Benchmark CSR by 25 AEX companies. in the Netherlands 2012 Business Balance method for CSR performance

Transcription

1 Benchmark CSR by 25 AEX companies in the Netherlands 2012 Business Balance method for CSR performance

2 Pieterstraat JT Utrecht T +31 (0) [email protected] Benchmark CSR by 25 AEX companies in the Netherlands 2012 Business Balance method for CSR performance A research paper by VBDO (Dutch Association of Investors for Sustainable Development) VBDO: Chris Bres, Philip Cotterell, Jeroom Remmers In cooperation with Cataly Partners: Herbert Eppinga September 2012 VBDO report by the Dutch Association of Investors for Sustainable Development (Vereniging van Beleggers voor Duurzame Ontwikkeling) Disclaimer VBDO will assume no responsibility or legal liability for incorrect or misleading information provided by the sources used for this report. 2 2 THE DUTCH A SSOCIATION OF INVESTORS FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

3 Contents Executive summary 5 Foreword 7 Chapter 1 Introduction 8 Chapter 2 Research method and process Research objective Researched companies Research period Research process Scoring model Business Balance People Planet Profit Performance Level Performance Balance Business Balance and other CSR ranking methods 16 Chapter 3 Results Results Results 2012 People Results 2012 Planet Results 2012 Profit Performance Level Performance Balance Results 2011 Performance Level Results 2010 Performance Level Feedback of stakeholders Relationship between CSR- and financial performance of AEX companies between Chapter 4 Conclusions and recommendations 36 Appendix: Business Balance Score Aegon 2. Ahold 3. Air France-KLM 4. AkzoNobel 3

4 5. Aperam 6. Arcelor Mittal 7. ASML 8. Boskalis Westminster 9. Corio 10. DSM 11. Fugro 12. Heineken 13. ING 14. KPN 15. Philips 16. PostNL 17. Randstad Holding 18. Reed Elsevier 19. Royal Dutch Shell 20. SBM-Offshore 21. TNT Express 22. TomTom 23. Unibail-Rodamco 24. Unilever 25. Wolters-Kluwer 26. Overview table CSR scores 25 AEX companies Five year graphics stock rates of AEX companies 4

5 Executive summary This is the first VBDO report for the new Business Balance Standard, a CSR measurement method developed in cooperation with Cataly Partners. This CSR benchmark was applied to the 25 largest Dutch listed companies, those listed in the AEX. The Standard was created in order to provide retail (and other) investors with a clear and quick insight into both the level of corporate sustainability (scores on environmental, social and profit criteria) and the balance between these three dimensions. The Business Balance gives information about both CSR performance (environmental and social criteria) and financial performance. The VBDO hopes that with this tool, investors choose more often to invest in high sustainability companies, with the good scores for overall environmental, social and economic performance in the Business Balance. Retail investors are often more interested in short term financial results than in high CSR performances of companies. Yet according to international research, high-sustainability companies perform better over time financially compared to low-sustainability companies. The Business Balance results for individual AEX-companies will be published on a VBDO-website for retail (and other investors). Here they will find all relevant and recent company CSR information. Companies can present their CSR news here as well. The Business Balance Standard aims to include several other standards and guidelines such as the Dow Jones Sustainability Index, ISO 26000, SA 8000, GRI, OECD Guidelines and the ILO Declaration of Human Rights. For the Business Balance, each company is scored on three indicators (People, Planet and Profit), comprising 17 sub-indicators. The information that is used for this review comes from publicly available sources, the most important being the company s Annual Report and CSR Report. The scores thus also depend on the transparency of the company s reporting. In general, the score depends on the number of criteria that have been mentioned, the extent to which these are part of the organisation (from a general policy level to a specific management level), and the performance on these criteria. Most subjects are soft indicators as described above. There are, however, a few subjects that have stricter criteria. Most notably here is Financial Health and Stability (sub-indicator 3.1). Here a number of measurements are used (Liquidity, Solvency, Cash Flow and Reserves) to assess the companies. The main findings are summarised below: The average Performance Level (the average combined score for People, Planet and Profit) increased over the last three years: 36% in 2010, 48% in 2011 and 55% in The average score for People increased as follows: 40% in 2010, 53% in 2011, 63% in The average score for Planet increased as follows: 27% in 2010, 38% in 2011, 45% in The average score for Profit increased as follows: 41% in 2010, 53% in 2011, 57% in The balance score remained roughly the same: 80% in 2010, 78% in 2011, and 80 in The top three companies for Performance Level in 2012 are: Unilever, DSM, and Akzo Nobel. The top ten companies for Performance Balance in 2012 are: Akzo Nobel, Unilever, Reed Elsevier, Heineken, Philips, TNT Express, Unibail Rodamco, Corio and ASML. The bottom three companies for Performance Level in 2012 are: Aperam, Fugro, and Tom- Tom. The bottom three companies for Performance Balance in 2012 are: Air France-KLM, Randstad, and TomTom. Overall, the AEX-companies scored high on the following sub-indicators: Organisational Governance and Labour Practices for People, Environmental Analysis and Environmental Control for Planet, Capability Management and Shareholder Value and Involvement for Profit. 5

6 Overall, the companies scored low on the following sub-indicators: Consumer Issues for People, Environmental Response and Environmental Costs for Planet, Commercial Performance for Profit. The top 10 high sustainability companies in the AEX (based on the Business Balance Performance Level) had an average stock rate change in the last three years (2009, 2010, 2011) of + 46,2 %. In this top 10, TNT Express is replaced by ASML (nr. 11), because there are no stock rate data available for TNT Express for ). The low sustainability 10 companies in the AEX with the lowest rates in the Business Ba-lance Performance Level, had an average stock rate change in the last three years of + 10,2 %. The conclusion is that during a period of three years ( ) financial returns in terms of stock rate were 36% higher in 10 high sustainability companies listed on the AEX, compared to 10 low sustainability companies in the AEX. For investors, this information is very useful for choosing companies to invest. Of course, the conclusion holds for groups of companies, not for individual companies. The conclusion if also confirmed in international research (e.g. Harvard Business School). Based on these findings, the VBDO makes the following recommendations for the companies involved: The VBDO recommends investors, looking for long term and high returns on investment, to choose for (groups of) high sustainability companies. The VBDO recommends all 25 AEX companies to analyse the Business Balance Standard to look for possible improvements in CSR performance. This can optimise financial results as well. For companies with an imbalance in the scores for People, Planet and Profit, the VBDO recommends them to analyse the reasons for this and look at the possibilities for a more balanced CRS-performance. Furthermore, the VBDO recommends all AEX companies with very low scores (a score of 0% or 25%) on one of the 17 sub-indicators, to analyse the reasons for the low scores and study possibilities for improvements in 2013 and later. For instance, nearly all companies have low scores for the sub-indicator Environmental Costs of Environmental Response. The VBDO recommends all 25 AEX companies to join (international) CSR benchmarks, like the Dow Jones Sustainability Index or the Carbon Disclosure Project. This makes it better to compare AEX-companies with one another on CSR-items. Feedback of stakeholders on the Business Balance method was given in a workshop on september The most important comments were: Ten companies of the 25 AEX companies did not review the draft results of the Business Balance 2012 scores for their company (Philips, Shell, Reed Elsevier, SBM-Offshore, TomTom, KPN for instance). It is possible that some of the scores of these companies are under estimated. The scores for 2010 and 2011 were not reviewed by all companies. This means that scores in the Business Balance have a certain uncertainty margin. This uncertainty margin is the greatest for the financial criteria. Some companies don t publish specific results in their annual or CSR report, because they are part of the standard operations, like safety and emergency plans, or ILO standards. But according to the Business Balance method, they cannot have a good score for this indicator, if results are not published. Some companies think they deserve a 100% score more often for some indicators. 6

7 Foreword This is the first report on the outcome of our new Business Balance Standard, developed in cooperation with Cataly Partners. This is a CSR ranking method, used for 25 AEX companies. As part of our mission is to grow the sustainable capital market, the VBDO stimulates companies to become better investment opportunities for responsible investors. They can do so by taking into account non-financial elements like social and environmental indicators, thus reducing risk and creating value in the long term. Institutional investors have access to relevant data that will help them to assess the total performance of these companies. For private investors this information is hardly available. The Business Balance Standard aims at giving these investors rapid insight in both the level of corporate sustainability (how high do they score on environmental, social and profit criteria) and the balance between these three dimensions. This information, combined with other concise and practical information on our corporate information website nl, will give private investors the tools they need to make a sound and sustainable investment decision, assuring their money delivers threefold returns. Combined with a loyal, long term oriented ownership, including an involved engagement and sound voting practice by the investor, often through organisations like the VBDO, this behaviour will make companies more solid and our economy more resilient. This study looks at the corporate responsible performance of the largest Dutch listed companies, those listed in the AEX. I would like to compliment Unilever with their first place. However, as the top 3 has not changed since last year, I encourage the rest of the group to challenge these positions! The fact that overall results have increased dramatically over the last 3 years is a promising sign that large corporations understand the value of sustainability and CSRreporting, and aim at a balanced attention for people, planet and profit. Giuseppe van der Helm Director VBDO 7

8 1 Introduction Sustainable and responsible investments are increasing their market share. Institutional investors have long recognised the importance of investing In companies that are long term oriented and take non-financial elements into account. This will reduce risks and increase value creation. However, the share of their business that is sustainable is far higher than that of the retail market, the private investors. At the same time, the retail markets of SRI (Sustainable and Responsible Investments) funds and savings have been growing for 12 years in a row, in spite of several main crises. We do not know how many private shareholders take non-financial criteria into account when making a decision to invest in a company, but based on the retail SRI market and our experience at annual general meetings (AGM s), this probably is a rather low percentage. How is it possible that the retail SRI market is rather low compared to the institutional market? One reason might be the lack of knowledge on the highly complex issue of sustainability and corporate social responsibility. Is CSR the same as sustainability? How do ethics tie in? Will returns suffer, and what about risks? How long will I have to wait for positive results, as we talk about a long term process? Do I limit my universe when I exclude too many companies? As it is the aim of the VBDO to address sustainability through capital markets, we thought it would be useful to help private investors to get insight into the level of sustainability of listed companies. For this reasons we have launched a website, (the English version can be found under that lists information on environmental, social and financial performance of a company. It also gives specific information per sector and per theme. All information is based both on publicly available information or made available by professional data providers. Also the results of this study, the detailed Business Balance Reviews of 25 AEX companies, will be published on our website. Until now we did not have an indicator that gives an overview of both the extent of sustainability and the balance between the three dimensions: People, Planet and (financial) Performance. That s where Business Balance comes in. The VBDO analysed 25 AEX companies conform the Business Balance Standard (2012) using publicly available information of the financial year In the two previous years, the VBDO also analysed AEX companies conform the Business Balance, but the VBDO did not publish the results. In 2012, the results of 2010 and 2011 will be published for the first time, so also trends can be seen during three years. In 2010 the method was different (more elaborate) than the following years, but the results are still comparable. In the Business Balance Standard, several standards and guidelines such as the Dow Jones Sustainability Index, ISO 26000, SA 8000, GRI, OECD Guidelines and the ILO declaration are included. The Business Balance Standard is a voluntary standard containing concrete, measurable and actionable requirements for the management of an organisation, relevant for a sustainable society and business environment. The Business Balance Standard supports measuring CSR efforts and performance improvement, and fits an international application. 8

9 Business Balance does not focus on the core business in the first place, but on the management of an organisation. According to the Business Balance Standard, a wind park operator could be less sustainable or social responsible than a traditional oil company. The Business Balance strives for a balanced approach to People, Planet and Profit, while allowing that some of these areas may get more attention than others over time, depending on the economic trends, the organisation s development and stakeholders interests. Business Balance interprets sustainability as: People: Long-term continuity from a socio-economic perspective; Planet: Long-term continuity from an environmental and ecological perspective; Profit: Long-term continuity from a business perspective, fulfilling current needs without taking away the possibilities to fulfil future needs. 9

10 2 2.1 Research method and process Research objective The Business Balance Review has the following objectives: Providing objective and measureable expectations towards several target groups, relevant for Corporate Social Responsibility. Target groups are: retail and institutional investors, the companies involved and its stakeholders; Promoting the balance between People, Planet and Profit, and the overall improvement towards a more sustainable society and business environment; Promoting Corporate Social Responsibility to become part of the main strategy, organisation and policy of a company; Providing a tool to support stakeholder dialogue based on balanced facts and figures, rather than (single-focused) interests and opinions. Make sustainability measurable in 17 different criteria for People, Planet and Profit. See table 1: Table 1: CSR - criteria Business Balance 1. People 2. Planet 3. Profit 1.1 Organisational Governance 2.1 Environmental Analysis 3.1 Financial Health & Stability 1.2 Human Rights 2.2 Environmental Control 3.2 Shareholder Value & Involvement 1.3 Labour Practices 2.3 Environmental Response 3.3 Commercial Performance 1.4 Fair Operating Practices 2.4 Environmental Costs 3.4 Capability Management 1.5 Consumer Issues 2.5 Environmental 3.5 Long-Term Planning Improvement 1.6 Supplier Issues 1.7 Socio-Economic Development 2.2 Researched companies The Business Balance 2012 includes all 25 Dutch AEX companies. In 2010, the Business Balance included 22 companies. Unibail-Rodamco, Aperam and Arcelor-Mittal were not AEX-listed at that time. Table 2: researched companies in 2012 Company Index Sector Aegon Group AEX Financial Ahold (Royal) AEX Retail Air France-KLM AEX Transport AkzoNobel AEX Chemical Aperam AEX Industry Arcelor Mittal AEX Industry ASML AEX Electronics Boskalis Westminster (Royal) AEX Construction Corio AEX Real Estate DSM (Royal) AEX Chemical 10

11 Company Index Sector Fugro AEX Construction Heineken AEX Food ING Group AEX Financial KPN (Royal) AEX ICT Philips (Royal) AEX Electronics PostNL AEX Transport Randstad Holding AEX Services Reed Elsevier AEX Media SBM-Offshore AEX Chemical / technical Shell (Royal Dutch) AEX Chemical TNT Express AEX Transport TomTom AEX ICT Unibail-Rodamco AEX Real Estate Unilever AEX Food Wolters Kluwer AEX Media 2.3 Research period The Business Balance Review was executed in june-august 2012 for 2012, in December 2011 for 2011 and july august 2010 for The annual reports and CSR reports of AEX companies in the years 2009, 2010 and 2012 were subject of the research. 2.4 Research process The Business Balance Review Process consists of the following steps: 1. Identify AEX Companies 2. Identify Business Balance Reviewer(s) 3. Develop Business Balance Review excel sheet per AEX company 4. Identify publicly available sources of the AEX Company 5. Read publicly available sources 6. Verify whether those sources match with 17 Business Balance Criteria 7. Describe evidence for compliance with the criteria and describe when criteria are not met 8. Score for all criteria, based on implementation level (N/A, 0%, 25% 50%, 75% and 100%) 9. Quality Control of content by second reader 10. Sent out the Draft Business Balance Review Excel Sheet to AEX Company 11. Receive comments of AEX Company and decide when changes are to be inserted 12. Finalize Business Balance Review (Overall Scorecard and Detailed Excel Sheet) 13. Presentation Business Balance Review Results in Yearly Workshop 2.5 Scoring model Business Balance The Business Balance does not focus on the core business in the first place, but on the management of an organisation. 11

12 Set-up The Business Balance Review contains 17 requirements. These requirements are set against subjects and aspects generally recognised as relevant for sustainable development, or Corporate Social Responsibility. Application Business Balance Review can be applied in small, medium and large organisations, in the profit, not-for-profit and public sectors. Review Approach Review of compliance with the Business Balance requirements is conducted by measuring the level of implementation reported in websites, CSR reports, financial reports, etc. The level of implementation must be demonstrated by communication /reports and websites.\. Review Principles 1. A Business Balance review is a measurement of the transparancy of the implementation level of a certain requirement. It is not a matter of compliance or non-compliance; 2. A Business Balance review is focused on demonstrable implementation of the requirements. Publicly available evidence is required. Demonstrating actual performance is most important. 3. A sustainable business is a long-term business, and should not be the result of a short-term effort. Therefore, a maximum score of 100% can only be achieved by demonstrating continuous implementation over years; 4. The outcomes of a Business Balance review are not a matter of right or wrong. Implementation levels depend on the size and age of an organisation, and the duration of CSR attention. The outcomes provide an understanding of current performance and are the basis for improvement towards a more sustainable business, without prescribing improvement targets. Table 3: Implementation Levels The implementation of Business Balance requirements is determined per Aspect, and is expressed with the following levels: N/A *) The Aspect is not applicable to the reviewed organisation. This may only be the case when the organisation demonstrates that it is not relevant at all to the organisation. The Aspect may then be left from the performance calculations. 0% Has the organisation reported about the subject? 25% 1. Does the organisation state that formal systems are in place for the requirements? 2. Does the organisation declare that there are embedded and well-accepted working practices related to the subject, or just that initiatives or actions have been undertaken? 50% Does the reporting include at least the majority of the requirements from Business Balance? 75% Are there enough examples and evidence in the reporting that prove the statements, claims and declarations in the reporting? 100% Has the organisation demonstrated that there has been consistent implementation over the past three years? *) not applicated in the 2012 research 12

13 Performance determination Implementation levels are determined per Business Balance Aspect. The implementation level of a Business Balance Subject is the average of the levels per underlying Aspect. The implementation level per Focus Area People, Planet or Profit is the average of the underlying Subjects. Business Balance performance is expressed in two dimensions: 1. The overall performance level, as a percentage of the maximum implementation 2. The performance balance, as a percentage in the range of minimum and maximum standard deviation between the performance levels of People, Planet and Profit. The performance balance indicates the level of equal attention to People, Planet and Profit. The following paragraphs describe shortly the 17 criteria (People, Planet and Profit). 2.6 People 1 Organisational Governance The organisation shall implement systems to ensure awareness and understanding of all requirements and expectation from direct and indirect stakeholders, and shall make sure that these requirements and expectations are respected, and considered in a balanced way in decision making processes, ensuring at least compliance with the law. Decision making processes shall be transparent and prevent conflicts of interests. A system of reviews and appraisals shall be in place to objectively monitor and report compliance and performance. 2 Human Rights The organisation shall make sure that the human rights of its employees, its contractors, their relatives and the people influenced by the organisation s activities are respected, in line with international conventions and agreements. Where local circumstances do not allow full compliance with human rights, the organisation shall report on this transparently, document its policy to deal with those circumstances, and explain its efforts to change the business environment into the desired situation. 3 Labour Practices The organisation shall provide a safe and healthy workplace to its employees and service providers, ensure labour conditions and development opportunities in line with the guidelines of the International Labour Organisation (ILO). The organisation shall ensure that its hire personnel only on the basis of legally sound conditions, and equip personnel with sufficient means to fulfil their duties properly and safely. 4 Fair Operating Practices The organisation shall ensure that their operating practices, contractual agreements and competition are free of corruptive actions, undisclosed political involvement and breach of (intellectual) property rights. The organisation shall strictly adhere to fair and ethical competition practices, not taking unlegitimate advantage of a certain position in society or in relation to (potential) clients. 5 Consumer Issues Clients of the organisation, including private consumers shall be provided with complete, accurate and understandable information about the specification, application, pricing and service of delivered goods and services, including possible health and safety issues. Marketing and sales 13

14 must not be misleading, and clients and consumers must be able to make a good judgement before purchasing, and be provided with appropriate services, guarantees and dispute resolution processes. 6 Supplier Issues An organisation shall put in place a system to identify its key suppliers in respect of risks to human rights, labour practices and fair operating practices. The key suppliers of goods and services shall be evaluated with respect to their compliance with local legislation, internationally recognised standards for human rights, environmental protection and fair business, and the organisation s own requirements and expectations. In case of any identified gap, the organisation shall actively promote and support improvements with its suppliers and stop the business relation when there is no willingness to improve. The organisation itself shall maintain fair contracting practices with its suppliers. 7 Social and Economic Development of the Community Where local government or communities do not (have the ability to) support socio-economic development, the organization shall take responsibility in their sphere of influence, and to an extent appropriate for the size of the business in a certain area. There must be a policy on the identification of needs, the priority setting, allocation of resources and action tracking with respect to employment creation, wealth and income, public health, education, technology development and culture. Local values shall be respected when doing business. 2.7 Planet 1 Environmental Analysis The organisation shall maintain and implement a system of environmental analysis for its production processes, its products and services. This system shall take into account the environmental impacts of purchased goods and services, as well as the usage of the organisation s own created goods and services. The system shall cover all possible environmental aspects and impacts including usage of resources, pollution, emissions, waste and nuisance. The organisation shall be transparent about the outcomes of the environmental analyses, and shall keep this information up-to-date. 2 Environmental Control The organisation shall define a control policy for its environmental impacts, addressing at least impact severity levels and associated acceptance and action criteria, the approach to priority setting, and the preferred control hierarchy and types of controls. The policy shall at least state the organisation s position with respect the precautionary principle. Furthermore, the organisation shall demonstrate its control of environmental aspects and impacts according to this policy. 3 Environmental Response The organisation shall develop and implement plans and procedures to ensure a proper response to possible environmental emergencies as well as long term impacts related to the organisation s activities. These plans and procedures include emergency preparedness and direct response, recovery of caused environmental damage, compensation for non-recoverable impacts, and possible adaptation to irreversible environmental changes (partly) a result of the organisation s activities. 14

15 4 Environmental Cost The organisation shall make transparent and consider the costs of cause environmental impacts. Any control measure implemented shall be evaluated on cost-effectiveness. Moreover, the organisation shall commit to the polluter pays principle and ensure sufficient financial resources and/or insurances to cover any costs or liabilities. 5 Environmental Improvement The organization shall define suitable performance indicators, based on its environmental analyses, and measure performance in a consistent way over time. These performance indicators shall be both relative to the organisation s activity level, and in absolute terms. Based on the defined performance indicators, the organisation shall set feasible improvement targets and demonstrate actual environmental performance improvement over time. 2.8 Profit 1 Financial Health & Stability The organisation shall ensure and demonstrate that it is financially healthy and stable. The liquidity and solvency of the organisation shall be kept at a level to prevent short term and long term financial shortages. Any risks of jeopardising these levels shall be identified, and cash flow management and reservations shall be aligned. Any financial commitment shall be on the basis of sound business conditions. 2 Shareholder Value & Involvement A comprehensive and transparent policy should be in place regarding the value for shareholders, members or participants. This policy includes long-term continuity (5-10 years), business and/or social value development, as well as financial and non-financial benefits for shareholders, members or participants. Shareholder involvement, decision making processes and remuneration of the organisation s key personnel shall be supporting the established policy. 3 Commercial Performance The organisation shall pay explicit attention to and demonstrate its commercial performance in order to ensure long-term continuity of the organisation. As part of this the organisation shall ensure that it is not critically depending on any (small group of) parties upstream or downstream the supply chain, and the innovation of goods and/or services is appropriate to their live cycles and possible chaning business environment. 4 Capability Management The organisation shall keep its organisational capability for continuously meeting the requirements and expectations from the business environment. This shall include technological development, competence management and management development, information management, as well as planning for disaster recovery in case of a major event. 5 Long-Term Planning The organization shall make sure that its long-term existence is not endangered. It shall make sure that there is an appropriate business succession plan for management and/or owners, and that scenarios of changing business environments have been worked out and anticipated on. 15

16 2.9 Performance Level The results from the Business Balance Review are shown using the graph below. The Performance level (0-100%) indicates the performance and the improvement potential. In the graph below, the scores for People, Planet and Profit are resp. 50%, 39% and 40%. The average of the three scores is 43%. This is called the Performance Level. Figure 1: example of a PPP-balance sheet for a company 2.10 Performance Balance The Performance balance (0-100%) indicates the balance between the attention to People, Planet and Profit. In this figure 1, the Performance balance is not 100% (but ca. 80%). This is caused by the higher score for People compared to Planet and Profit. If all three scores are equal, the balance is 100% Business Balance and other CSR ranking methods More than 100 CSR ranking methods exists, but the most well known are the Dow Jones Sustainability Index (DJSI) and SAM. For sustainability aspects, like transparency, CO 2 -emissions or supply chain management, there are also specialised CSR benchmarks, like the Transparantie Benchmark, the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP), or the VBDO Responsible Supply Chain Benchmark. Dow Jones Sustainability Index (DJSI) The next five Dutch AEX companies were the supersector leaders in the Dow Jones Sustainability Index 2012, which means they are seen as the global nr. 1 in sustainable business in their sector: Table 4: Don Jones sustainability Index 2012 Supersector leader DJSI Sector DSM Chemical industry Philips Household electronics AirFrance/KLM Travel and leisure Unilever Food PostNL Industrial goods and services 16

17 Sustainability leaders SAM Another CSR benchmark is SAM. A lot of Dutch AEX companies have an internationally good score here. Table 5: sustainability leaders SAM Sustainability leader DSM AkzoNobel PostNL TNT Express Philips Unilever KPN Arcelor Mittal Ahold Heineken Aegon ING Reed Elsevier Wolters Kluwer SBM Offshore Corio ASML Class Gold Gold Gold Gold Gold Silver Silver Silver Bronze Bronze Bronze Bronze Bronze Bronze Bronze Bronze Bronze When the Business Balance Standard is compared with the DJSI, it can be seen that companies with a high ranking in the DJSI in 2012 are also highly ranked in the Business Balance Standard. In 2012 the DSJI super sector leaders in the world were DSM, Philips, Air France-KLM, Unilever and PostNL. Another international well know CSR benchmark is SAM. DJSI is part of the Dow Jones Indexes, following a best-in-class approach, including companies across all industries that outperform their peers in numerous sustainability metrics. SAM invites the world s 2,500 largest companies every year, measured by free-float market capitalization, from the 57 sectors to report on their sustainability performance. In the SAM benchmark, AkzoNobel, DSM, Philips, PostNL and TNT Express were seen as a leader in their sector (gold class). Of the above mentioned companies, only Air France-KLM and PostNL are not in the top-10 of the Business Balance Standard. This may indicate that the Business Balance underestimates the CSR performance of these two companies. But three out of four companies with the highest rankings in the DJSI and SAM, are also in the top 3 of the Business Balance Standard. The Business Balance has extra elements compared to the DJSI and SAM: the score for the balance between People, Planet and Profit. The Business Balances compares different companies in many sectors within the AEX. DJSI has a best-in-class approach. 17

18 3 Results In this chapter, the general results are given of the Business Balance of the AEX companies for the annual reports of 2009, 2010 and 2011 (paragraph 3.1). Then, specific results are given of the scores for People, Planet and Profit, for AEX companies in the reporting year 2011 (paragraphs ). In paragraph the top-10 is given of the Performance Level 2012 and the (CSR) ranking of all 25 AEX companies. Unilever is the number one (reporting year 2011). Paragraph explains the Performance Balance: are the scores for People, Planet and Profit of AEX companies well-balanced?. In paragraph 3.2 and 3.3. the results are given of the Performance Level of AEX companies in the reporting years 2010 and 2009, followed by a paragraph with the feedback of ten AEX companies on the Business Balance method (3.4) and paragraph 3.5 about the (positive) relationship between stock rates in and CRS-performance in 2011 of AEX companies. 3.1 Results When looking at the results, it is clear that the average Performance Level scores for People, Planet and Profit for all 25 AEX companies increased between 2010 and This indicates that all companies have worked to improve their CSR-results during these years or that they improved their CSR-reports with more or better information. Off course, an improvement of average results does not mean that all sub-indicators improved during the years 2010 and 2012; some worsened. Distinctions can be made between the average scores for the three elements (see table 3): The average score for People increased from 40% in 2010, up to 53% in 2011 and 63% in The average score for Planet increased from 27% in 2010, up to 38% in 2011 and 45% in The average score for Profit increased from 41% in 2010, up to 53% in 2011 and 57% in In terms of sustainability, this suggests that social-economic indicators (People) had a higher importance for AEX companies than environmental or ecological indicators (Planet). The average scores for Profit are comparable with the average scores for People. The Performance Level, an average score for the People, Planet and Profit elements, increased from 36% in 2010 up to 48% in 2011 and 55% in Finally, the Performance Indicator that highlights the balance between People, Planet and Profit, stayed more or less the same in the years (ca. 80%), as can be seen in table 6: 18

19 Table 6: Business Balance results In table 7 below, the results of the Performance Level of the separate 25 AEX companies are shown in the years Unilever has the highest score in Between 2010 and 2011, all (22) AEX companies improved their scores for the Performance Level. Between 2011 and 2012, nearly all AEX companies improved the scores for Performance Level, except for Air France-KLM, TomTom (-5%), PostNL and ING (-1%). The reason for this is a decline in results for profit in 2012 (Air France-KLM, PostNL), a small decline in results for people in 2012 (ING) and a decline in results for planet in 2012 (TomTom). 19

20 Table 7: Performance Level Results of 25 AEX companies Results 2012 People In this section, we take a closer look at the background of the company results for the benchmark indicator People. The indicator People is made up of the following seven sub-indicators: 1.1 = Organisational Governance 1.2 = Human Rights 1.3 = Labour Practices 1.4 = Fair Operating Practices 1.5 = Consumer Issues 1.6 = Supplier Issues 1.7 = Social and Economic Development of the Community In table 8 AEX companies are ranked in their scores for People. Heineken and Unilever had the highest scores. In table 9 the scores for the sub-indicators are given, leading to the scores for table 8. 20

21 Table 8: Results of AEX-company scores for People Company People 1 Heineken 75% 1 Unilever 75% 3 Ahold 71% 3 DSM 71% 5 Aegon 68% 5 Air France/KLM 68% 5 Akzo Nobel 68% 5 Arcelor Mittal 68% 5 Reed Elsevier 68% 5 Wolters Kluwer 68% 11 ASML 64% 11 Philips 64% 11 PostNL 64% 11 Randstad 64% 11 TNT 64% 16 ING 61% 16 KPN 61% 16 SBM-Offshore 61% 19 Corio 57% 19 Royal Dutch Shell 57% 19 TomTom 57% 22 Boskalis Westminster 54% 22 Unibail-Rodamco 54% 24 Aperam 46% 25 Fugro 43% Table 9: Results of AEX-company scores for People : sub-indicators 1. People Sub-indicator Aegon Ahold Air France KLM AkzoNobel Aperam Arcelor Mittal ASML Boskalis Westminster Corio DSM Fugro

22 1. People Sub-indicator Heineken ING KPN Philips PostNL Randstad Holding Reed Elsevier Royal Dutch Shell SBM-Offshore TNT TomTom Unibail-Rodamco Unilever Wolters Kluwer Average Score: The conclusion for the indicator People is that AEX companies have the highest scores for the sub-indicator Organisational Governance (eight companies score the maximum of 100% here), followed by the sub-indicator Labour Practices (three companies with the maximum score of 100%) and Social and Economic Development of the Community. The sub-indicator with the lowest score is Consumer Issues. Eight companies scored 25% for this sub-indicator: AkzoNobel, Boskalis Westminster, DSM, Fugro, KPN, Shell, TomTom and Unibail-Rodamco. The VBDO urges these companies to pay more attention to Consumer Issues or report better on this topic Results 2012 Planet The indicator Planet is made up of the following five sub-indicators: 2.1 = Environmental Analysis 2.2 = Environmental Control 2.3 = Environmental Response 2.4 = Environmental Costs 2.5 = Environmental Improvement In table 10 AEX companies are ranked in their scores for Planet. Unilever had the highest score. In table 11 the scores for the sub-indicators are given, leading to the scores for table

23 Table 10: Results of AEX-company scores for Planet Company Planet 1 Unilever 75% 2 Akzo Nobel 65% 3 Reed Elsevier 60% 3 Unibail-Rodamco 60% 5 DSM 55% 5 Heineken 55% 5 Philips 55% 5 Corio 55% 5 ASML 55% 5 ING 55% 11 Ahold 50% 11 TNT 50% 11 Air France/KLM 50% 14 Arcelor Mittal 45% 14 Royal Dutch Shell 45% 16 PostNL 40% 16 KPN 40% 16 SBM-Offshore 40% 19 Aegon 35% 19 Aperam 35% 19 Wolters Kluwer 35% 22 Fugro 30% 23 Randstad 25% 23 Boskalis Westminster 25% 25 TomTom 10% Table 11: Results of AEX-company scores for Planet : sub-indicators 2. Planet Sub-indicator Aegon Ahold Air France KLM AkzoNobel Aperam Arcelor Mittal ASML Boskalis Westminster Corio DSM

24 2. Planet Sub-indicator Fugro Heineken ING KPN Philips PostNL Randstad Holding Reed Elsevier Royal Dutch Shell SBM-Offshore TNT TomTom Unibail-Rodamco Unilever Wolters Kluwer Average Score: The conclusion for the indicator Planet is that AEX companies have the highest scores for the sub-indicator Environmental Analysis (Unilever and ING with the maximum score of 100%), followed by the sub-indicator Environmental Control. Reed Elsevier, Unilever and ASML also have the maximum score of 100% for Environmental Improvement. The sub-indicators with the lowest scores are Environmental Cost and Environmental Response. Eight companies do not report about Environmental Cost (score 0%) and eleven companies do this in a minimal way (score 25%). None of the companies score 75% or 100%. Environmental Cost is a problematic sub-indicator for many companies. This indicator entails that the organisation should be transparent and consider the costs of their environmental impact. Any control measure implemented shall be evaluated on cost-effectiveness. Moreover, the organisation shall commit to the polluter pays principle and ensure sufficient financial resources and/or insurances to cover any costs or liabilities. Another problematic sub-indicator is Environmental Response, where the organisation shall develop and implement plans and procedures to ensure a proper response to possible environmental emergencies as well as long term impacts related to the organisation s activities. These plans and procedures include emergency preparedness and direct response, recovery of caused environmental damage, compensation for non-recoverable impacts, and possible adaptation to irreversible environmental changes (partly) a result of the organisation s activities. The VBDO recommends AEX companies to pay more attention to the sub-indicators Environmental Cost and Environmental Response in CSR-reports and/or annual reports. 24

25 3.1.3 Results 2012 profit The indicator Profit is made up of the following seven sub-indicators: 3.1 = Financial Health & Stability 3.2 = Shareholder Value & Involvement 3.3 = Commercial Performance 3.4 = Capability Management 3.5 = Long-Term Planning In table 12a AEX companies are ranked in their scores for Profit. DSM had the highest score. In table12b the scores for the sub-indicators are given, leading to the scores for table 12a. Table 12a: Results of AEX-company scores for Profit Company Profit 1 DSM 75% 2 Unilever 70% 3 Akzo Nobel 65% 3 Reed Elsevier 65% 3 Ahold 65% 3 TNT 65% 3 Unibail-Rodamco 65% 3 Corio 65% 3 Royal Dutch Shell 65% 3 Randstad 65% 11 Heineken 60% 11 Philips 60% 11 Boskalis Westminster 60% 11 Fugro 60% 11 Wolters Kluwer 60% 16 ASML 55% 16 Arcelor Mittal 55% 16 Aperam 55% 20 Aegon 50% 20 TomTom 50% 22 ING 45% 22 PostNL 45% 22 KPN 45% 22 SBM-Offshore 45% 25 Air France/KLM 30% 25

26 Table 12b: Results of AEX-company scores for Profit : sub-indicators 3. Profit Sub-indicator Aegon Ahold Air France KLM AkzoNobel Aperam Arcelor Mittal ASML Boskalis Westminster Corio DSM Fugro Heineken ING KPN Philips PostNL Randstad Holding Reed Elsevier Royal Dutch Shell SBM-Offshore TNT TomTom Unibail-Rodamco Unilever Wolters Kluwer Average Score: The conclusion for the indicator People is that AEX companies have the highest scores for the sub-indicator Capability Management, followed by the sub-indicator Shareholder Value and Involvement. The sub-indicators with the lowest score are Commercial Performance and Long-term Planning. Seven companies had a low score of 25% for Commercial Performance : Aegon, Air France-KLM, Aperam, KPN, SBM-Offshore and TNT-Express. However, this score does not mean that companies did not earn any profit in Commercial Performance means, according to the Business Balance: The organisation shall pay explicit attention to and demonstrate its commercial performance in order to ensure long-term continuity of the organisation. As part of this the organisation shall ensure that it is not critically depending on any (small group of) parties upstream or downstream the supply chain, and the innovation of goods and/or services is appropriate to their live cycles and possible changing business environment. The overall score of this sub-indicator was relatively low because few companies reported (fully) in the way the Business Balance approaches this subject. 26

27 3.1.4 Performance Level 2012 The AEX-company with the best 2012 score for People, Planet and Profit (the total Performance Level) is Unilever, with a Performance Level score of 73%. DSM is the number two with 67% and AkzoNobel the number three with 65% for the Performance Level. Unilever has a very high ranking for both Planet and People. DSM has a very high rank for Profit (and a relative low score for Planet), while AkzoNobel has a high rank for People. This indicates that DSM could consider investing more in Planet. The three companies with the lowest scores for Performance Level are: Aperam (a new company, recently split by Arcelor Mittal), Fugro and TomTom. For these companies, CSR has only become an important item in the last few years. The results, therefore, must be seen in a different light compared to companies who are already involved in CSR for 10 or 15 years. Table 13: Performance Level of 25 AEX companies in 2012 Table 14: Top-10 scores AEX companies Performance Level Company Performance People Planet Profit 1. Unilever 73% 75% 75% 70% 2. DSM 67% 71% 59% 75% 3. AkzoNobel 65% 68% 63% 65% 4. Reed Elsevier 64% 68% 60% 65% 5. Heineken 63% 75% 55% 60% 6. Ahold 62% 64% 65% 50% 7. Philips 60% 57% 45% 55% 8. TNT Express 60% 64% 50% 60% 9. Unibail Rodamco 60% 60% 65% 49% 10. Corio 59% 57% 55% 65% 27

28 Some companies made more progress in their CSR-ranking between 2011 and 2012 than others. The Performance Level between 2011 and 2012 increased considerably for Reed Elsevier (+17%), Unilever (+16%) and Aperam (+15%). The VBDO compliments these companies for this improvement (see table 15). Table 15: Changes in Performance Level Reed Elsevier + 17% Unilever + 16% Aperam + 15% Air France-KLM - 5% TomTom - 5% ING -1% Randstad Holding -1% The previous year showed other fast growers with a significant increase in the Performance Level. The most improved company is Randstad Holding with +33% (see table 16). AkzoNobel and Corio also increased their Performance Level with 22% and 14%. Only a small part of this increase can be explained by a small change in the research methods of the Business Balance (in 2010 it had more CSR indicators than in the years 2011 and 2012). Table 16: Changes in Performance Level Randstad Holding + 33% AkzoNobel + 22% Corio + 14% Performance Balance 2012 The Performance Balance determines if there is a good balance in the performance of People, Planet and Profit. There is, for instance, not a good balance if scores for People and Planet are high, but for Profit very low. Nor is there a balance if the score for Profit is very high, but low for Planet and People. Companies with the best balance between the three P s are AkzoNobel, Unilever, Reed Elsevier and Philips. The shape of the triangle is almost perfect, as can be seen in the example of winner AkzoNobel: Figure 2: Performance Balance of AkzoNobel: 97% 28

29 There are a number of imbalanced companies with good results for Profit and low(er) scores for Planet/People. These are: Aperam, Fugro, Randstad Holding, Shell and Boskalis. Shell and Boskalis have lagging results for Planet. See the example of Shell: Figure 3: Balance Performance Shell: 83% Companies with good relatively results for People are SBM Offshore, PostNL, KPN, Aegon and Arcelor Mittal. Figure 4: Balance Performance of PostNL: 87% Companies with lower scores for Planet are Wolters Kluwer and TomTom, as can be seen in the figure for TomTom: Figure 5: Performance Balance of TomTom: 56% 29

30 In table 17, the results for the Performance Balance of all 25 AEX companies can be seen. Table 17: Performance Balance of 25 AEX companies in 2012 A good score for Balance is also possible with an average score for Performance Level, as can be seen in table 18. Reed Elsevier for instance has a very good score for Balance, but an average score for Performance level. The Performance score of Randstad Holding is better than those of Reed Elsevier, but Randstad Holding has a very low score for Balance. This means that both indicators have a value of their own. It has to be recognized that companies are very different in terms of sector, size and other characteristics. A human resource company like Randstad Holding is likely to have a higher score for People criteria but will pay less attention to the Planet criteria. Table 18: Highest and lowest scores AEX companies for Performance Balance Company Balance Performance level 1. AkzoNobel 97% 66% 2. Unilever 95% 73% 3. Reed Elsevier 93% 64% 23. Air France-KLM 67% 49% 24. Randstad Holding 60% 65% 25. TomTom 56% 39% 30

31 In 2012, compared to 2011, some companies increased their scores for Balance Level considerately, see table 19: Table 19: Changes in Balance Level ASML + 22% Corio + 21% ING + 20% The reasons of the positive change of ASML were: a. The Performance level for Profit increased from 40% to 55% b. The Performance level for Planet increased from 30% to 55% c. The Performance level for People stayed stable at 65% The imbalance in 2011 between the two P s Profit and Planet disappeared by 2012, and these scores (55%) became more comparable with the score for People (65%). 3.2 Results 2011 Performance Level For 2011, only the results of the Performance Level are shown: Table 20: Performance Level results AEX companies, 2011 The Top 5: 1. AkzoNobel 2. DSM 3. Unilever 4. Ahold 5. Philips 31

32 3.3 Results 2010 Performance Level For 2010, only the results for the Performance level are shown: Table 21: Performance Level results AEX companies, 2010 The top 5: 1. ING 2. Air France-KLM 3. PostNL 4. TNT Express 5. Unilever It is surprising to see four companies in the top 5 who are not in the top 5 lists of 2011 and The good score in 2010 for ING (nr. 1) is replaced by a lower ranking in 2011 (nr. 6) and 2012 (nr. 14). The good score in 2010 for Air France-KLM (nr. 2) is replaced by a lower ranking in 2011 (nr. 7) and 2012 (nr. 18). The lower ranking of ING does not mean that the CSR performance decreased. In 2010 the Performance Level of ING was 49%. In 2011 this increased to 55% and 54% in But other companies showed higher increases in the Performance Level than ING, between 2010 and Runner-ups in the Business Balance standard are Reed Elsevier and Heineken. Reed Elsevier had a low ranking in 2010 (nr. 11) and even lower in 2011 (nr. 16), but was the nr. 4 in Heineken had a low ranking in 2010 (nr. 14) and a low ranking as well in 2011 (nr. 9), but was the nr. 5 in

33 3.4 Feedback of stakeholders In a workshop in september 2012, the VBDO presented the results of the Business Balance At this occasion, several stakeholders had comments and recommendations. At the workshop, ten companies included in the Business Balance were present. The most important comments were: Make use of more information sources: not only the annual and CSR report and websites, but also quarterly reports and reports of third parties about the company, articles in newspapers and sector magazines, ISO certificates etc. Ten companies of the 25 AEX companies did not review the draft results of the Business Balance 2012 scores for their company (Philips, Shell, Reed Elsevier, SBM-Offshore, TomTom, KPN for instance). It is possible that some of the scores of these companies are lower than necessary. The scores for 2010 and 2011 were not reviewed by all companies. This means that scores in the Business Balance have an uncertainty margin. This uncertainty margin is the greatest for the financial criteria. The indicator Financial health and stability is difficult to rate because in different sectors different methods are used to judge the financial stability of companies. In the Business Balance only one method is used, looking at solvency, liquidity, cash flow and reserves. Some companies don t publish specific results in their annual or CSR report because they are part of the standard operations, like safety and emergency plans, or ILO standards. They cannot have a good score for this indicator in the benchmark. Companies already receive many CSR score lists. It costs a lot of time to check all these lists. The Business Balance Standard is quite easy to check compared to other CSR ranking lists and questionaires, but still it costs time for the company to review drafts. Some results of the top-10 ranking (Performance Level) are a surprise. How is it possible that real estate funds have a high score? AEX companies differ very much and it is hard to compare one company with another. Randstad for instance is completely different from Shell. Some companies think they more often deserve a 100% score for some indicators. Recommendations were: All CSR ratings are published in september. It is good to wait until this time and make use of this data, (eg. Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) and Transparency Benchmark, SAM, DJSI, etc.) VBDO can ask all 25 AEX companies to join these initiatives. In 2011, ca. 10 AEX companies were reviewed bij the DJSI and nearly all in the CDP. Often, CSR reports of companies are published after the annual report. This is not a good procedure. Companies can publish their CSR results at the end of oktober with a forecast of november/december (hard close process). In the annual report, the CSR and other nonfinancial information can be integrated in this way in a timely and reliable way, just like the financial information. In CSR ratings and in the Business Balance, there is no attention for brand value in relation to CSR. The Business Balance is a good tool for private investors to get CSR information for AEX companies. The Business Balance results will be published on but it is recommended that results are published also in newsletters of the VEB. Give information why a company has a good or bad score on several indicators. 33

34 3.5 Relationship between CSR- and financial performance of AEX companies between It would be interesting to know if Dutch AEX companies with a high Performance Level for Environmental, Social and Governmental indicators (like Unilever, DSM, AkzoNobel), also perform well or even better in terms of financial markets. International research indicates that this relationship is positive on the long term. According to a report of the Harvard Business School an invested dollar in high sustainability companies has a 46% better financial return after 18 years compared to an invested dollar in in low sustainability companies, see figure 6. Figure 6 Evolution of $1 invested in the stock market in value-weighted portfolios Low High The Harvard Business School compared 180 companies, with 90 high sustainable and 90 low sustainable companies. The VBDO researched the stock prices of AEX companies between and (based on the 5 years graphics of see appendix 27). It appeared that 8 companies of the top-10 companies in the Business Balance (Performance Level) also had a positive score in the stock markets between 2009 and Only two companies in the top-10 had a neutral or small negative result between and (Reed Elsevier 2,8% and Corio 0%). Companies with a negative result in stock prices in this period (Reed Elsevier, Wolters Kluwer, Arcelor Mital, KPN, Aegon, TomTom, PostNL and Air France-KLM) are overrepresented in the AEX-company group with the lowest CSR rankings in the Business Balance (see table: 22). 34

35 Table 22: relation between stock rates and CSR performance in 2012 Company Stock rate change between and ASML + 160% 11 2 DSM + 100% 2 3 Fugro + 100% 24 4 Boskalis + 83% 22 5 Heineken + 67% 5 6 SBM Offshore + 60% 21 7 Shell + 53% 13 8 Randstad Holding + 50% 15 9 Unilever + 49% 1 10 Unibail Rodamco + 35% 9 11 AkzoNobel + 25% 3 12 Ahold + 18% 6 13 Philips + 11% 7 14 Corio 0 % ING 0 % Reed Elsevier - 3% 4 17 Wolters Kluwer - 7% Arcelor Mittal - 14% KPN - 17% Aegon - 25% TomTom - 25% PostNL - 57% Air France-KLM - 60% Aperam No data 2009/ TNT Express No data 2009/2011 Position in the Business Balance CSR benchmark for Performance Level The top 10 high sustainability companies in the AEX (based on the Business Balance Performance Level) have an average stock rate change in the last three years of 46,2 %. *) The low sustainability 10 companies in the AEX with the lowest rates in the Business Balance Performance Level, have an average stock rate change in the last three years of 10,2 %. The conclusion is that during a period of three years ( ) financial returns in terms of stock rate were 36% higher in 10 high sustainability companies listed on the AEX, compared to 10 low sustainability companies in the AEX. The difference in stockrate between the two groups even increased to nearly 60% if stockrates are followed till September *) excluded TNT Express and Aperam 35

36 4 Conclusions and recommendations Conclusions According to Performance Level of the VBDO Business Balance Standard 2012, the top-10 out of 25 Dutch AEX companies are: Unilever, DSM, AkzoNobel, Reed Elsevier, Heineken, Ahold, Philips, TNT Express, Unibail-Rodamco and Corio. See table 23. Table 23: Top-10 scores AEX companies Performance Level Company Performance People Planet Profit 1. Unilever 73% 75% 75% 70% 2. DSM 67% 71% 59% 75% 3. AkzoNobel 65% 68% 63% 65% 4. Reed Elsevier 64% 68% 60% 65% 5. Heineken 63% 75% 55% 60% 6. Ahold 62% 64% 65% 50% 7. Philips 60% 57% 45% 55% 8. TNT Express 60% 64% 50% 60% 9. Unibail Rodamco 60% 60% 65% 49% 10. Corio 59% 57% 55% 65% The top 10 high sustainability companies in the AEX (based on the Business Balance Performance Level) had an average stock rate change in the last three years (2009, 2010, 2011) of + 46,2 %. In this top 10, TNT Express is replaced by ASML (nr. 11), because there are no stock rate data available for TNT Express for ). The low sustainability 10 companies in the AEX with the lowest rates in the Business Balance Performance Level *), had an average stock rate change in the last three years of + 10,2 %. The conclusion is that during a period of three years ( ) financial returns in terms of stock rate were 36% higher in 10 high sustainability companies listed on the AEX, compared to 10 low sustainability companies in the AEX. For investors, this information is very useful for choosing companies to invest. Of course, the conclusion holds for groups of companies, not for individual companies. Fugro for example, has one of the lowest scores in the Business Balance (nr. 24 of AEX), but one of the highest scores for positive stock rates between 2009 and The conclusion of higher stock rates over time, of high sustainability companies, is confirmed in international research (e.g. Harvard Business School researched 46% higher rates for high sustainability companies over 18 years time compared to low sustainability companies). Some remarks have to be made on the ranking of companies. Not all companies reviewed the draft results of the Business Balance. Some sub-indicators of these companies are therefor probably underestimated. This has a (small) influence on the ranking of the company. It also has to be recognized that companies are very different in terms of sector, size and other characteristics. A human resource company like Randstad Holding is likely to have a higher score for People criteria but will pay less attention to the Planet criteria. Companies with a track record of 15 years or more on CSR, have higher scores than companies who only recently put *) TomTom, Fugro, Boskalis, SBM Offshore, KPN, Wolters Kluwer, Air France-KLM, PostNL, Aegon, Randstad Holding 36

37 CSR on their agenda s. A relatively low score for Profit caused (partly) by bad financial results, will lead to a lower score for the Performance Level. But at the same time, a company can decide to invest more effort or money into People and Planet, despite bad financial results. In 2011, the top-5 of the Business Balance, based on Performance Level, was: 1. AkzoNobel 2. DSM 3. Unilever 4. Ahold 5. Philips In 2010, the top 5 of the Business Balance, based on Performance Level, was: 1. ING 2. Air France-KLM 3. PostNL 4. TNT Express 5. Unilever It is surprisingly to see four companies in the top 5 of 2010 that are not in the top- 5 lists of 2011 and The good score in 2010 for ING (nr. 1) is replaced by a lower ranking in 2011 (nr. 6) and 2012 (nr. 14). The good score in 2010 for Air France-KLM (nr. 2) is replaced by a lower ranking in 2011 (nr. 7) and 2012 (nr. 18). Runner-ups in the Business Balance Standard of 2012 are Reed Elsevier and Heineken. Reed Elsevier had a low ranking in 2010 (nr. 11) and even lower in 2011 (nr. 16), but was the nr. 4 in Heineken had its lowest ranking in 2010 (nr. 14) and a low ranking in 2011 as well (nr. 9), but was nr. 5 in Between 2010 and 2011 all (22 researched) AEX companies improved their scores for Performance Level. Between 2011 and 2012 nearly all (25) AEX companies improved the scores for Performance Level (an average improvement of 7%)., except for Air France-KLM and TomTom (-5%). The reason for this is a decline in results for profit in 2012 (Air France-KLM) and a decline in results for planet in 2012 (TomTom). Some companies made more progress in their Business Balance ranking between 2011 and 2012 than others. The Performance Level between 2011 and 2012 increased considerably for Reed Elsevier (+17%), Unilever (+16%) and Aperam (+15%). The VBDO compliments these companies for their progress. Aperam for instance, had a low score in 2012 for the Performance Level, but shows good progress. The rankings in the Performance Level are the average scores for 7 indicators for People, 5 indicators for Planet and 5 indicators for Profit. A good score in the Performance Level does not automatically mean a good CSR performance, because the VBDO believes there has to be a reasonable balance between People, Planet, and Profit as well. This balance can be mea-sured and is called the Performance Balance. AkzoNobel, Unilever and Reed Elsevier have the best balances in 2012 between the three P s. 37

38 Table 24: Highest scores AEX companies for Performance Balance Company Balance Performance Level 1. AkzoNobel 97% 66% 2. Unilever 95% 73% 3. Reed Elsevier 93% 64% AkzoNobel and Unilever are in the top-3 of the Balance level and in the top-3 of Performance Level. DSM is in the top-3 of Performance level, but is a little imbalanced because the score for Planet stays behind, as can be seen in the figure 7 below: Figure 7: Balance Performance of DSM, 2012 There are five companies with imbalanced good scores for People and five companies with imbalanced good scores for Profit, but no companies with imbalanced good scores for Planet. More often, there are companies with imbalanced low scores for Planet (see attachments 1-25). When the Business Balance method is compared with the Dow Jones Sustainability Index (DJSI), it can be seen that companies with a high ranking in the DJSI in 2012 are also highly ranked in the Business Balance Standard. In 2012, the DSJI super sector leaders in the world were DSM, Philips, Air France-KLM, Unilever and PostNL. Another international well-known CSR benchmark is SAM. Here, DSM, AkzoNobel, PostNL, TNT Express and Philips were seen as a leader in their sector (gold class). Of the above mentioned companies, only PostNL and Air France-KLM are not in the top-10 of the Business Balance Standard. This may indicate that the Business Balance underestimates the CSR performance of these two companies. But three out of four companies with the highest rankings in the DJSI and SAM, are also in the top 3 of the Business Balance. 38

39 Recommendations The VBDO recommends companies with an imbalance in the scores for People, Planet and Profit, to analyse the reasons for this and look at the possibilities for a more balanced CRSperformance. The VBDO recommends investors, looking for long term and high returns on investment, to choose for (groups of) high sustainability companies. In the last three years, stock rates of those companies were 36% higher than those of low sustainability companies in the AEX. The VBDO recommends all 25 AEX companies to analyse the Business Balance Standard to look for possible improvements in CSR performance. This can optimise financial results as well. Looking for improvements in CSR performance is especially recommended for the top-5 lowest scoring companies in the Business Balance, the numbers 21-25: TomTom, Fugro, Aperam, Boskalis Westminster and SBM Offshore. Some companies reported about CSR in different reports (annual report, CSR report) and websites etc.. It is recommended to report about CSR and financial developments in one report. The DSM annual report can be seen as a good, integrated, best practice. Furthermore, the VBDO recommends all AEX companies with very low scores (a score of 0% or 25%) on one of the 17 sub-indicators for People, Planet or Profit, to analyse the reasons for the low scores and study possibilities for improvements in 2013 and later. For instance, nearly all companies have low scores for the sub-indicator Environmental Costs of Environmental Response. Other sub-indicators with low scores are surprisingly Commercial Performance, Long-term Planning and Consumer Issues. The VBDO recommends to study the possibilities to enhance the scores of the low-ranking indicators. Perhaps more international study to usefull instruments is required. The 25 AEX companies have relative high scores in the sub-indicators Organisational Governance (eight companies score the maximum of 100% here), the sub-indicator Labour Practices (three companies with the maximum score of 100%), Environmental Analysis (Unilever and ING with the maximum score of 100%), Environmental Control and Environmental Improvement (Reed Elsevier, Unilever and ASML have the maximum score of 100% for the latter). High scores for the sub-indicators for Profit were: Capability Management, followed by the sub-indicator Shareholder Value and Involvement. This means that companies report well about these financial indicators and show proof of implementation of policies. 39

40 Appendices 40

41 1 Business Balance Score AEGON The first figure below shows the Business Balance score over The scores for each P (People, Planet, Profit) can be seen also in the graphic below (green colour). The scores are calculated by taking the average of all the questions related to that particular P. An overview of the scores per question can be found in Appendix 26. On more CSR information of the company can be found. The shape of the triangle represents the balance between the scores for People, Planet and Profit. The better the balance, the more the shape represents an equilateral triangle and the higher the score in the table below (Performance Balance). The table underneath shows the scores over the last three years for People, Planet and Profit. It also shows the Performance Level, which is the average score for the three P s. Finally, the table shows the Performance Balance. 41

42 2 Business Balance Score Ahold The first figure below shows the Business Balance score over The scores for each P (People, Planet, Profit) can be seen also in the graphic below (green colour). The scores are calculated by taking the average of all the questions related to that particular P. An overview of the scores per question can be found in Appendix 26. On more CSR information of the company can be found. The shape of the triangle represents the balance between the scores for People, Planet and Profit. The better the balance, the more the shape represents an equilateral triangle and the higher the score in the table below (Performance Balance). The table underneath shows the scores over the last three years for People, Planet and Profit. It also shows the Performance Level, which is the average score for the three P s. Finally, the table shows the Performance Balance. 42

43 3 Business Balance Score Air France KLM The first figure below shows the Business Balance score over The scores for each P (People, Planet, Profit) can be seen also in the graphic below (green colour). The scores are calculated by taking the average of all the questions related to that particular P. An overview of the scores per question can be found in Appendix 26. On more CSR information of the company can be found. The shape of the triangle represents the balance between the scores for People, Planet and Profit. The better the balance, the more the shape represents an equilateral triangle and the higher the score in the table below (Performance Balance). The table underneath shows the scores over the last three years for People, Planet and Profit. It also shows the Performance Level, which is the average score for the three P s. Finally, the table shows the Performance Balance. 43

44 4 Business Balance Score Akzo Nobel The first figure below shows the Business Balance score over The scores for each P (People, Planet, Profit) can be seen also in the graphic below (green colour). The scores are calculated by taking the average of all the questions related to that particular P. An overview of the scores per question can be found in Appendix 26. On more CSR information of the company can be found. The shape of the triangle represents the balance between the scores for People, Planet and Profit. The better the balance, the more the shape represents an equilateral triangle and the higher the score in the table below (Performance Balance). The table underneath shows the scores over the last three years for People, Planet and Profit. It also shows the Performance Level, which is the average score for the three P s. Finally, the table shows the Performance Balance. 44

45 5 Business Balance Score APERAM The first figure below shows the Business Balance score over The scores for each P (People, Planet, Profit) can be seen also in the graphic below (green colour). The scores are calculated by taking the average of all the questions related to that particular P. An overview of the scores per question can be found in Appendix 26. On more CSR information of the company can be found. The shape of the triangle represents the balance between the scores for People, Planet and Profit. The better the balance, the more the shape represents an equilateral triangle and the higher the score in the table below (Performance Balance). The table underneath shows the scores over the last three years for People, Planet and Profit. It also shows the Performance Level, which is the average score for the three P s. Finally, the table shows the Performance Balance. 45

46 6 Business Balance Score Arcelor Mittal The first figure below shows the Business Balance score over The scores for each P (People, Planet, Profit) can be seen also in the graphic below (green colour). The scores are calculated by taking the average of all the questions related to that particular P. An overview of the scores per question can be found in Appendix 26. On more CSR information of the company can be found. The shape of the triangle represents the balance between the scores for People, Planet and Profit. The better the balance, the more the shape represents an equilateral triangle and the higher the score in the table below (Performance Balance). The table underneath shows the scores over the last three years for People, Planet and Profit. It also shows the Performance Level, which is the average score for the three P s. Finally, the table shows the Performance Balance. 46

47 7 Business Balance Score ASML The first figure below shows the Business Balance score over The scores for each P (People, Planet, Profit) can be seen also in the graphic below (green colour). The scores are calculated by taking the average of all the questions related to that particular P. An overview of the scores per question can be found in Appendix 26. On more CSR information of the company can be found. The shape of the triangle represents the balance between the scores for People, Planet and Profit. The better the balance, the more the shape represents an equilateral triangle and the higher the score in the table below (Performance Balance). The table underneath shows the scores over the last three years for People, Planet and Profit. It also shows the Performance Level, which is the average score for the three P s. Finally, the table shows the Performance Balance. 47

48 8 Business Balance Score Boskalis Westminster The first figure below shows the Business Balance score over The scores for each P (People, Planet, Profit) can be seen also in the graphic below (green colour). The scores are calculated by taking the average of all the questions related to that particular P. An overview of the scores per question can be found in Appendix 26. On more CSR information of the company can be found. The shape of the triangle represents the balance between the scores for People, Planet and Profit. The better the balance, the more the shape represents an equilateral triangle and the higher the score in the table below (Performance Balance). The table underneath shows the scores over the last three years for People, Planet and Profit. It also shows the Performance Level, which is the average score for the three P s. Finally, the table shows the Performance Balance. 48

49 9 Business Balance Score Corio The first figure below shows the Business Balance score over The scores for each P (People, Planet, Profit) can be seen also in the graphic below (green colour). The scores are calculated by taking the average of all the questions related to that particular P. An overview of the scores per question can be found in Appendix 26. On more CSR information of the company can be found. The shape of the triangle represents the balance between the scores for People, Planet and Profit. The better the balance, the more the shape represents an equilateral triangle and the higher the score in the table below (Performance Balance). The table underneath shows the scores over the last three years for People, Planet and Profit. It also shows the Performance Level, which is the average score for the three P s. Finally, the table shows the Performance Balance. 49

50 10 Business Balance Score DSM The first figure below shows the Business Balance score over The scores for each P (People, Planet, Profit) can be seen also in the graphic below (green colour). The scores are calculated by taking the average of all the questions related to that particular P. An overview of the scores per question can be found in Appendix 26. On more CSR information of the company can be found. The shape of the triangle represents the balance between the scores for People, Planet and Profit. The better the balance, the more the shape represents an equilateral triangle and the higher the score in the table below (Performance Balance). The table underneath shows the scores over the last three years for People, Planet and Profit. It also shows the Performance Level, which is the average score for the three P s. Finally, the table shows the Performance Balance. 50

51 11 Business Balance Score Fugro The first figure below shows the Business Balance score over The scores for each P (People, Planet, Profit) can be seen also in the graphic below (green colour). The scores are calculated by taking the average of all the questions related to that particular P. An overview of the scores per question can be found in Appendix 26. On more CSR information of the company can be found. The shape of the triangle represents the balance between the scores for People, Planet and Profit. The better the balance, the more the shape represents an equilateral triangle and the higher the score in the table below (Performance Balance). The table underneath shows the scores over the last three years for People, Planet and Profit. It also shows the Performance Level, which is the average score for the three P s. Finally, the table shows the Performance Balance. 51

52 12 Business Balance Score Heineken The first figure below shows the Business Balance score over The scores for each P (People, Planet, Profit) can be seen also in the graphic below (green colour). The scores are calculated by taking the average of all the questions related to that particular P. An overview of the scores per question can be found in Appendix 26. On more CSR information of the company can be found. The shape of the triangle represents the balance between the scores for People, Planet and Profit. The better the balance, the more the shape represents an equilateral triangle and the higher the score in the table below (Performance Balance). The table underneath shows the scores over the last three years for People, Planet and Profit. It also shows the Performance Level, which is the average score for the three P s. Finally, the table shows the Performance Balance. 52

53 13 Business Balance Score ING The first figure below shows the Business Balance score over The scores for each P (People, Planet, Profit) can be seen also in the graphic below (green colour). The scores are calculated by taking the average of all the questions related to that particular P. An overview of the scores per question can be found in Appendix 26. On more CSR information of the company can be found. The shape of the triangle represents the balance between the scores for People, Planet and Profit. The better the balance, the more the shape represents an equilateral triangle and the higher the score in the table below (Performance Balance). The table underneath shows the scores over the last three years for People, Planet and Profit. It also shows the Performance Level, which is the average score for the three P s. Finally, the table shows the Performance Balance. 53

54 14 Business Balance Score KPN The first figure below shows the Business Balance score over The scores for each P (People, Planet, Profit) can be seen also in the graphic below (green colour). The scores are calculated by taking the average of all the questions related to that particular P. An overview of the scores per question can be found in Appendix 26. On more CSR information of the company can be found. The shape of the triangle represents the balance between the scores for People, Planet and Profit. The better the balance, the more the shape represents an equilateral triangle and the higher the score in the table below (Performance Balance). The table underneath shows the scores over the last three years for People, Planet and Profit. It also shows the Performance Level, which is the average score for the three P s. Finally, the table shows the Performance Balance. 54

55 15 Business Balance Score Philips The first figure below shows the Business Balance score over The scores for each P (People, Planet, Profit) can be seen also in the graphic below (green colour). The scores are calculated by taking the average of all the questions related to that particular P. An overview of the scores per question can be found in Appendix 26. On more CSR information of the company can be found. The shape of the triangle represents the balance between the scores for People, Planet and Profit. The better the balance, the more the shape represents an equilateral triangle and the higher the score in the table below (Performance Balance). The table underneath shows the scores over the last three years for People, Planet and Profit. It also shows the Performance Level, which is the average score for the three P s. Finally, the table shows the Performance Balance. 55

56 16 Business Balance Score PostNL The first figure below shows the Business Balance score over The scores for each P (People, Planet, Profit) can be seen also in the graphic below (green colour). The scores are calculated by taking the average of all the questions related to that particular P. An overview of the scores per question can be found in Appendix 26. On more CSR information of the company can be found. The shape of the triangle represents the balance between the scores for People, Planet and Profit. The better the balance, the more the shape represents an equilateral triangle and the higher the score in the table below (Performance Balance). The table underneath shows the scores over the last three years for People, Planet and Profit. It also shows the Performance Level, which is the average score for the three P s. Finally, the table shows the Performance Balance. 56

57 17 Business Balance Score Randstad The first figure below shows the Business Balance score over The scores for each P (People, Planet, Profit) can be seen also in the graphic below (green colour). The scores are calculated by taking the average of all the questions related to that particular P. An overview of the scores per question can be found in Appendix 26. On more CSR information of the company can be found. The shape of the triangle represents the balance between the scores for People, Planet and Profit. The better the balance, the more the shape represents an equilateral triangle and the higher the score in the table below (Performance Balance). The table underneath shows the scores over the last three years for People, Planet and Profit. It also shows the Performance Level, which is the average score for the three P s. Finally, the table shows the Performance Balance. 57

58 18 Business Balance Score Reed Elsevier The first figure below shows the Business Balance score over The scores for each P (People, Planet, Profit) can be seen also in the graphic below (green colour). The scores are calculated by taking the average of all the questions related to that particular P. An overview of the scores per question can be found in Appendix 26. On more CSR information of the company can be found. The shape of the triangle represents the balance between the scores for People, Planet and Profit. The better the balance, the more the shape represents an equilateral triangle and the higher the score in the table below (Performance Balance). The table underneath shows the scores over the last three years for People, Planet and Profit. It also shows the Performance Level, which is the average score for the three P s. Finally, the table shows the Performance Balance. 58

59 19 Business Balance Score Royal Dutch Shell The first figure below shows the Business Balance score over The scores for each P (People, Planet, Profit) can be seen also in the graphic below (green colour). The scores are calculated by taking the average of all the questions related to that particular P. An overview of the scores per question can be found in Appendix 26. On more CSR information of the company can be found. The shape of the triangle represents the balance between the scores for People, Planet and Profit. The better the balance, the more the shape represents an equilateral triangle and the higher the score in the table below (Performance Balance). The table underneath shows the scores over the last three years for People, Planet and Profit. It also shows the Performance Level, which is the average score for the three P s. Finally, the table shows the Performance Balance. 59

60 20 Business Balance Score SBM Offshore The first figure below shows the Business Balance score over The scores for each P (People, Planet, Profit) can be seen also in the graphic below (green colour). The scores are calculated by taking the average of all the questions related to that particular P. An overview of the scores per question can be found in Appendix 26. On more CSR information of the company can be found. The shape of the triangle represents the balance between the scores for People, Planet and Profit. The better the balance, the more the shape represents an equilateral triangle and the higher the score in the table below (Performance Balance). The table underneath shows the scores over the last three years for People, Planet and Profit. It also shows the Performance Level, which is the average score for the three P s. Finally, the table shows the Performance Balance. 60

61 21 Business Balance Score TNT The first figure below shows the Business Balance score over The scores for each P (People, Planet, Profit) can be seen also in the graphic below (green colour). The scores are calculated by taking the average of all the questions related to that particular P. An overview of the scores per question can be found in Appendix 26. On more CSR information of the company can be found. The shape of the triangle represents the balance between the scores for People, Planet and Profit. The better the balance, the more the shape represents an equilateral triangle and the higher the score in the table below (Performance Balance). The table underneath shows the scores over the last three years for People, Planet and Profit. It also shows the Performance Level, which is the average score for the three P s. Finally, the table shows the Performance Balance. 61

62 22 Business Balance Score TomTom The first figure below shows the Business Balance score over The scores for each P (People, Planet, Profit) can be seen also in the graphic below (green colour). The scores are calculated by taking the average of all the questions related to that particular P. An overview of the scores per question can be found in Appendix 26. On more CSR information of the company can be found. The shape of the triangle represents the balance between the scores for People, Planet and Profit. The better the balance, the more the shape represents an equilateral triangle and the higher the score in the table below (Performance Balance). The table underneath shows the scores over the last three years for People, Planet and Profit. It also shows the Performance Level, which is the average score for the three P s. Finally, the table shows the Performance Balance. 62

63 23 Business Balance Score Unibail-Rodamco The first figure below shows the Business Balance score over The scores for each P (People, Planet, Profit) can be seen also in the graphic below (green colour). The scores are calculated by taking the average of all the questions related to that particular P. An overview of the scores per question can be found in Appendix 26. On more CSR information of the company can be found. The shape of the triangle represents the balance between the scores for People, Planet and Profit. The better the balance, the more the shape represents an equilateral triangle and the higher the score in the table below (Performance Balance). The table underneath shows the scores over the last three years for People, Planet and Profit. It also shows the Performance Level, which is the average score for the three P s. Finally, the table shows the Performance Balance. 63

64 24 Business Balance Score Unilever The first figure below shows the Business Balance score over The scores for each P (People, Planet, Profit) can be seen also in the graphic below (green colour). The scores are calculated by taking the average of all the questions related to that particular P. An overview of the scores per question can be found in Appendix 26. On more CSR information of the company can be found. The shape of the triangle represents the balance between the scores for People, Planet and Profit. The better the balance, the more the shape represents an equilateral triangle and the higher the score in the table below (Performance Balance). The table underneath shows the scores over the last three years for People, Planet and Profit. It also shows the Performance Level, which is the average score for the three P s. Finally, the table shows the Performance Balance. 64

65 25 Business Balance Score Wolters Kluwer The first figure below shows the Business Balance score over The scores for each P (People, Planet, Profit) can be seen also in the graphic below (green colour). The scores are calculated by taking the average of all the questions related to that particular P. An overview of the scores per question can be found in Appendix 26. On more CSR information of the company can be found. The shape of the triangle represents the balance between the scores for People, Planet and Profit. The better the balance, the more the shape represents an equilateral triangle and the higher the score in the table below (Performance Balance). The table underneath shows the scores over the last three years for People, Planet and Profit. It also shows the Performance Level, which is the average score for the three P s. Finally, the table shows the Performance Balance. 65

66 26 1. People Company Year 1.1 Organisational Governance 1.2 Human Rights 1.3 Labour Practices 1.4 Fair Operating Practices 1.5 Consumer Issues 1.6 Supplier Issues 1.7 Social and Economic Development of the Community Aegon Aegon Aegon Ahold Ahold Ahold Air France/KLM Air France/KLM Air France/KLM Akzo Nobel Akzo Nobel Akzo Nobel Aperam 2010 Aperam Aperam Arcelor Mittal 2010 Arcelor Mittal Arcelor Mittal ASML ASML ASML Boskalis Westminster Boskalis Westminster Boskalis Westminster Corio Corio Corio DSM DSM DSM Fugro Fugro Fugro Heineken Heineken Heineken ING ING ING KPN KPN KPN

67 1. People Company Year 1.1 Organisational Governance 1.2 Human Rights 1.3 Labour Practices 1.4 Fair Operating Practices 1.5 Consumer Issues 1.6 Supplier Issues 1.7 Social and Economic Development of the Community Philips Philips Philips PostNL PostNL PostNL Randstad Randstad Randstad Reed Elsevier Reed Elsevier Reed Elsevier Royal Dutch Shell Royal Dutch Shell Royal Dutch Shell SBM-Offshore SBM-Offshore SBM-Offshore TNT TNT TNT TomTom TomTom TomTom Unibail Rodamco Unibail Rodamco Unibail Rodamco Unilever Unilever Unilever Wolters Kluwer Wolters Kluwer Wolters Kluwer

68 Company Year 2.1 Environmental Analysis 2.0 Natural Environment 2.2 Environmental Control 2.3 Environmental Response 2.4 Environmental Costs 2.5 Environmental Improvement Aegon Aegon Aegon Ahold Ahold Ahold Air France/KLM Air France/KLM Air France/KLM Akzo Nobel Akzo Nobel Akzo Nobel Aperam 2010 Aperam Aperam Arcelor Mittal 2010 Arcelor Mittal Arcelor Mittal ASML ASML ASML Boskalis Westminster Boskalis Westminster Boskalis Westminster Corio Corio Corio DSM DSM DSM Fugro Fugro Fugro Heineken Heineken Heineken ING ING ING KPN KPN KPN

69 Company Year 2.1 Environmental Analysis 2.0 Natural Environment 2.2 Environmental Control 2.3 Environmental Response 2.4 Environmental Costs 2.5 Environmental Improvement Philips Philips Philips PostNL PostNL PostNL Randstad Randstad Randstad Reed Elsevier Reed Elsevier Reed Elsevier Royal Dutch Shell Royal Dutch Shell Royal Dutch Shell SBM-Offshore SBM-Offshore SBM-Offshore TNT TNT TNT TomTom TomTom TomTom Unibail Rodamco Unibail Rodamco Unibail Rodamco Unilever Unilever Unilever Wolters Kluwer Wolters Kluwer Wolters Kluwer

70 3.0 Business Company Year 3.1 Financial Health & Stability 3.2 Shareholder Value & Involvement 3.3 Commercial Performance 3.4 Capability Management 3.5 Long- Term Planning Aegon Aegon Aegon Ahold Ahold Ahold Air France/KLM Air France/KLM Air France/KLM Akzo Nobel Akzo Nobel Akzo Nobel Aperam 2010 Aperam Aperam Arcelor Mittal 2010 Arcelor Mittal Arcelor Mittal ASML ASML ASML Boskalis Westminster Boskalis Westminster Boskalis Westminster Corio Corio Corio DSM DSM DSM Fugro Fugro Fugro Heineken Heineken Heineken ING ING ING KPN KPN KPN

71 3.0 Business Company Year 3.1 Financial Health & Stability 3.2 Shareholder Value & Involvement 3.3 Commercial Performance 3.4 Capability Management 3.5 Long- Term Planning Philips Philips Philips PostNL PostNL PostNL Randstad Randstad Randstad Reed Elsevier Reed Elsevier Reed Elsevier Royal Dutch Shell Royal Dutch Shell Royal Dutch Shell SBM-Offshore SBM-Offshore SBM-Offshore TNT TNT TNT TomTom TomTom TomTom Unibail Rodamco Unibail Rodamco Unibail Rodamco Unilever Unilever Unilever Wolters Kluwer Wolters Kluwer Wolters Kluwer

72 27 Five year graphics stock rates of AEX companies (source: table 1: 5 years graphic Aegon table 2: 5 years graphic Ahold 72

73 table 3: 5 years graphic Air France-KLM table 4: 5 years graphic AkzoNobel 73

74 table 5: 5 years graphic Aperam table 6: 5 years graphic Arcelor Mittal 74

75 table 7: 5 years graphic ASML table 8: 5 years graphic Boskalis 75

76 table 9: 5 years graphic Corio table 10: 5 years graphic DSM 76

77 table 11: 5 years graphic Fugro table 12: 5 years graphic Heineken 77

78 table 13: 5 years graphic ING Group table 14: 5 years graphic KPN 78

79 table 15: 5 years graphic Philips table 16: 5 years graphic PostNL 79

80 table 17: 5 years graphic Randstad table 18: 5 years graphic Royal Dutch Shell 80

81 table 19: 5 years graphic Reed Elsevier table 20: 5 years graphic SBM Offshore 81

82 table 21: 5 years graphic TNT Express table 22: 5 years graphic TomTom 82

83 table 23: 5 years graphic Unibail Rodamco table 24: 5 years graphic Unilever 83

84 table 25: 5 years graphic Wolters Kluwer table 26: 5 years graphic stock rates all AEX companies 84

85 / / The VBDO (Dutch Association of Investors for Sustainable Development) aims at generating a sustainable capital market, a market that brings together supply and demand, not just based on financial criteria, but also on social and environmental aspects. VBDO focuses its activities on actors in the Netherlands, with the international context.