Criteria

Checklist of criteria for value reporting1

University of Zurich

Institute for Banking and Finance (IBF)

Prof. Dr. Alexander Wagner
Dr. Sascha Behnk
Copyright by Institute for Banking and Finance,
University of Zurich

1 The original version of the Value Reporting rating was created in the dissertation project of Dr. Peter Labhart with Prof. Dr. Rudolf Volkart.

Introductory remarks

The criteria set out below are an exhaustive list. On the other hand, the examples are not taken through to a full conclusion, in other words the assessors can exercise freedom of judgement to identify analogies and incorporate them into their rating. This freedom of judgement is explicitly sought and designed to facilitate the most balanced possible assessment reaching across branches. Quality assurance was achieved in particular by the choice of well-trained jury members (students of economic sciences at the University of Zurich) by the Institute for Banking and Finance. Reference is often made below to “Products”. In addition to physically manufactured products this also includes abstract financial and insurance products and services.

Marking

Marks were awarded on a scale of 1 to 6 as follows:

MARK

Commentary

6

Existing, very good information content

5

Existing, good information content

4

Existing, usable information content

3

Existing, barely usable information content

2

Only existing indirectly, little information content

1

Not present, no information content

Weighting

The individual criteria blocks were weighted as follows:

criteria block

Weighting (%)

Weighting of
final rating (%)

1

General impression

5

80

2

Background information

20

3

Important Non-Financials

20

4

Trend analysis

5

5

Risk information

10

6

Value-based compensation policy

10

7

Management discussion and analysis of annual financial statement

10

8

Target data and credibility

10

9

Sustainability

10

 

Total

100

10

Value reporting on the Internet (IR)

Separate range rating

20

The (weighted) number of points gained in one criteria block results from a multiplication of the average number of points by the weighted factor (e.g. criteria block 1 General Impression: points achieved for criterion 1.1/1.2: 4/6.P. average number of points for criteria block 1: (4+6)/2 = 5. Number of points achieved for criteria block 1 (weighted factor: 5%): 5 × 0.05 = 0.25). The criteria 1–9 listed above count for 80% of the final ranking.

The criteria block Value Reporting on the Internet is assessed separately. Most question here are assessed as “existing” or “not available”, reflected by “1” or “0” in the assessment. The sub-criteria blocks 10.0 to 10.9 from the Value Reporting on the Internet sector are each weighted equally with 10%. The Value Reporting on the Internet criteria block accounts for 20% of the final ranking.

Marking

Some criteria are designed specifically for listed companies, e.g. “4.4 Total Shareholder Return”. As only listed companies can meet the relevant requirements, these criteria are disregarded in the assessment of unlisted companies and not taken into account to arrive at the overall assessment. Unlisted companies are therefore not disadvantaged. The relevant criteria are marked with a star (*).

Concepts such as “Investor” or “Investor Relations” are interpreted rather more broadly for this catalogue of criteria (in particular under the criteria block Value Reporting on the Internet). Above all in the case of unlisted companies other stakeholder groups (e.g. taxpayers, partners etc.) may be considered here.


Catalogue of criteria with explanatory notes (PDF, German only)