Opinion of the Alliander stakeholder panel

Dear reader,

After ten years, we can safely say that the Alliander stakeholder panel has become a real tradition in preparing Alliander’s annual report. As members of this panel and representatives of the outside world, we provide feedback on the draft annual report. We are delighted that Alliander considers it important to have stakeholders preview the report content at an early stage, thereby giving them the opportunity to make valuable contributions to the report based on their expertise and backgrounds. We are confident that the organisation will succeed in gearing the report more to stakeholders’ needs and wishes.  

Review of Alliander’s role in the energy transition and related disclosures in the annual report 

Like in previous years, we were given a comprehensive update on the complex challenges associated with making the energy supply in Netherlands more sustainable. Alliander operates in a harsh and tempestuous world. Congestion is a limiting and delaying factor that is now affecting higher, medium and lower voltage networks alike, which comes with environmental and climate costs. Access to the energy we need is not always a given anymore, while the solution is far from straightforward due to inflation, lack of space and skilled workers, and a new, uncertain political landscape. It is clear to us that, amid this spectre of challenges, Alliander is staying on course when it comes to getting work done, flexibilising and communicating. However, we believe that there is also an element of ‘acceptance’ to it. By that we mean whether we can accept that Alliander’s remit is broadened, that Alliander takes on more responsibility and is given the required mandate and resources for that, whether we can accept that this may lead to new risks, such as greater cost to society or reduced reliability.

Courage 

On an overall level, the panel emphasises that changing the energy system has ceased to be a transition and has become a transformation, and that what is required from the organisations involved is a large dose of courage to join the transformation. Courage to go off the beaten track now and again and to dare to jump in at the deep end. And that actually also goes for drafting the annual report. The annual report exudes a great deal of ambition, even though it is all a bit high-level or overly nuanced at times, and we have also seen some discrepancies creep in. This is why we recommend explaining ambitions in more concrete terms. Be clearer on who you are and what you stand for. For example, while we appreciate the information about climate change mitigation, we also see that adaptation is becoming very important. The war in Ukraine is mentioned, but the potential impact of geopolitical threats on our energy system is left aside. Alliander’s profile could be described in more concrete terms. 

Future-proof for future generations

The report also presents several vistas for the coming 40 years and future generations. Everyone at Alliander is working on the future and represents the future in their activities. We would like to read more about the ‘generational effect’ of certain choices, as well as about clean and zero-emission building practices with partners from across the value chain. Safety, scope 3 emissions or biodiversity. It should be noted here that despite all the challenges, the company is not losing sight of where its added value lies in the long term and that Alliander’s policy is guided by the SDGs and, since 2024, general prosperity. The panel deems this kind of ‘future-proofing’ to be commendable, especially in light of the growing social debate about people’s social and job security, or rather – according to panel – ‘social and job INsecurity’. Energy affects everything. Not only do the costs of energy need to be shared more evenly, but also the yields. The first thing Alliander says is: “We stand for an energy supply system where everyone has access to reliable, affordable and sustainable energy on equal terms,” but the panel feels that ‘equal terms’ is an outdated concept. What more can an organisation with a social purpose like Alliander do to contribute to this? We would like to see more about this in the annual report.  

The annual report as a communication tool 

Alliander’s annual report has been a document with a clear profile for many years now. It provides a lot of information, ticks all the boxes, and is easy to read. While this is all very nice, it does get overly narrative-heavy sometimes. Great for the creators, but not so much for the reader. We recommend that you add even more visuals and avoid stating the obvious. What we believe would be interesting is to give more specific thought to how to publish the content. 

CSRD and CSDDD 

The 2024 annual report is Alliander’s first CSRD-compliant report. The panel appreciates that a lot of time and effort have been put into elevating the associated sustainability statement in the report to the required level. Though sometimes formulated in a way that is not easy to understand, the information presented is comprehensive and in-depth. The statement adheres to the European Sustainability Reporting Standards in a way that is logical and works well. The panel does want to point out, however, that the structure and visualisation of the double materiality assessment raise questions. The decision to not yet adhere to the CSDDD, which is set to enter into force in 2026, is understandable, but it would still be good to pre-empt this due diligence requirement. Value chain aspects and uncertainties could already have been identified more clearly in this report. 

Alliander’s dilemmas 

During the panel discussions, we briefly addressed the dilemmas that Alliander has formulated. We recognise and accept these dilemmas. When it comes to the dilemma of affordability and costs, there is still a lot left to be said. Even with investments running into the billions, it is great to see that Alliander still has the affordability issue top of mind. Additionally, we are well aware that energy reliability and energy availability are at odds with each other. Is it acceptable to compromise on reliability to reduce congestion? Even a power outage of only a few minutes triggers an outpouring of outrage on neighbourhood WhatsApp groups these days, while frequent power outages are an accepted phenomenon in many other countries. It is a tricky matter to navigate, even if there are simply no suitable solutions yet and it is not up to Alliander to solve this dilemma all by itself. Having said that, Alliander could be more explicit on the extent of its responsibility on these dilemmas, and convey this more clearly in the titles of the paragraphs on the dilemmas. In short, Alliander should be better at marking its own territory: Alliander cannot and is not expected to do it all by itself. Taking up a position is allowed and would even be helpful.  

A final word 

Alliander’s reporting is again of a high quality. We hope that our contribution will help to retain this high level of transparency. We would like to thank Alliander for its positive attitude towards its stakeholders, for giving us the opportunity to give meaningful feedback on the draft version of the annual report and for the substantive dialogue with the Management Board. 

On behalf of the stakeholder panel, 

  • Samira Ibrahim – researcher into climate risks and climate change adaptation | PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency and freelancer for Platform Energiebewustzijn 

  • Robert Koolen – Sustainable Development Director at Heijmans 

  • Dick Ligthart – Green, Social & Sustainability Bonds Director | ABN AMRO bank

  • Marije Ruysch-Koster – Director, Energiebank, Arnhem region 

  • Marhijn Visser – Deputy Director of International Affairs and ESG lead at VNO-NCW/MKB Nederland 

  • Dick de Waard – ESG Governance, Reporting and Assurance Adviser, Professor Emeritus of Auditing at the University of Groningen 

  • Mare de Wit – Trailblazer at Toekomst aan Tafel, Climate-Proof Water Management Advisor at Rijkswaterstaat  

The stakeholder panel 

The stakeholder panel that assists us with the annual report forms part of our ongoing stakeholder dialogue. We shared a draft version of the 2024 annual report with the panel members in December. It was discussed during an online meeting held on 19 December 2024, attended by our CFO Walter Bien. The feedback was used to improve this report, and will also serve to further enhance the quality of our reporting. The stakeholder panel is independent. Perhaps you, too, would like to talk to us about the annual report or the issues confronting Alliander. We are open to dialogue and also regularly organise roundtable sessions with our stakeholders. Please contact us on communicatie@alliander.com (new window). 

Response from the Management Board

The Management Board would like to thank the stakeholder panel for their analysis and all their reflections on our challenges. We have looked very seriously at the panel members’ opinions on the draft annual report. Following that assessment, we included as much of the advice as possible in the final version of our annual report.

For instance, you call for greater ‘acceptance’ of the fact that current grid congestion problems are leading to problems within society, and that this may require the network operator to take on more responsibilities. It is precisely with that in mind that our annual report (1) extensively covers the importance of communicating about the consequences, especially in the Flevopolder region and the provinces of Gelderland and Utrecht, and (2) includes a description of the now amended legislation that allows network operators to offer new types of contracts. We must also point out, however, that it takes time to use these contract types in the right way and place.

When it comes to socioeconomic security and affordability, we share the panel’s view on the importance of this issue, as evidenced by the dilemma we are presenting in this report. We will take your advice to be clearer on the scope of our responsibility on board in preparing our future reports. We will better detail the link between our position in the value chain, the rules and the dilemmas we face. In terms of what we are doing in this respect, please refer to the section of the annual report that provides a detailed account of an impact case study on our disconnection policy in situations involving vulnerable households. This is a precursor to new industry policy, which we will be able to report more on next year.

You rightly state that climate change adaptation should feature more prominently. Our sustainability statement details our risk mitigation measures, but we are as yet unable to answer the question of whether we are doing enough with these measures compared to the potential financial impact. We take this advice to heart and are working on the next step for this topic. We will go into this in the next annual report.

Finally, you give some clear advice regarding EU directives. As far as the CSDDD is concerned, we expect it to be further integrated with the CSRD and we will be ramping up our sustainability reporting next year. As to your advice regarding the visualisation of the double materiality assessment, we had to conclude this time that changing it would raise questions from the auditor and would also require further notes. This means that we would have had to add nuances after all. We will reconsider this for our 2025 report.