Best-structured CSRD reports named

The results are in for the second category, and five companies have been recognised for their leadership efforts.

Heineken and Glenveagh Properties are the joint winners for best structure in REP’s CSRD Awards 2025, with commendations for Michelin, Outokumpu and ING. 

Both winners were praised for the “readability” and “balance” of their respective reports by a panel of judges, comprising: 

Niina Turri, chief specialist for CSRD reporting at the Finnish financial authority, Finanssivalvonta.  

John Willis, senior director of corporate performance & accountability at the World Business Council on Sustainable Development (WBCSD). 

Nathalie Dogniez, chair of the European sustainable investment forum, Eurosif.  

The judges for this category were selected for the depth of their experience in corporate reporting, and collectively represent the key target audiences for CSRD reports: finance, supervisory and civil society.  

Their comments have been anonymised, because some of our judges are not permitted to opine publicly on individual companies. 

Heineken  

Heineken’s report was highly praised by the judges for its readability and layout. 

“It provides clear quantitative metrics on a wide range of issues which is supplemented with an astute use of infographics, tables and text,” one judge wrote.  

The way it linked its sustainability statement with its broader strategy was also praised for demonstrating the value of disclosures beyond simply complying with regulation.    

The judges appreciated its inclusion of a navigation bar, to guide the reader.   

Glenveagh Properties 

At just 70 pages, Glenveagh Properties’ sustainability statement garnered praise for its readability and conciseness. 

The Irish homebuilder’s clear structure, and the fact it references its sustainability statement throughout the wider annual report, “made it easy to locate and understand its context within the broader business strategy,” said one judge.   

They also expressed “considerable satisfaction” that the report included “an independent limited assurance statement on the sustainability disclosures”. 

Another recognised Glenveagh Properties’ standardised approach to disclosures, with the firm’s “very informative” use of ‘Impact, Risk and Opportunities’ (IRO) summaries, and useful details about its strategy in the environmental and governance sections. 

ING 

ING was praised for its “effective”, “well structured” and “highly relevant” report.  

One questioned if its “dense and technical” nature might limit accessibility, but added that they themselves “very much enjoyed the wealth of information.” 

They also expressed admiration for the level of “transparency in the governance section.” 

The Dutch bank group’s use of tables and graphs – particularly on sectoral transition plans, financed emissions and workers – also received special mention, although one judge suggested switching to “multi-year trend graphs for key ESG metrics” rather than year-on-year ones would make the disclosures more useful. 

Outokumpu 

Outokumpu’s report was commended by the judges for its “comprehensiveness”, with thorough disclosures on social topics “which are sometimes sparse in other reports” and internal carbon pricing. 

Judges said the Finnish steelmaker had improved its overall report with its “strong use of metrics” and clear section headings. 

Using the same format across its disclosures was appreciated by the judges.  

Michelin 

Judges noted the effort that went into Michelin’s first mandatory CSRD report.  

“There is a clear effort by management to openly discuss their sustainability strategy, including levers the company is using,” said one. 

The balance between text, tables and graphs was noted by another, with special mention of the use of “informative graphs” on value-chain and whistleblowing processes. 

Michelin’s decision to begin each section with three questions and an IRO table, made the overall structure of the disclosures “easy to grasp”, one judge said. 

But going forward, the firm was encouraged to focus more on the “connectivity between sustainability priorities and metrics with the financial impact and business case.” 

Real Economy Progress would like to congratulate all five companies for being shortlisted, and thank them for providing best practice examples for other firms around the world to follow. 

We would also like to extend our heartfelt gratitude to our judges for lending their expertise to this process, and taking the time to identify the most valuable structural traits of the reports, and where improvements could be made next year. 

And finally, thanks to all the regulators, consultants, lawyers, journalists, NGOs and companies who submitted nominations to this year’s CSRD Awards.

Important notes  

The judges were chosen as topic experts, and their decisions do not represent the views of their employers.  

The awards are a celebration of best practice in disclosure, not sustainability performance, and the outcome should not be seen as an endorsement of any company – either by the judges, their organisations, or Real Economy Progress. 

The category shortlists were compiled by Real Economy Progress journalists, from public nominations. The judges were then asked to decide, individually, which ones were most effective in helping them understand the relevant risks, impacts and opportunities of the business.