- Continuing work for long-term sustainability
- How we report Svenska Spel’s responsibility and sustainability
- Comments from the CEO and the CSR manager
- This is long-term sustainable development for Svenska Spel
- Stakeholders' expectations on Svenska Spel
- Social responsibility
- Responsibility for employees
- Economic responsibility
- Environmental responsibility
- Comments on the CSR Report
- Svenska Spel’s GRI profile
- Signatures of the Board of Directors
- Auditor's Combined Assurance Report
Stakeholders' expectations on Svenska Spel
Svenska Spel conducts an annual analysis of stakeholders’ views and expectations regarding the Company’s social responsibility. This provides a key platform for the development of operations, as well as for CSR reporting and future relationship with stakeholders.
Priority groups, 2011
The selection of stakeholders for in-depth interviews was based on the criteria, “influence on”, “perceived attitude towards”, and “perceived interest in Svenska Spel’s responsibility process”.
In spring 2011, Svenska Spel made in-depth interviews with representatives of those stakeholder groups that have a major influence on the Company’s long-term responsibility programmes: the owner, the Board, executive management, the Swedish Gaming Board and the National Institute of Public Health.
The objective was to elucidate their perception of Svenska Spel’s ability to fulfil its mandate.
The survey contained open questions focusing on Svenska Spel’s impact on society – both positive and negative.
Stakeholder survey, 2011
The interviews indicate that Svenska Spel’s future is viewed as being highly complex and uncertain. Unclear legal, political and financial conditions create a complex image
of the reality in which Svenska Spel works. Technological progress has created problems in the gaming industry, making current legislation and regulations insufficient.
The interviews also showed that the perceptions of the various stakeholder groups differed. According to some of the respondents, the gaming industry – including Svenska Spel – generates extensive social costs. However, all interviewees felt that Svenska Spel’s responsible gaming measures were more far-reaching than those of other gaming companies. However, they doubted if the responsible gaming programmes were sufficiently effective compared to legislation and other compulsory measures.
The respondents were asked whether they thought that Svenska Spel’s overall operations provide a positive or negative net social result. A net social result is defined as the total sum of the social costs that arise as a consequence of gaming operations and the social values generated by the same gaming operations. The social costs are not included neither in Svenska Spel’s financial operations nor in the Company’s CSR report based on GRI’s guidelines.
The respondents’ perceptions of Svenska Spel’s net social result varied widely, from highly positive to highly negative. Consequently, there is uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of responsible gaming measures. It was difficult for the respondents to differ between the effectiveness of the responsible gaming of a single gaming company and that
of the whole gaming industry.
The conclusion is that Svenska Spel has to clarify the net social result of its impact on society and the effect of Svenska Spel’s responsibility measures.