Hall of Fame: Dutch sustainability statements

In this edition of the Hall of Fame, we explore great examples of Sustainability Statements from three Dutch companies published this year.

What makes a great Sustainability Statement?

It goes beyond compliance — it tells a clear, compelling story about how a company integrates sustainability into its strategy. To determine what makes a report truly impactful, we’ve developed a set of criteria that assess how well companies communicate their sustainability efforts. Our evaluation focuses on three key areas:

1. Double Materiality Assessments (DMA) – including how dependencies are addressed, the naming of impacts in line with AR 16, clarity on process versus outcome, the number and relevance of IROs (too many or too few), and the balance between impacts, risks, and opportunities.
2. Communications & Visuals – covering the use of tables, charts, and diagrams, as well as the quality of language, overall flow, and storytelling.
3. Navigation – including how the Sustainability Statement is organised and laid out, such as the use of tabs, and how clearly it links to the ESRS (Disclosure Requirements).

Ahold Delhaize

Double Materiality Assessment – ★★★★★ (5/5)
Ahold Delhaize presents a materiality assessment that clearly distinguishes impacts, risks, and opportunities. Their approach to double materiality is well-developed, notably including a discussion of dependencies on ecosystem services such as pollination and healthy soils — and linking these dependencies to specific risks and opportunities. The naming of impacts aligns with the AR 16 list, and the report maintains a balanced view across impacts, risks, and opportunities however,  the final list includes over 30 impacts, potentially, making it challenging to manage in practice. 

Communication & Visuals  – ★★★★☆ (4/5)
The report presents the DMA in a clear and visual format, using icons and colour coding to distinguish between impacts, risks, opportunities, and action progress. It features charts to illustrate quantitative data, including visuals mapping Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions. Overall, the language is straightforward and accessible, with helpful definitions and contextual background provided to clarify impacts and contributions. However, there is room for more creativity to further engage readers and bring the content to life. 

Navigation & Structure – ★★★☆☆ (3/5)
The report doesn’t specifically use any tagging and does not explicitly link information to ESRS disclosure requirements. However, from the heading of the sections and sub-section it is understandable how each section is linked to the ESRS.  Additionally, the navigation tabs on the top of the pages don’t seem to work i.e. it does not direct the reader to different sections. 

Fugro

Double Materiality Assessment – ★★★★☆ (4/5)
The report features a DMA matrix that captures all identified impacts. The identification of IROs were supported by interviews that dive deeper into each impact and associated risks and opportunities. One interview featured an environmental expert who represented nature as a ‘silent stakeholder’ - a nice touch. Material topics are clearly linked to relevant company policies, providing useful context. While both the process and outcomes are described, alignment with AR 16 material topics and sub(-sub)topics is not always explicit. The number of material IROs identified is reasonable and manageable. Dependencies are acknowledged in general terms, though no significant dependencies are specifically identified.

Communication & Visuals – ★★★★★ (5/5)
The report is visually polished, with a clean design and well-structured use of images, charts, and icons. The narrative is generally clear and well-written and well-articulated, with storytelling that is both engaging and thorough.

Navigation & Structure – ★★★★☆ (4/5)
The report does not use tagging or explicitly link content to specific ESRS disclosure requirements. However, the inclusion of a reference table mapping these requirements is helpful, and the consistent use of headings and subheadings supports clarity on alignment. There are navigation tabs at the top and throughout each section.

Signify

Double Materiality Assessment  – ★★★★★ (5/5)
the report strikes a good balance between outlining the DMA process and presenting its outcomes. Dependencies are considered as part of the DMA process, and the identified IROs are clearly aligned with AR 16 topics. While the report highlights a relatively small number of risks and opportunities, the overall volume of IROs is balanced and manageable. The presentation is further strengthened by indicating which stakeholders are affected by each material topic, adding valuable context and clarity.

Communication & Visuals – ★★★☆☆ (3/5)
The value chain and decarbonisation illustrations are particularly creative and comprehensive, offering strong visual support. However, most sections of the report are predominantly text-heavy, with minimal use of visuals. There is room to enhance overall engagement by incorporating more diagrams, colour, charts, and other visual elements throughout.

Navigation & Structure – ★★★☆☆ (3/5)
The report includes numerous subheadings however, the overall structure could be improved with clearer section layering to enhance readability. Incorporating formatting elements such as box-outs, colour, or visual cues  - which would further support navigation and clarity. While it does not tag content to specific ESRS disclosure requirements, it does reference relevant topical standards.