The Australian financial institution Mecu has taken first place for the
best sustainability report in the 2005 Australia and New Zealand Awards
for Sustainability Reporting.
The judges for the awards, which are given by Association of Chartered
Certified Accountants, said Mecu’s online report was ‘particularly
sophisticated’.
The company’s approach was well enunciated, said the judges. They
commented: ‘Mecu have built their proposition around the raison d’etre
for credit unions, which is community- and society-driven. This allows
them to have a very clear picture of their role in sustainability. This
extends to both their direct impacts and, more importantly, to their
indirect impacts, which offer the most scope to benefit society.’
Watercare Services, a New Zealand company, took an award for continued
high-quality sustainability reporting. Its objectives were clearly
outlined and the report was comprehensive in identifying sustainability
reporting, said the judges. However, they believed the company should
include more innovative aspects in its report.
The award for continued high-quality reporting among smaller companies
went to Australian Ethical Investment, whose report gave a ‘good feel’
for the priorities of the organization and how it wanted to position
itself among its peers and in the community.
The Australian company BHP Billiton, which took the award for
sustainability communication using the internet, was congratulated on a
web report that was more significantly developed than that of any other
reporter. The judges said its transparency in giving an insight into
its performance was ‘warts and all’ and increased credibility.
Nevertheless, the report was criticized for not being complete.
Commendations for achievements in sustainability reporting went to
Vodafone New Zealand, whose report discussed stakeholder engagement,
URS New Zealand, an environmental and engineering consultancy, which
covered most issues related to business, and IAG New Zealand, whose
stakeholder views filtered through, though it failed to cover such
matters as robust environmental and social data and a comprehensive
assurance process.
The judges regretted that so few companies produce sustainability
information – only 24 per cent in Australia and possibly fewer in New
Zealand.
They welcomed a high standard of reporting among water companies but
said: ‘It would be useful for more companies in this sector to report
on the quality of their assets – for example, pipes and other related
infrastructure. Given so many water companies report sustainability
data, the judges would also like to see more comparative data included
in reports so as to facilitate benchmarking between the organizations.’
One complaint was that not all the reports were independently verified.
The judges recommended that reports be assured by an
appropriate third party to increase confidence in the reliability of the information provided.
