Scope and Objectives
The Management of Stora Enso commissioned us to perform a limited assurance engagement on the Global Responsibility Report 2013 (“the Report”). The assurance engagement was conducted in accordance with the AA1000 Assurance Standard (2008) and as a type 2 engagement.
We have duly performed a limited assurance engagement, the objective of which was to evaluate:
• Stora Enso’s adherence to the AA1000 Accountability Principles of inclusivity, materiality and responsiveness;
• the reliability of performance information presented in the Report according to the Quality of Information Principles defined in the Global Reporting Initiative Guidelines (G4); and • compliance with the G4 “in accordance” criteria at
the “Comprehensive” level.
Responsibilities of the Management of Stora Enso and the Assurance Providers
Stora Enso’s Management is responsible for the preparation of the Report and the performance data and statements presented therein, which the company management has approved. Our responsibility as assurance providers is to express a conclusion based on our assessment. The criteria used for our assessment include the Global Reporting Initiative Guidelines and Stora Enso’s own internal report- ing guidelines.
Assurance Provider’s Independence and Competence
An assurance provider is required to be independent and impartial from the reporting organisation. During 2013 we were not committed to any assignments for Stora Enso that would conflict with our inde- pendence, nor were we involved in the preparation of the Report. Our assurance team consists of competent and experienced responsibility reporting and assurance experts, who have the necessary skills to perform an assurance process.
Basis of Our Opinion and Limitations
Assurance providers are obliged to plan and perform the assurance process so as to ensure that they collect adequate evidence for the necessary conclusions to be drawn. The procedures selected depend on the assurance provider’s judgement, including their assessment of the risk of material misstatement adhering to the reporting criteria.
We have performed the following procedures:
• Assessment of the procedures Stora Enso has in place to ensure adherence to principles of stakeholder inclusivity, materiality and responsiveness.
• Interviews with the Chairman of Stora Enso’s Global Responsibility Council, who is responsible for sustainability in the Group Leader- ship Team, and the Heads of Global Responsibility at three Stora Enso Divisions, conducted to gain an understanding of the major impacts, risks and opportunities related to Stora Enso’s global responsibility agenda.
• Interviews with managers responsible for performance data collec- tion at Group- level and in selected sites.
• Review of Group-level systems and procedures to generate, col- lect and report performance data for the Report.
• Evaluations of Group-level calculations, data consolidation proce- dures and internal controls to ensure the accuracy of data. • Review of data sources, data generation and reporting processes
at Stora Enso’s operations in Guangxi, China, and Langerbrugge Mill in Belgium.
Conclusions
Adherence to AA1000 Accountability Principles
• Inclusivity: Stora Enso was found to have procedures in place for stakeholder involvement, and the company has made a strong commitment to stakeholder dialogue, of which the Online Advisory Panel is an example.
• Materiality: Stora Enso has determined material reporting issues as a part of the company’s Global Responsibility Strategy and management.
• Responsiveness: Stora Enso has adequate policies, guidelines and procedures in place to respond to stakeholders’ expectations, and the company has established a governance structure and action plans to further address these expectations and concerns.
Reliability of Performance Information
We have reviewed the basis of the Global Responsibility information provided in the Report. Based on our review, nothing has come to our attention that would suggest that the Report would not give a fair and balanced view of Stora Enso’s Global Responsibility performance on all material issues, or that the information presented in respect to all mate- rial issues would not be reliable with regard to the reporting criteria.
GRI in accordance criteria
The Report complies with the GRI-G4 “in accordance – comprehen- sive” criteria.
Observations and Recommendations
Based on our limited level assurance engagement, we present the following observations and recommendations, which do not affect the conclusions presented above.
• Stora Enso has introduced a new Strategy and governance model on the company’s Global Responsibility with revised targets, key performance indicators and action plans. We recommend that Stora Enso continue intensifying efforts to ensure the company’s appropriate implementation of the new Global Responsibility Strat- egy in all operations.
• Stora Enso has systems and controls in place to collect and con- solidate Group-level responsibility data from different sources. We recommend further development of the data gathering and report- ing process towards a more integrated approach which would make the process more efficient. We also encourage Stora Enso to continue efforts to promote the company’s Global Responsibility principles and measures in the supply chain, especially concerning the occupational health and safety performance of contractors. • Stora Enso has faced stakeholder concerns especially related to
its operations in the emerging markets. We recommend that Stora Enso continue to conduct systematic Global Responsibility risk assessments and procedures to proactively respond to the sustain- ability challenges which the company has experienced in the new market areas.
Helsinki, Finland, 3rd February 2014 On behalf of Tofuture Oy
Mikael Niskala Jani Alenius
Independent Assurance Practitioner Independent Assurance Practitioner
Independent Assurance Statement
Concept and design: Miltton Oy
Photography and illustration: Ernandes Alcantara, Maryam Altaf, Núria Cugat, Eduardo Davit, Salomão Habib, Tuomas Harjumaaskola, Kaapo Kamu, Suvi-Tuuli Kankaanpää, Tuukka Koski, Teemu Kuusimurto, Vesa Laitinen, Jouni Niemimaa, Stalin Ramesh, Riitta Supperi, Anton Yarkin
It should be noted that certain statements herein which are not historical facts, including, without limitation those regarding expectations for market growth and developments; expectations for growth and profitability; and statements preceded by “believes”, “expects”, “anticipates”, “foresees”, or similar expressions, are forward-looking statements within the meaning of the United States Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Since these statements are based on current plans, estimates and projections, they involve risks and uncertainties, which may cause actual results to materially differ from those expressed in such forward-looking statements. Such factors include, but are not limited to: (1) operating factors such as continued success of man- ufacturing activities and the achievement of efficiencies therein, continued success of product development, acceptance of new products or services by the Group’s targeted customers, suc- cess of the existing and future collaboration arrangements, changes in business strategy or development plans or targets, changes in the degree of protection created by the Group’s patents and other intellectual property rights, the availability of capital on acceptable terms; (2) industry conditions, such as strength of product demand, intensity of competition, prevailing and future global market prices for the Group’s products and the pricing pressures thereto, price fluctuations in raw materials, financial condition of the customers and the competitors of the Group, the potential introduction of competing products and technologies by competitors; and (3) general economic conditions, such as rates of economic growth in the Group’s principal geographic markets or fluctuations in exchange and interest rates.