p
rovi
de
insi
ght
s in
to a
n co
mp
any
’s u
nder
ly-
ing
bel
iefs
and
va
lues
. H
ighl
ight
ing
S/C
R in
the
se c
once
pts
d
epic
t a
str
ong
sig
nal
for
a c
omp
any
’s c
once
rn f
or t
he m
att
er.
* o
r co
mp
ani
es t
hat
do
no
t ha
ve o
r d
o n
ot
com
mun
ica
te
such
a s
tate
men
t.
STR
ATE
GIC
D
IREC
TIO
Nth
is f
ocu
s a
rea
cont
ain
s k
pis
tha
t m
easu
re i
f S/
CR
emb
edd
ed i
n th
e co
mm
unic
ate
d o
vera
ll p
lann
ing
and
st
rate
gic
dir
ectio
n o
f a
n o
rga
nisa
tion.
S/C
R i
n C
orp
ora
te
Str
ate
gy
the
corp
ora
te s
tra
teg
y p
lays
an
imp
ort
ant
ro
le i
n co
rpo
rate
co
mm
unic
atio
n a
s it
serv
es a
s a
pla
n fo
r th
e up
com
ing
rep
ort
-in
g p
erio
d a
nd r
evea
ls t
he m
ain
str
ate
gic
the
mes
of
the
corp
o-
ratio
n. i
t re
flec
ts t
o w
hat
exte
nt S
/CR
is c
ons
ider
ed a
bus
ines
s im
per
ativ
e a
nd p
art
of
the
core
str
ate
gy.
0–2
po
ints
the
corp
ora
te s
tra
teg
y d
oes
no
t re
fer
to S
/CR.
S/C
R is
pa
rt o
f th
e co
rpo
rate
st
rate
gy,
but
is
des
crib
ed
in g
ener
al
term
s a
nd n
ot
spec
ifie
d a
s a
n o
wn
stra
teg
ic
them
e.
S/C
R is
a c
ritic
al
pa
rt o
f th
e co
re s
tra
teg
y, r
efle
cted
th
roug
h a
n o
wn
stra
teg
ic
them
e.
—
S/C
R i
n R
isk
Mg
mt
Se
ctio
n
the
risk
ma
nag
emen
t se
ctio
n o
f th
e a
nnua
l re
po
rt p
rovi
des
in
form
atio
n o
n ke
y ri
sks
a c
om
pa
ny h
as
iden
tifie
d a
nd h
ow
it
pla
ns t
o m
itig
ate
the
m.
0–1
po
ints
the
risk
ma
nag
emen
t se
ctio
n d
oes
no
t en
com
pa
ss S
/CR
issu
es.
the
risk
ma
nag
emen
t se
ctio
n en
com
pa
sses
S/C
R is
sues
.—
—
De
fin
ed
S/C
R
Targ
ets
in o
rder
to
be
a g
oo
d c
orp
ora
te c
itize
n a
nd t
o t
ake
res
po
nsib
il-ity
fo
r th
eir
op
era
tions
ma
ny c
om
pa
nies
dev
elo
p s
usta
ina
bili
ty
stra
teg
ies
and
def
ine
S/C
R ta
rget
s.0
–2 p
oin
tsn
o t
arg
ets
tha
t a
dd
ress
S/C
R a
re d
efin
ed.
Def
ined
ta
rget
s a
re a
dd
ress
o
nly
one
asp
ect
of
S/C
R, f
or
exa
mp
le e
nvir
onm
enta
l to
pic
s.
Def
ined
ta
rget
s a
re c
om
mu-
nica
ted
tha
t a
dd
ress
a r
ang
e o
f d
imen
sio
ns o
f S/
CR,
fo
r ex
am
ple
env
iro
nmen
tal,
as
wel
l a
s, s
oci
al
go
als
.
—
PR
INC
IPLE
D
CO
MM
ITM
EN
Tth
is f
ocu
s a
rea
co
n-ta
ins
kpi
s th
at
eva
lu-
ate
whi
ch d
iffe
rent
p
olic
es a
co
mp
any
ha
s d
efin
ed.
Co
de
of
Co
nd
uct
A C
oC
is
a w
ritte
n se
t o
f p
rinc
iple
s th
at
is i
ssue
d b
y a
n o
rga
ni-
zatio
n to
its
em
plo
yees
and
ma
nag
emen
t a
nd t
hat
form
s th
e b
asi
s fo
r w
hat
is e
xpec
ted
fro
m t
hem
. fu
rthe
r, i
t is
int
end
ed t
o b
e a
ma
nua
l th
at
tha
t o
ffer
s su
pp
ort
in
da
y-to
-da
y d
ecis
ion-
ma
king
.
0–1
po
ints
A C
oC
is
not
pub
licly
a
vaila
ble
.A
Co
C i
s p
ublic
ly a
vaila
ble
.—
—
Su
pp
lie
r C
od
e
of
Co
nd
uct
A S
upp
lier
Co
C i
s a
set
of
rule
s o
utln
ing
the
so
cia
l no
rms
and
re
spo
nsib
ilitie
s o
f, o
r p
rop
er p
ract
ices
fo
r a
co
mp
any
’s s
up-
plie
rs.
0–1
po
ints
A S
upp
lier
Co
C i
s no
t p
ublic
ly
ava
ilab
le.
A S
upp
lier
Co
C i
s p
ublic
ly
ava
ilab
le.
——
Hu
ma
n R
igh
ts
Po
licy
A h
uma
n Ri
ght
s po
licy
enco
mp
ass
es a
co
mp
any
’s s
tanc
e o
n h
uma
n Ri
ght
s is
sues
.0
–1 p
oin
ts
A h
uma
n Ri
ght
s po
licy
is n
ot
pub
licly
ava
ilab
le n
or
is a
p
art
of
the
Co
C d
edic
ate
d t
o th
is t
op
ic.
A h
uma
n Ri
ght
s po
licy
is
pub
licly
ava
ilab
le o
r a
pa
rt
of
the
Co
C i
s d
edic
ate
d t
o th
is t
op
ic.
——
Em
plo
yee
He
alt
h
an
d S
afe
ty P
oli
cyA
n em
plo
yee
hea
lth a
nd S
afe
ty p
olic
y en
com
pa
sses
a c
om
-p
any
’s s
tanc
e o
n is
sues
reg
ard
ing
its
em
plo
yees
’ w
ell-
bei
ng.
0–1
po
ints
An
emp
loye
e h
ealth
and
Sa
fety
po
licy
is n
ot
pub
licly
a
vaila
ble
no
r is
a p
art
of
the
Co
C d
edic
ate
d t
o t
his
top
ic.
An
emp
loye
e h
ealth
and
Sa
fety
po
lic p
olic
y is
pub
licly
a
vaila
ble
or
a p
art
of
the
Co
C
is d
edic
ate
d t
o t
his
top
ic.
——
An
ti-C
orr
up
tio
n
Po
licy
An
Ant
i-C
orr
uptio
n po
licy
des
crib
es h
ow
a c
om
pa
ny h
and
les
the
pro
ble
m o
f co
rrup
tion.
0–1
po
ints
An
Ant
i-C
orr
uptio
n po
licy
is
not
pub
licly
ava
ilab
le n
or
is a
p
art
of
the
Co
C d
edic
ate
d t
o th
is t
op
ic.
An
Ant
i-C
orr
uptio
n po
licy
is
pub
licly
ava
ilab
le o
r a
pa
rt
of
the
Co
C i
s d
edic
ate
d t
o th
is t
op
ic.
——
En
vir
on
me
nt
P
oli
cyA
n en
viro
nmen
tal
polic
y d
escr
ibes
a c
om
pa
ny’s
phi
loso
phy
, in
tent
ions
and
ob
ject
ives
reg
ard
ing
the
env
iro
nmen
t.0
–1 p
oin
ts
An
envi
ronm
ent
polic
y is
no
t p
ublic
ly a
vaila
ble
no
r is
a
pa
rt o
f th
e C
oC
ded
ica
ted
to
this
to
pic
.
An
envi
ronm
ent
polic
y is
p
ublic
ly a
vaila
ble
or
a p
art
o
f th
e C
oC
is
ded
ica
ted
to
this
to
pic
.
——
22 sco
rin
g s
ch
eMe
Wa
lk k
Pis
focu
s a
rea
KP
Isd
esc
rip
tio
n
sco
rin
g
po
int
ran
ge
/
dis
trib
uti
on
sco
rin
g s
cale
0 p
oin
tsp
rere
qu
isit
e f
or
1 p
oin
tp
rere
qu
isit
e f
or
2 p
oin
tsp
rere
qu
isit
e f
or
3 p
oin
ts
RE
PO
RTIN
G
AC
CO
UN
TAB
ILIT
Y th
is f
ocu
s a
rea
con
tain
s a
ll k
pis
tha
t a
im a
t m
easu
re
the
deg
ree
to w
hic
h a
co
mp
an
y re
po
rts
in a
n a
cco
un
tab
le
ma
nn
er.
Inte
gra
ted
R
ep
ort
ing
inte
gra
ted
Rep
ort
ing
des
crib
es a
rep
ort
ing
pra
ctic
e th
at
con
-ci
sely
co
mm
un
ica
tes
an
org
an
iza
tio
n’s
stra
teg
y, g
ove
rna
nce
, p
erfo
rma
nce
an
d p
rosp
ects
, in
th
e co
nte
xt o
f it
s ex
tern
al
envi
ron
men
t. i
t is
an
ho
listi
c re
view
on
the
crea
tio
n o
f va
lue
ove
r ti
me
an
d c
on
nec
ts r
epo
rtin
g a
n fi
na
nci
als
wit
h su
sta
in-
ab
ility
per
form
an
ce.
the
<iR
> s
tan
da
rd b
y th
e ii
RC
is
giv
en
to c
om
pa
nie
s w
ho
se r
epo
rtin
g i
s in
lin
e w
ith
the
fra
mew
ork
.
0–1
po
ints
the
rep
ort
ing
is
not
in a
cco
rd-
anc
e w
ith t
he <
iR>
sta
nda
rd.
the
rep
ort
ing
ref
ers
to t
he
iiRC
or
the
inte
rna
tiona
l <
iR>
fra
mew
ork
, o
r is
in
flue
nced
by
the
fra
mew
ork
th
roug
h p
art
icip
atio
n in
<iR
>
net
wo
rks.
——
Exte
rna
l A
ssu
ran
ce
exte
rna
l a
ssur
anc
e o
f S/
CR
rep
ort
ing
giv
es c
red
ibili
ty t
o t
he
pro
vid
ed i
nfo
rma
tion
and
the
per
cep
tion
of
the
com
pa
ny a
s tr
ans
pa
rent
and
rel
iab
le.
0–1
po
ints
no
ext
erna
l a
ssur
anc
e
of
S/C
R re
po
rtin
g.ex
tern
al
ass
ura
nce
of
S/C
R re
po
rtin
g.—
—
GR
I R
ep
ort
ing
gRi
3 a
nd a
nd t
o a
gre
ate
r ex
tent
gRi
4 c
ove
r a
wid
e ra
nge
of
dif
fere
nt a
spec
ts a
nd a
re a
hel
pfu
l so
urce
of
info
rma
tion
for
exte
rna
l st
ake
hold
ers
whe
n ev
alu
atin
g s
usta
ina
bili
ty p
erfo
r-m
anc
e a
nd t
rans
pa
renc
y.
0–2
po
ints
the
rep
ort
ing
is
not
in a
cco
rd-
anc
e w
ith a
ny o
f th
e g
Ri
fra
mew
ork
s.
the
rep
ort
ing
is
in a
cco
rda
nce
with
the
gRi
3 f
ram
ewo
rk.
the
rep
ort
ing
is
in a
cco
rda
nce
with
the
gRi
4 f
ram
ewo
rk.
—
FOLL
OW
-UP
A
CTI
ON
Sth
is f
ocu
s a
rea
cont
ain
s k
pis
tha
t a
sses
s if
co
mm
uni-
cate
d t
arg
ets,
co
des
a
nd p
olic
ies
are
fo
llow
ed u
p.
De
fin
ed
S/C
R
Targ
ets
Fo
llo
w-u
p
S/C
R ta
rget
s ne
ed t
o b
e d
efin
ed i
n a
qua
ntif
iab
le w
ay,
with
re
ga
rd t
o s
cop
e a
nd t
ime
fra
me.
fur
ther
, th
e d
iscl
osu
re o
f a
ctua
l p
erfo
rma
nce
tow
ard
s g
oa
l a
chie
vem
ent
and
the
em
bed
-d
ing
of
targ
ets
in a
lo
nger
-ter
m o
rien
ted
sus
tain
ab
ility
str
ate
gy
are
oth
er a
spec
ts t
hat
incr
ease
the
qua
lity
of
a c
om
pa
ny’s
S/
CR
targ
ets.
0–3
po
ints
S/C
R ta
rget
s a
re n
ot
def
ined
a
t a
ll, o
r th
ey a
re n
ot
def
ined
in
a q
uant
ifia
ble
wa
y. (
this
m
eans
tha
t th
e sc
op
e o
f th
e ta
rget
is
not
clea
rly
nam
ed
and
/or
tha
t no
due
da
te i
s st
ate
d.)
S/C
R ta
rget
s a
re d
efin
ed a
nd
qua
ntif
iab
le w
ith r
ega
rd t
o sc
op
e a
nd t
ime.
S/C
R ta
rget
s a
re d
efin
ed a
nd
are
qua
ntif
iab
le w
ith r
ega
rd t
o sc
op
e a
nd t
ime.
Ad
diti
ona
lly,
the
com
pa
ny r
epo
rts
on
its
curr
ent
per
form
anc
e to
wa
rds
go
al
ach
ieve
men
t.
S/C
R ta
rget
s a
re d
efin
ed
and
the
y a
re q
uant
ifia
ble
, w
ith r
ega
rd t
o s
cop
e, a
s w
ell
as,
tim
e. A
dd
itio
nally
, th
e co
mp
any
do
es n
ot
onl
y re
po
rt
on
its c
urre
nt p
erfo
rma
nce
tow
ard
s g
oa
l a
chie
vem
ent
but
als
o e
mb
eds
its t
arg
ets
in
a l
ong
er-t
erm
sus
tain
ab
ility
st
rate
gy.
Su
pp
lie
r C
od
e o
f C
on
du
ct F
oll
ow
-up
the
follo
w-u
p o
f th
e Su
pp
lier
Co
de
of
Co
nduc
t se
rves
as
an
effe
ctiv
e to
ol
to p
ut S
/CR
into
pra
ctic
e. t
he a
udit
of
sup
pli-
ers’
co
mp
lianc
e w
ith t
he c
od
e is
wa
y to
do
so
. A
co
mp
any
ca
n ex
pre
ss i
ts c
onc
ern
for
this
ma
tter
furh
ter
by
dis
clo
sing
no
t o
nly
the
num
ber
of
aud
its b
ut a
dd
itio
nally
, th
e sh
are
of
aud
ited
sup
-p
liers
to
all
sup
plie
rs.
0–2
po
ints
ther
e is
no
inf
orm
atio
n re
ga
rdin
g a
fo
llow
-up
on
an
exis
ting
Sup
plie
r C
od
e o
f C
ond
uct.
ther
e is
a S
upp
lier
Co
de
of
Co
nduc
t a
nd t
he n
umb
er o
f a
udits
on
sup
plie
rs’
com
pli-
anc
e is
dis
clo
sed
, a
s w
ell.
ther
e is
a S
upp
lier
Co
de
of
Co
nduc
t a
nd t
he n
umb
er o
f a
udits
on
sup
plie
rs’
com
pli-
anc
e is
dis
clo
sed
, a
s w
ell.
Ad
diti
ona
lly t
he s
hare
of
aud
ited
to
all
sup
plie
rs i
s d
iscl
ose
d.
—
Hu
ma
n R
igh
ts
Po
licy
Fo
llo
w-u
pth
e fo
llow
-up
of
the
hum
an
Rig
hts
polic
y se
rves
as
an
effe
ctiv
e to
ol
to p
ut S
/CR
into
pra
ctic
e.0
–1 p
oin
tsth
ere
is n
o i
nfo
rma
tion
reg
ard
ing
a f
ollo
w-u
p o
n a
n ex
istin
g h
uma
n Ri
ght
s po
licy.
ther
e is
inf
orm
atio
n re
ga
rd-
ing
a f
ollo
w-u
p o
n a
n ex
istin
g h
uma
n Ri
ght
s po
licy.
——
2323 FOLL
OW
-UP
A
CTI
ON
S(C
ont
inue
d f
rom
p
revi
ous
pa
ge)
Em
plo
yee
He
alt
h
an
d S
afe
ty P
oli
cy
Fo
llo
w-u
p
the
follo
w-u
p o
f th
e em
plo
yee
hea
lth a
nd S
afe
ty p
olic
y se
rves
a
s a
n ef
fect
ive
too
l to
put
S/C
R in
to p
ract
ice.
0–1
po
ints
ther
e is
no
inf
orm
atio
n re
ga
rdin
g a
fo
llow
-up
on
an
exis
ting
em
plo
yee
hea
lth a
nd
Safe
ty p
olic
y.
ther
e is
inf
orm
atio
n re
ga
rd-
ing
a f
ollo
w-u
p o
n a
n ex
istin
g em
plo
yee
hea
lth a
nd S
afe
ty
polic
y.
——
An
ti-C
orr
up
tio
n
Po
licy
Fo
llo
w-u
pth
e fo
llow
-up
of
the
Ant
i-co
rrup
tion
polic
y se
rves
as
an
effe
ctiv
e to
ol
to p
ut S
/CR
into
pra
ctic
e.0
–1 p
oin
tsth
ere
is n
o i
nfo
rma
tion
reg
ard
ing
a f
ollo
w-u
p o
n a
n ex
istin
g A
nti-
Co
rrup
tion
polic
y
ther
e is
inf
orm
atio
n re
ga
rd-
ing
a f
ollo
w-u
p o
n a
n ex
istin
g A
nti-
Co
rrup
tion
polic
y—
—
En
vir
on
me
nt
Po
licy
Fo
llo
w-u
pth
e fo
llow
-up
of
the
envi
ronm
enta
l po
licy
serv
es a
s a
n ef
fect
ive
too
l to
put
S/C
R in
to p
ract
ice.
0–1
po
ints
ther
e is
no
inf
orm
atio
n re
ga
rdin
g a
fo
llow
-up
on
an
exis
ting
env
iro
nmen
t po
licy.
ther
e is
inf
orm
atio
n re
ga
rd-
ing
a f
ollo
w-u
p o
n a
n ex
istin
g en
viro
nmen
t po
licy.
——
TOP
-LEV
EL
CO
MM
ITM
EN
Tth
is f
ocu
s a
rea
co
n-ta
ins
kpi
s th
at
ass
ess
the
top
-lev
el s
truc
ture
a
nd c
onc
rete
act
ions
b
y th
is l
evel
to
emb
edd
S/C
R in
the
o
rga
niza
tion.
Co
C s
ign
ed
by
CE
OA
sig
ned
Co
C s
how
s th
e im
po
rta
nce
of
this
do
cum
ent
to t
he
org
ani
zatio
n a
nd t
he a
cco
unta
bili
ty o
f th
e C
eo o
r pr
esid
ent.
0–1
po
ints
Co
C i
s no
t p
ublic
ly a
vaila
ble
o
r no
t si
gne
d b
y th
e C
eo.
Co
C i
s no
t o
nly
pub
licly
ava
il-a
ble
but
sig
ned
by
the
Ceo
, a
s w
ell.
——
S/C
R E
xecu
tive
in G
rou
p M
gm
t
if t
he S
/CR
exec
utiv
e is
pa
rt o
f th
e g
roup
ma
nag
emen
t th
is
per
son
po
sses
s p
ow
er a
nd d
ecis
ion-
ma
king
aut
hori
ty t
o p
ut S
/C
R o
n th
e a
gen
da
and
is
on
eye-
leve
l w
ith a
ll th
e o
ther
“m
ain
” o
rga
nisa
tiona
l fu
nctio
ns.
to h
ighl
ight
the
im
po
rta
nce
of
this
m
ana
gem
ent
stru
ctur
e tw
o a
nd n
ot
just
one
po
int
is g
iven
to
com
pa
nies
with
suc
h a
to
p-l
evel
str
uctu
re.
0–2
po
ints
the
S/C
R ex
ecut
ive
is n
ot
pa
rt o
f th
e g
roup
ma
nag
men
t te
am
.—
the
S/C
R ex
ecut
ive
is p
art
of
the
gro
up m
ana
gm
ent
tea
m.
—
Ge
nd
er
Ba
lan
ce i
n
Bo
ard
of
Dir
ect
ors
Sust
ain
ab
le a
nd p
rog
ress
ive
com
pa
nies
are
exp
ecte
d t
o p
ro-
mo
te g
end
er b
ala
nce
and
eq
ualit
y, n
ot
lea
st a
t th
e to
p-l
evel
.C
om
pa
nies
with
a 4
0-6
0%
sha
re o
f ei
ther
one
of
the
gen
der
s in
the
ir b
oD
(ex
clud
ing
em
plo
yee
Rep
rese
nta
tives
) ha
ve b
een
aw
ard
ed p
oin
ts i
n th
e st
udy.
0–1
po
ints
the
sha
re o
f w
om
en i
n th
e b
oa
rd o
f D
irec
tors
is
not
in t
he
rang
e o
f 4
0-6
0%
.
the
sha
re o
f w
om
en i
n th
e b
oa
rd o
f D
irec
tors
is
in t
he
rang
e o
f 4
0-6
0%
. —
—
24
for inquiries about the study or the results, please feel free to contact us.
the Walking the talk research teaM
lin lerpolduta hönemannelisabet Ålandererik WikbergJohan eliasson
mistra Center for Sustainable markets (miSum)Stockholm School of economicsp.o box 6501, Se-113 83 Stockholm, Sweden
https://www.hhs.se/en/research/institutes/misum-startpage/
e-mail: [email protected]
7. contact inForMation
25
26
