MYTILINEOS HOLDINGS - SUSTAINABILITY REPORT 2013 - page 64

62
ditional guidance and indicators included in the
Final Version of the Metals and Mining Sector
Supplement (March 2010) in order to fulfill the
GRI G3.1 Level A+ requirements.
Materiality
The Company has in place an integrated ma-
teriality process which consists of a combi-
nation of several practices in order to enhance
the identification of key issues that are material
to its subsidiaries and its stakeholders. Also we
came to the conclusion that:
The materiality process is applied across the
Company requiring the substantial in-
volvement of the Management and the CSR
teams of all its subsidiaries.
The materiality analysis is well document-
ed. We focused on the prioritization of sus-
tainability issues through the application of
a specific “Materiality Reporting Work-
sheet”, one of our self
-
developed practices,
which combines internal and external criteria
that used to determine, with a quantitative
outcome, whether an issue is material or not
according to GRI G3.1 Guidelines.
The Company has added further rigour to
its materiality process, by including addi-
tional input from its external stakeholders
since its previous sustainability report.
The Company has internal key performance
indicators and management processes to
measure the performance in most of ma-
terial aspects that are disclosed within
the report, such as Health & Safety and CO
2
emissions.
The 2013 outcome has not missed out any
significant, known material issues.
Stakeholder Inclusiveness
The Company has developed a five
-
stage
Stakeholder engagement process, described in
detail in the CSR section of Company’s web-
site as mentioned within the Report, to
strengthen its engagement with stakeholders
and consequently its commitment to being an
accountable and sustainable organization.
This process demonstrates adherence to the
GRI (G3.1.) principle of Stakeholders Inclu-
siveness as well as against the Criterion 21 of
the GC COP Advanced Level Self
-
Assess-
ment. Also we verify that:
The Company has a Stakeholder identifi-
cation and prioritization method and has es-
tablished a formal consultation technique,
which applies in annual basis, addressed to
all its significant Stakeholder groups. For
each Stakeholder group the Report in-
cludes a list of engagement approaches. Re-
viewing these initiatives, on a sample basis
at subsidiary level, we confirm that the con-
tent of the Report draws upon the out-
comes of this engagement process.
Appling our self
-
developed “Assessment of
ability to respond to Stakeholders issues
Worksheet”, Company’s response ability can
be generally considered as an embedded
method but there are still current process-
es under development in terms of internal
responsibility and competency to address
a concern, engagement activities and per-
formance indicators measurements re-
garding significant issues.
The Company’s Stakeholders Dialogue Fo-
rums, in 2013, took place in all its sub-
sidiaries at local level. Concerning this en-
gagement, we welcome Company’s actions
taken to improve the quality of this process.
More specifically, during METKA’s Dia-
logue Forum, a live connection through
Skype was established with the company’s
project site in Jordan and a comprehensive
analysis of Health & Safety measures took
place. This represents a good example of
Company’s engagement with its contractors
on Health & Safety issues in its abroad op-
erations.
The outcomes of Stakeholders Dialogue Fo-
rums are always formally communicated to
the Company’s CSR committee as well as
to the top management of each subsidiary.
The Stakeholder Engagement is an on
-
go-
ing institutional process and the results of
which always formed the framework of
Company’s Sustainability Reports. There-
fore, no specific engagement was under-
taken as part of the report preparation
process to identify core topics or obtain in-
formation.
Sustainability Context
The reported information sufficiently cover the
Company’s sustainability issues in its operation
context and also its intention to strengthen
positive and reduce negative impacts of its op-
erational activities in the economic, environ-
mental and social level.
Performance indicators are provided for key
material topics and at the same time we
have found evidence of management ap-
proaches, including processes for audit,
measurement and reporting, applied at
the Company's subsidiaries in terms of
Global Compact COP Advanced Level,
ISO 14001, ISO 14064 (partially), ISO
26000 and OHSAS 18001 certification.
We also, endorse the Company’s initiative
to promote to its supply
-
chain the sus-
tainability topics related to its long
-
term
strategy by publishing its brand new “Sup-
pliers Code of Conduct”
Completeness
The Report provides a fair and balanced rep-
resentation of the Company’s sustainability
performance and challenges and covers the full
range of material issues. Also the Report:
Focuses on business entities which Company
has a controlling interest or where it is the
sole operator and covers all information
that should be considered material on the
basis of the principle of materiality. The Re-
port makes reference to key financial fig-
ures (with extended mentions in the Group’s
Annual Report 2013) and covers extensively
the approach to Corporate Social Respon-
sibility.
Includes all significant Company’s actions
in 2013 and does not exclude related in-
formation that would influence Stake-
holders judgment or decisions. In line with
the above, we welcome the Company’s ini-
tiative to improve the completeness of its
Report, determining its Social and Envi-
ronmental Footprint, through an accessible
and comparative technique. The Report
seems to benefit from this procedure since
it permits to readers to observe any changes
or deviations – positive or negative – in
Group’s Social and Environmental per-
formance.
2.
Accuracy and reliability of information
included in Social Performance section
The Report is sufficiently understandable to
allow Stakeholders access and realize Com-
pany’s Social profile. The Company has es-
tablished appropriate procedures, mainly
through its CSR governance system, and
data management systems for the collection
and analysis of its Social Performance data,
in order to provide confidence that such in-
formation is complete and accurate. Except
from the fact that we observed the need for
further training of data collectors, at sub-
sidiaries level, we did not find evidence to sug-
gest that the processes and systems in place
to collect and calculate Social Performance
data are such that the Company’s Social Per-
formance section would be incorrectly de-
scribed including information witch support
1...,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63 65,66,67,68
Powered by FlippingBook