Materiality Analysis

For the identification of the most important issues to be addressed in the 2016 Sustainability Report, the same materiality analysis (provided for in the GRI G4 and AccountAbility 1000 standards) was used as was for the 2015 Report.

In order to better assess the local stakeholders' perception of ERG entering the hydroelectric business areas, a period of observation lasting more than one year was deemed necessary. A new analysis will be carried out in 2017 and the results will constitute the basis for the next report.

During an initial documentary analysisphase, the Corporate Social Responsibility Department mapped the aspects that were considered relevant for the Group's sustainable development, on the basis of: the Company Top Management's judgement, the instructions provided by the GRI (both in the general principles and in industry specific documents), questions collected in ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) assessments during the year and benchmarks with other companies from the same sector.
The Sustainability Department has managed the process to identify material topics: an initial documentary analysis phase mapped the aspects that were considered relevant for the Group's sustainable development, on the basis of the Company Management's sensitivity, of the instructions provided by the GRI (both in the general principles and in industry specifi c documents), of questions collected during ESG ratings received during the year, and of benchmarking against other companies in our field.

The topics identified by that process (about 60) were then grouped into 23 "relevant topics": of these, 19 were assessed by internal and external stakeholders while 4 were considered prerequisites to properly portray the ERG Group and therefore were not subject to assessment. especially the "ERG Group profile and its activities", "The Group's Governance", the "Respect for diversity and equal opportunities", the "Protection of the health and safety of employees" as well as all issues concerning "regulatory compliance" were considered "material topics regardless".

The relevant topics were then assessed by the Group's top management by interviewing 12 managers (including the Chairman, the Vice Chairman and the Executive Deputy Chairman, the CEO and all his direct reports) and by direct interviews or questionnaires distributed at public events, by 12 categories of stakeholders (shareholders, suppliers, fi nancial community, local community, faculty members, third sector representatives, students, public institutions, press and bloggers, organizations and associations, companies, other), who were asked to state the 5 subjects that they considered to be a priority. the fi nal relevance scores were calculated as the arithmetic mean of the assessments expressed by the stakeholders (number of times each issue was assessed as relevant) weighted in relation to the number of members in each category of stakeholders.

The joint evaluation of two relevance ratings (that of top management and that of the stakeholders) produced the materiality analysis, i.e. the identifi cation of the topics considered relevant. These topics were discussed at Group level in the sustainability report except for specific cases of irrelevance (e.g. the emission topic does not concern the production of renewable energy).

Material Aspects: scope

Material Aspects: scope