- we identified the persons within the Company who are in charge of all or part of the reporting process and we conducted interviews with some of these persons;
- we inquired about the existence of internal control and risk management procedures set up by the Company;
- we assessed, on a sample basis, the implementation of the “reporting procedures”, in particular the processes for collecting, compiling, processing and auditing information;
- for the quantitative data(1) that we considered to be the most important, we:
- selected a sample of contributing entities within the scope of consolidation, based on their activity, their contribution to the Company’s consolidated data, their location and the results of work carried out in previous years,
- conducted on-site audits for 56 agencies(2) and off-site audits for 23 agencies,
- carried out detailed tests on a sample basis checking the correct application of “reporting procedures”, reconciling data with supporting documents, checking calculations and the consistency of results;
- the sample of our audit work represents:
- 52.8% excluding Epsilon (or 47% including Epsilon) for all agencies selected for on-site and off-site audits, of which,
- 41.3% of employees excluding Epsilon (or 36.8% including Epsilon) for the sample of 56 agencies audited on site,
- 11.5% of employees excluding Epsilon (or 10.2% including Epsilon) for the sample of 23 agencies audited off site;
- we completed our work by carrying out consistency checks, accompanied by requests for evidence to be sent by the agencies in the event of any inconsistencies detected, on a panel(3) of indicators that were not audited. The most representative indicators of this panel were tested on 51 agencies;
- we also tested the robustness of the data verification process carried out by the team in charge of consolidation, in particular by performing sample checks on the verification of various data, by ensuring the proper application of the verification process in place and the traceability of these internal verifications and the action taken in the event of discrepancies being detected;
- performed an analytical review of the data and verified, on a sample basis, the calculations and compilation of this information at the head office and entity levels;
- for the qualitative information that we considered most important, we consulted documentary sources and conducted interviews with the people in charge of writing them;
- we examined the consistency of the information mentioned in the DNFP;
- our work was carried out between October 14, 2019 and the signature of our report over a period of approximately 14 weeks. The assignment was carried out by a team of 10 auditors who conducted interviews with the people in charge of reporting at head office level and at each of the audited agencies.
Observations on reporting procedures or the content of certain information
Without calling into question the conclusions below, we make the following observations: - we noted disparities in the traceability of certain indicators, mainly concerning: employee assessment and training in the Janus Code of Ethics. Improvements still need to be made to make these two indicators more reliable within the agencies;
(1) Social information: Total headcount – diversity: % of women members of an agency Executive Committee,% of women CEOs of agencies,% of women managers of creative teams,% of women managers of technology teams, employee assessment (% of headcount), total number of hours of training, number of hours of face-to-face training, number of hours of e-training and qualitative information on well-being at work.
Environmental information: Electricity consumption, renewables as a percentage of total consumption, recyclable waste (recycled IT equipment, recycled foodstuffs, recycled paper, recycled cartridges), distance traveled by employees on their daily commute
Societal information: number of employees trained in Janus, number of employees participating in pro bono campaigns, financial value of pro bono campaigns, financial value of volunteer projects, review of greenhouse gas emissions.
(2) South Africa (Publicis Creative South Africa – Publicis Commerce South Africa) China (Publicis Shanghai agency – MSL Shanghai – Zenith China – Zenith Trading China – Starcom China – S&S Shanghai); Colombia (Prodigious Offshore center Colombia – SMG Colombia – Leo Burnett Colombia); United States (Publicis Health Media – Digitas Health – Razorfish Health – Digitas Agencies – PS US Shared Capabilities – PS HQ US – PS US GS Public Sector – S&S New York – Mediavest USA – Publicis_New York agency – MSL USA_Heartbeat – Re:Sources USA_IT – Re:Sources USA BS – Zenith USA – S&S Wellness – Blue 449 Inc. – Rokkan); France (Prodigious France – Publicis Conseil – Base Agency – ETO – Marcel – Publicis Media France – PS FR Shared Capabilities – Soft Computing); India (PS HQ India – PS IN Shared Capabilities – Re:Sources India Gurgaon Sapient IT – Re:Sources India Gurgaon BS – Publicis Ambience Advertising Pvt – Indigo Systems and Technology Consulting Pvt Ltd – LB Bombay – Performics.Convonix – Hanmer MSL – Starcom India Offline – LBI Technologies India PvT Ltd – L&K S&S India); United Kingdom (LB London Agency – BBH Partners LLP – PS GB Shared Capabilities – Blue 449 UK – Digitas LBi Limited).
(3) Social information: employees benefiting from medical cover; absenteeism rate; frequency rate and severity rate, number of employees benefiting from parental leave
Environmental information: quantities of waste produced
Societal information: client satisfaction surveys
