Directions 2008 The Research

SALTERBAXTER DIRECTIONS 2008

24/25

74% SUCCESSFULLY ARTICULATE wHAT CR OR SUSTAINABILITY REALLY MEANS TO THEIR BUSINESS, GOING BEYOND SAYING THAT IT IS jUST THE RIGHT THING TO DO. 80% HAvE INTEGRATED CR AND SUSTAINABILITY INTO THE ONGOING BUSINESS STRATEGY AND DISCUSS HOw IT wILL ENABLE THE BUSINESS TO BE SUCCESSFUL.

78% ARE ENGAGING wITH STAKEHOLDERS AND INCORPORATING THEIR EXPECTATIONS OF THE BUSINESS INTO THEIR APPROACH.

60% EFFECTIvELY COMMUNICATE HOw THEY ASSESS MATERIALITY.

58% OF REPORTS ARE SUSTAINABILITY REPORTS, 30% ARE CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY OR CSR REPORTS.

22% OF THE TOP 50 EUROPEAN COMPANIES ARE TALKING ABOUT THE COMPLEX ISSUES OF CR 2.0 AND BEGINNING THE SHIFT.

22%

ANALYSIS BY SECTOR AND FT EURO RANKING


VOLKSWAGENVolkswagen’s sustainability communications are an example of absolute best practice, tackling the key material issues for this sector and considering issues much larger than it. The communications, based on these issues, are well thought out, easy to understand and to the point. This approach is embedded as ‘doing business as usual’ and is being used to form long-term strategy. Throughout the website and sustainability report, stakeholders’ expectations are referenced and the resulting actions described. Volkswagen is looking at all aspects of its operations and the possible implications. Dialogue is transparent and frequent with use of success stories and, more unusually, the disclosure of problems. Globalisation, and the challenges and opportunities this presents, is one of the issues looked at in depth.

DAIMLERDaimler is at a relatively early stage of incorporating sustainability into its business, with a sustainability committee established in July this year. It is currently working on embedding sustainability as part of business strategy rather than a separate consideration. Although the communications look very impressive with a magazine, interactive report and downloadable report all entitled ‘360 Degrees’, the issues are unfortunately relatively introspective, and the analysis isn’t quite as comprehensive as 360 degrees would suggest. It would be interesting to understand how Daimler has analysed its material issues and whether this process involved its stakeholders. Daimler would also benefit from making communications more open and transparent with information easier to find as well as being more comprehensive. It’s a good start, but Daimler has a long way to go to be in the same league as Volkswagen.

HSBCHSBC has a sustainability strategy, which recognises that its continued financial success depends on the way it manages and addresses issues material to the business. It also shows an understanding that these ‘non-financial’ issues need to be integrated into the way HSBC does business. Following various initiatives to engage with stakeholders, climate change, forestry, and sustainable lending and finance are the issues identified as key impact areas. A number of ‘key sustainable issues’ are identified and broken down by customer group. This is

FT EURO RANK AUTOMOBILES21

FT EURO RANK AUTOMOBILES30

FT EURO RANK BANKS

4

inconsistent as on the website issues identified are related to customer groups. Although some very hard issues are addressed, this inconsistent approach to the prioritising and rationalising of some 14 issues leaves the reader unclear as to how or why issues are being tackled.

BANCO SANTANDERAlthough there is little information within the online CR web pages, there is a good overview of where sustainability fits into the business structure. The map of sustainability focuses on business operations, where issues are addressed in order to ensure the continued success and stability of the business. The materiality study with detailed analysis of the financial sector’s main reputational risks determines which issues are addressed. These appear to be those that have impact on the ‘confidence of society in the bank’ leading the reader to question whether the integration of CR into the business is really apparent? Given the current climate in the industry, it is fair to say responsible financial advice to customers is one of the key issues the bank needs to address, however the bias of stakeholder engagement towards customers, and the frequent mention of reputational risk results in a lack of communication on its wider responsibilities.

BNP PARIBASIt seems to be a trend within the banking sector that a large part of the CR report is focused on the structure of the business units with BNP Paribas at the forefront. The reader finds little on the approach to sustainable development and issue areas until page 76 of a 211-page report! Although the group’s responsibilities are identified as integral and ‘rooted in its founding values’, there is unfortunately little if any understanding of the key impact areas. Communications with stakeholders are merely listed and there is no clarity on reasons to engage. In fairness it appears to be a work in progress and the bank does have a committee responsible for identifying the challenges for the following year – let’s hope that big issues will be part of this!

FT EURO RANK BANKS13


HSBC » CONTINUED


26/27

INTESA SANPAOLOCommunications are focused on the formation of the new group. Although working towards CR 2.0 status by tackling both housekeeping and thorny issues, the structure of issues is a little unclear. The current report is split into an economic report and social report – the social section looks at all stakeholders and the banks’ responsibilities, and the economic section sheds light on the banks’ value adding capacity. And online you will find information on environmental objectives. Perhaps a simple explanation of this could be the challenges in bringing together the focus of the two major banks and communicating it as one? A section identifying the issues that are most important to stakeholders is developed to discuss how the business rationalises the way it tackles them with a section on ‘improvement objectives’. If volume is anything to go by then clients and customers are the main focus. The need to assist customers in the investment sector and the protection of savings is identified as a top priority. Although such issues are identified, they are not really discussed in depth.

UNICREDITO ITALIANOAnother example from the banking sector that has a clear focus on communicating value added, ‘expressing in monetary terms the relationship between the business and the socio-economic system with which it interacts’. A little unsure of its understanding of reasons for tackling certain issues, the group makes statements such as: ‘during 2007, the media and the public focused their attention on global climate change and UniCredit Group stepped forward to address this vital issue’. The group appears to be working on a process where it can define priority areas through internal analysis of its impact on stakeholders. For the 2007 reporting period, focus was placed on ‘The Art Experience’ described as a ‘formative year for the bank’s international activities in culture’ – this is part of its aim to ensure all employees understand what is required for long-term sustainable growth, including the issues most material to stakeholders.



BBVACR is discussed on equal par with corporate reputation so at first it’s a little dubious as to whether the business will show any understanding of moving away from compliance to tackling the hardest hitting issues. But encouragingly, BBVA communicates a really good understanding of stakeholder expectations and the issues that are prioritised. The bank also shows good progress on integrating CR into the fabric of the business with a strategy and business model demonstrating that all group activities are aimed at ‘building a future’. Although the web structure is based on the ‘major issues’ affecting the business, as identified by stakeholder expectations, there is no clear rationale for why they are prioritised in that order. The issues also appear to be general housekeeping issues with ‘customer focus’ and ‘financial inclusion’ being the first two impact areas identified.

SBERBANK OF RUSSIAWith minimal communications on CR issues, the bank is primarily committed to domestic and international programmes to further develop social welfare. Reporting as part of the annual report only, there is no indication of the business tackling any hard-hitting issues; in fact even the housekeeping is a bare minimum.

ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLANDThe current CR report is titled ‘10 issues that matter most’, with a website following the same structure. CR is central to the way the business is managed. This is reflected by the identification of both the areas where they can have the most impact, and the issues that can make the most difference to RBS. Senior management also appear to have a clear understanding of the risks these issues present. There is clear rationale behind how these hard to handle issues are prioritised, emphasising that RBS is clearly at level CR 2.0. From large-scale quantitative opinion surveys to small, local sessions on issues, the bank has a sound stakeholder dialogue process in place which reassures that this is not a passing trend but a way of doing business. Watch this space next year though.







SIEMENSCR is part and parcel of Siemens’ core values and driven from the top. Communications appear to be promising, stating high aims of being the ‘Best-in-Class’ in CR – although unfortunately there is no real explanation of how or what this actually means. There is evidence of understanding stakeholder expectations – but little evidence of engaging with them in any dialogue. Compliance is identified as its ‘number one priority’, followed by climate protection and education. Siemens insist that managers and employees must comply with all regulations. Could this be identified as a priority purely as a result of recent media attention, or an example of a business tackling a hard to handle issue? In their own words this ‘program should not be understood merely as a response to past actions, but is aimed at achieving long-term changes in the thinking and behavior’ of Siemens managers and employees. Responding to media attention or tackling a thorny issue – this is a difficult one to judge!

ABBThe language used to define CR and sustainability makes it difficult to understand what issues are a priority for ABB. Sustainability is referred to as balancing economic success, environmental stewardship and social progress to benefit all stakeholders. With little mention of strategy, it’s not clear if sustainability or CR is integrated into the business at all, even though CR is identified as one of seven priority areas that form the issues of focus. Priority areas are also fragmented. Attention on the high impact issue of climate change, has no clear rationale behind it, and gets lost amongst the other priorities which are more general – like CR itself!

NESTLÉNestlé’s ‘Creating Shared Value’ approach for 2008 gives a good insight into how it is integrating sustainability into the business – in short how sustainability brings value to shareholders and stakeholders, and is not just a bolt-on to operations. By virtue of its supply chain, Nestlé is tackling some significant issues around sustainable agriculture, energy and biofuels, water supplies and nutrition. Interestingly, it is putting those tough issues into a global context in its report, discussing the complexities around the issues before describing its own actions. So Nestlé is developing an approach that both embeds sustainability into the business while also

FT EURO RANK ELECTRONICS & EqUIPMENT

22

FT EURO RANK ELECTRONICS & EqUIPMENT

50

FT EURO RANK FOOd & CONSUMER GOOdS

3

making the point that its sustainability work is more than housekeeping, but there isn’t always a black and white answer to the issues they are tackling. There is definitely room for more but it will be fascinating to see how Nestlé progress this as it’s looking like the beginnings of a real shift from standard CR 1.0 to embedded and challenging CR 2.0.

UNILEVERUnilever does describe sustainability as an integral part of the way it does business and a crucial factor to growth, and indeed to even existing as a business. The general sense of sustainability being embedded in the business is quite strong. And through the supply chain and the sustainable agriculture initiatives there are some really difficult issues being tackled – water, biofuels and palm oil to name a few. However what is missing is the context – why they are tough issues, how the agendas change and how Unilever navigates a path through that. Otherwise it feels more like a list of initiatives and achievements rather than a dialogue with stakeholders about how the business is sustainable. This is a tough one. Based on actual activity in the business we know that Unilever is at CR 2.0. But its communications don’t reflect this – so for now it has to be CR 1.0.

L’ORÉALThere is some level of articulation of CR at a strategy level but any sense of integration or embedded CR is lost when you find the actual approach relies on the housekeeping of environmental and social impacts of the operations of the business. So the big issues in this sector don’t really feature – things like the perception of beauty, teenage anorexia and the choice of models. L’Oréal do feature diversity as a significant issue and rightly so, but the context of why it matters so much in this sector and why they should be leaders isn’t well explained – apart from mentioning that there isn’t just one type of beauty in the world. L’Oréal could go a lot further with its sustainability approach, go beyond monitoring operational impacts and really tackle societal pressures in the sector. Especially given that it has The Body Shop to learn from!


20


35

NESTLÉ » CONTINUED


28/29

EDFEDF isn’t articulating the pressing conflicts in the energy sector in the same way as Suez and E.ON are, but it is looking at big issues. It references its activities in stakeholder engagement and discusses how the sector needs to develop over the next few years. However, housekeeping issues dominate the report and the articulation of big global issues that are full of complexities is lacking. Although tackling such issues as fuel poverty is important, there is more EDF could be doing. EDF does demonstrate in its business strategy and values that sustainability is an integrated part of the business. So a lot of very positive sustainability work going on but perhaps without the complexity and context that others in the sector are clearly thinking about.

E.ONThis sector is beset by controversy and E.ON hits this head on – it confronts the conflicting objectives of energy supply, price and environment, the negative public and stakeholder opinion it receives and the technical complexities of the various types of energy the sector provides. However, although the report appears to be hard hitting it doesn't actually get to grips with the issues as we had hoped. Stakeholder engagement is mentioned quite often but it comes across more as the company justifying its actions, rather than giving much exposure to the views of the stakeholders themselves. The bold communications approach of talking about the paradoxes in the energy sector is confined to the report – it would be great to see a more integrated set of communications in the same vein to engage a broader audience. E.ON is still at CR 1.0 but with the relevant issues being raised, we are hopeful to see them moving to CR 2.0 in the near future.

FT EURO RANK GAS, WATER & MULTIUTILITIES

9


14

SUEzSuez is upfront about five big and complex issues that the energy sector is facing, with a monster document of pages upon pages of box-ticking information. Other communications primarily consist of uninspiring web pages. Suez is on the journey, however it needs to work a lot more on its communications approach. The initial pages of the report are interesting though and put Suez amongst those energy companies battling with the complexities of its sector and how to balance conflicting economic, environmental and energy policy pressures. Interestingly, stakeholder engagement isn’t presented as much more than standard activity. Perhaps more engagement would push it along that journey a bit faster.

IBERDROLAIberdrola has a lot of sustainability work happening on the ground and is also showing signs of integrating it into the business strategy, with commitments to sustainable development and renewable energy. But the communications do not show signs of the business wrestling with the really tough issues in sustainability. And the report is such a long document that it stops communicating with the reader and just discloses activity. There is factual information about energy policy in Europe but the connections between that and the company’s views gets lost.

RWERWE doesn’t seem to have tackled its sector- specific issues in the way E.ON and Suez have – it’s still quite a predictable approach, focused on identifying straightforward material impacts and not getting across its thoughts on the big issues. In fact the company openly declares it is struggling to keep pace with society’s demands and the loss of confidence in energy suppliers. No doubt there is plenty of work going into managing operational impacts but in comparison to others and in light of what this research is looking into, RWE rather fades into the background.


31


36


44



ENELENEL communicates sustainability in a few ways – in a lengthy report, online and in a stakeholder report. In fact, stakeholder communications are extensive and there is an interesting tool to gather stakeholder feedback that is then disclosed in the report. But ENEL is operating a housekeeping approach, however hard to manage some of the impacts are. It does recognise the challenge of energy supply, price and environment and how difficult balancing those demands is – but it is a reference not a strategy. So ENEL is not in the same league as some in its peer group.

ALLIANzAllianz addresses materiality and stakeholder engagement in a clear and logical way. Plus it integrates the issues it has identified into products and services, displaying an embedded approach – key topics are the impacts climate change and demographic change have on the insurance sector. And these are of course key concerns. There is an underlying sense of the difficulty in tackling these issues and the lack of a black and white answer, but no real discussion about the complexities or how Allianz decides on its approach. It feels like Allianz is more at the CR 1.0 end of the scale than CR 2.0 – but there is definitely material to work with.

INGING engages with stakeholders, considers a variety of issues, and has evidence of sustainability being incorporated into business strategy and embedded into products and services. It recognises the importance of engaging employees. All positive, but unfortunately this is only evidence of being stationary at CR 1.0. There are some really big challenges in sustainable finance and investment that aren’t easily solved and it looks like ING isn’t ready to get out there and talk about them. So there is an opportunity for this business, if it is ready to take it.


47

FT EURO RANK INSURANCE28


AxAAXA’s communications really focus on embedding sustainable development into the business – obviously that is very important and the report covers a lot of information about product developments, tackling environmental protection and health for example. However, this research is looking for evidence of going beyond that. And there is some – recognising the difficulties of the economic climate and changes in demographics for the insurance industry, recognising that financial protection and sustainable development go hand in hand. But that recognition is not translated into views. There is little evidence of stakeholder engagement and with a long report and straightforward web pages, communications are generally not very engaging either. So some interesting work but to reach CR 2.0 there is more to do.

GENERALIGenerali very much takes the housekeeping approach, although granted with a strong focus on meeting stakeholders’ needs. The report is lengthy and it is hard to get a sense of how issues are prioritised, materiality or even the impact the business approach is having. Compared to the others in the sector, it is very underwhelming.




30/31

ARCELORMITTALAs a new organisation, ArcelorMittal is at the beginning of its CR communications and approach. It is the only mining company to opt for a CR rather than sustainability report. With the recent merger of Arcelor and Mittal Steel in June 2006, management appear to have made CR a priority for the new business to create a strategy and commitments befitting a world leader. In terms of its approach, this is an example of strategic best practice with excellent communications on stakeholder engagement and the establishment of benchmarks to measure against in future. 12 commitments have been established through its materiality assessment so it remains to be seen whether these will be tackled with the appropriate level of depth. It’s not made the shift to CR 2.0 yet, but we have high hopes for this company on the basis of its strategy – and everything appears to be moving quickly in the right direction.

RIO TINTORio Tinto reports on its sustainable development activities in the form of a review contained within the annual report. Although there is much reference to the materiality process, key issues or priorities are difficult to establish among all the topics covered on both the corporate website and printed report. Strategy is described in detail but there is little information on the results. Rio Tinto admits it does not report on all of its material issues – claiming it will publicly communicate on them if enough external interest is received. Communications would benefit from being more transparent with regards to Rio Tinto’s operations. For example, providing the actual criteria used to determine whether a site is suitable for development rather than describing a process that is used would be more meaningful.

FT EURO RANK MINING16


ANGLO AMERICAN Safety and health are major issues for the organisation as targets for zero harm aren’t being met. However, the company is clearly aiming to lead this sector by aiming for best practice policies on the big issues it is tackling. Although sustainability is clearly embedded in the company strategy and it does engage with stakeholders, information is missing on how the issues have been established and prioritised. If Anglo American can demonstrate this, it will shift to CR 2.0.

xSTRATAFrom HIV and Aids to biodiversity, community impact, water and air emissions, Xstrata has addressed a range of material issues in its communications. Reporting is well documented with good disclosure, score cards and targets on all of their issues. It has engaged with its stakeholders in order to form the material issues and prioritise these accordingly. Above all there is a high level of transparency throughout the report, information is easy to find and simple to understand. However, it could be argued that these material issues should be part of doing ‘business as usual’. Xstrata has the right process in place to establish these issues but we’re keen to see them developed in future to consider wider impacts. As Xstrata currently does not report on the impact of its supply chain we would expect to see this made an immediate priority.

BHP BILLITONBHP Billiton has created logical and easy to follow communications on sustainability on both its website and report. Information is accessible, provided in detail and also summarised – important for readers looking for an overview. Stakeholders are clearly identified and have been engaged with to establish key issues. Of particular interest is the section entitled ‘what others say’. BHP Billiton invited sustainability peers to provide their perspectives on its key issues and level of response. It is likely we will see this style of communication more often in future as it supports trust and transparency.






GAzPROMGazprom produces an environmental report – not that surprising given the nature of the business and the huge impact it has on the environment. Although saying that, there is no evidence of an understanding of how CR fits into the fabric of the business or the real impact of its operations. Little evidence of understanding of the complexity of the issues that need to be addressed was found. It goes without saying that social issues wouldn’t be addressed in this type of report – but upon reviewing the website nothing could be found there either. Various environmental issues are described but there is little evidence in its communications of how they are either prioritised or linked to the business strategy. There is little reference to stakeholders of the business and no dialogue appears to be in place to identify the thorny issues that this business should be paying attention to.

ROYAL DUTCH SHELLCommunications are well structured and the user gets a clear sense of the prioritised issues. Top line information on an issue within the report is further backed by detailed content online. Sustainable development is identified as the ‘right thing to do’, good for the business and helps ‘meet the world’s growing need for energy in economically, socially and environmentally responsible ways’. Issues of focus are those that will enable the business to create value and reduce operational and financial risk. It sees no trade-off between being profitable and responsible, understanding the need to identify, assess and manage impact on stakeholders. Shell goes through a process of opening itself up to an external assessment to judge whether it selected the most important topics to report on this year, how well these hard-hitting issues were dealt with and how it responded to stakeholder interest. Shell is clearly on track, from use of an ‘auditable content selection process’, to tackling the hardest issues hitting the industry. Communications effectively prioritise the issues that are most material to the company, and of greatest interest to Shell’s stakeholders, in addition to covering one of the most significant topics facing our world – climate change.

FT EURO RANK OIL & GAS

1


2

BPBP’s materiality matrix is very thorough and emphasises the issues that help deliver the business strategy. Those that ‘have attracted a high level of public exposure and awareness’ are also considered very important for inclusion in the current report. However, BP’s communications on CR are confusing as it is difficult to distinguish between what is identified as housekeeping issues and those felt to be the hard to handle issues. There is no doubt that BP has a clear understanding of its most material issues – however, due to the structure of the communications the most significant are not brought to light.

TOTALIt is quite difficult to work through how Total defines and ranks the issues most material to the business. Going by the structure of the communications there appear to be many. Perhaps the focus on biofuels, on the landing page of the CR section where the reader finds a special publication on work in the area, is an indication of the importance placed on the issue. With only generalised statements, the importance of each issue is not really addressed. It’s not clear how Total defines CR although it does communicate an understanding of the need to secure the longer-term future of energy, and hence the existence of the business, explaining the need to focus on biomass and solar energy processes, along with evidence of investment areas. All in all the reader is left unclear as to what the business is tackling and why.


5


6


32/33

ENI2007 is identified as an important year for ENI as sustainability has become an integral part of corporate processes. Importance is placed on qualifying for indices such as DJSI and FTSE4Good. Great use of interactive features online allow ENI to explain its ‘conceptual model of sustainability’ where social development and environmental protection are part of the long-term benefits that it can provide to the communities in which it operates. ENI communicates how being responsible can contribute to the efficient management of an organisation – however it’s unclear whether CR is identified as an add-on or part of the fabric of the business. It can only be assumed that the importance placed on each identified issue is reflected by the order in which they appear in communications. ENI may well be tackling hard-hitting issues such as climate change but unfortunately it is not clear to the reader why it is doing so.

ROSNEFTSustainable development appears under the ‘Social Issues’ tab of Rosneft’s website navigation, emphasising the types of issues prioritised. The CR strategy and initiatives (explained in a very long report!) are more based on donations and charitable giving than specific long-term initiatives or programmes. Given the nature of the business the reader would expect more environmental issues to be considered or communicated as important. However, it is fair to say the issues tackled do match up to what they consider CR to be. The business strives ‘to achieve not only high production and financial results, but also to make a considerable contribution in development and prosperity of the country and improvement of living conditions of its citizens’. They also consider stakeholders to be shareholders, company employees and their families, population of the regions of presence, and society as a whole.

STATOILHYDROAlthough StatoilHydro appears to be primarily driven by the need to create shareholder value, the group does clearly communicate the need to consider CR as a factor in helping it remain competitive and efficient. Unfortunately, reasons for focus on particular issues, aside from the direct business benefits rather than the responsible thing to do, couldn’t be found. Climate change, the first priority, is identified

FT EURO RANK OIL & GAS11



as a serious challenge for the industry – and one which also ‘represents new business opportunities’. But StatoilHydro does appear to see the real value and reason for engaging with stakeholders with a section of the reporting dedicated to the initiatives in place. Although tackling some thorny issues, it doesn’t explain much more than the business benefits of doing so. Clarity in its communications would help this business make the shift to CR 2.0.

BG GROUPFor BG Group, CR stands for its core approach to business and how it integrates business principles into practice. Communications clearly show how CR is integrated into business processes, discussing stakeholder engagement programmes and value through to corporate governance. To determine which issues to focus and report on, BG Group undertakes a thorough risk and impact assessment. Due to the nature of the business it is no surprise that climate change is defined as the number one priority and one that the group identifies it can actively tackle. Although hard to handle issues are a priority for the group, unfortunately it does not distinguish the importance between these, and those that are general housekeeping, as through the materiality assessment, it also considers ‘working to high standards’ and ‘stakeholder engagement’ as key issues. Taking good steps in the direction of CR 2.0 but still at 1.0.

LUKOILThe sustainable development report is found within the social section of Lukoil’s very unstructured website. Placed within the ‘About Us’ section, Lukoil defines CR as supporting long-term economic growth, social stability, prosperity and progress in the regions where it operates. Its issues of focus are also very broad with only ‘social and environmental’ issues identified. Aside from priority areas identified as health protection and safety of personnel and communities in the areas where Lukoil operates, there is little evidence of the business tackling the hard issues facing the sector. For now this company is stationary at CR 1.0 and needs to engage with its stakeholders to appreciate what is expected of the business and where its responsibilities lie.



STATOILHYDRO » CONTINUED



ROCHERoche is aware of the importance of stakeholder engagement and it is an integral part of its business strategy. However, there appears to be a gap between the company strategy and its approach to addressing material issues within its communications. Strategy has been formulated without evidence, or disclosure, of considering external stakeholders’ expectations. Material issues were established at the start of the year and Roche has begun collecting information on each. Although ‘relationship with stakeholders’ is considered a material issue, which we would argue should be part of doing business as usual. Next year, we hope to see Roche conducting its materiality assessment with all its stakeholder groups and taking the next step towards CR 2.0.

NOVARTISIt was difficult to find all CR information for Novartis as the communications are a little fragmented. There is a corporate citizenship section contained within the annual report, a separate corporate citizenship review, a microsite, policies and guideline documents. Further information is available on specific topics as brochures and case studies, and there is also a separate performance report. The result is confusion, much repetition and difficulties in finding complete information. Although there is evidence of stakeholder engagement and identification of material issues, coverage seems lightweight and standard for the sector. So the next step for Novartis is to streamline all this information, make the content easier to find, and delve into these issues.

GLAxOSMITHKLINECommunications show evidence of material issues being tackled head on. GSK examines its contribution towards global health, ethical conduct, and access to medicines. However, the real strength is that GSK looks in-depth at each issue and discloses far more than its competitors. It has transparent communications across all its issues. A prime example of this is the voluntary disclosure of GSK’s political donations and the reasons behind them. GSK’s latest CR report entitled ‘Answering the questions that matter’ also does exactly what its title proposes. It is obvious that GSK is working on building trust in the organisation through this transparent disclosure. The result is incredibly engaging communications that really do answer the questions that matter.

FT EURO RANK PHARMACEUTICALS

7

FT EURO RANK PHARMACEUTICALS12


SANOFI-AVENTISSanofi-Aventis has great communications on its sustainability issues which give a really positive impression. Unfortunately, an in-depth read shows this work is at a relatively early stage and much more needs to be done just to get up to speed tackling the issues that matter, let alone going beyond them. A thorough materiality analysis has been performed, however Sanofi-Aventis has not managed to tackle all these issues, of which the end of product life cycle and influence on law-makers are two examples.

BASFFor the first time, BASF has combined its financial and sustainability report into one publication. The result is evidence of a coherent, integrated strategy that sits within the business principles. Within its communications, BASF has identified its key material issues and has produced information on these through the report, the website and short videos as well. Stakeholders’ considerations have been considered with regular engagement evident. The work investigating demographic change is well thought out and relevant. BASF is considering the much wider reaching issues and has a strong sustainability strategy to ensure its future.

VODAFONEVodafone has taken a clear, transparent approach to CR communications. All communications have been designed to be easy to understand and easy to follow. The strategy too, has been simplified with the business as a whole applying ‘One Strategy’ as opposed to different techniques in different markets. Vodafone applies a simple strap line to its material issues ‘we said, we have, we will’. This simple breakdown means that its progress is easy to understand and can be tracked over the years. This open and transparent method of communication really works for Vodafone and is the highlight of all its CR communications.



FT EURO RANK TELECOMS &

TECHNOLOGy

8


34/35

TELEFÓNICATelefónica approaches a wide range of issues relating to the organisation. Activities are clearly not only for the financial benefit of the company. Telefónica is actually trying to promote responsible progress. Issues such as ‘the digital divide, accessibility, use of ICT and child protection’ are all explained clearly with transparent information on performance and targets. This responsible approach is clearly embedded in all aspects of the company and its communications. The result is easy to understand, relevant and engaging. A great example of a company that has taken the steps to CR 2.0.

NOKIAAt first glance the communications on the website appear well laid out, simple to find, with an easy to navigate online report. Once you scratch the surface of the content, you find a wealth of information hidden beneath the surface. Nokia is doing some great work here but could do with communicating these activities in a more obvious way. Its accessibility micro site is a prime example of this: great content but hard to find. Engagement with stakeholders is referenced throughout its communications and key issues are thorough and relevant as a result. Although Nokia has established its material issues, these are mainly issues that we would expect to see as doing business as usual – considering the environment, supply chain and human rights. Accessibility as its priority goes beyond this and is considered in depth. Is the business at the next stage? Almost, but not just yet.


TECHNOLOGy

10


TECHNOLOGy

15

FRANCE TÉLÉCOMFrance Télécom is the company behind the brand ‘Orange’. For this reason, expectations were high for France Télécom’s CR communications. Although its work ticks all the boxes, the messages are a little flat. Stakeholders are clearly being engaged with throughout the business and are an integral part of company strategy. The establishment of its material issues is thorough and considers all stakeholders, however the outcomes are introspective issues rather than the further reaching impacts we were looking for. The report would also benefit from disclosure on feedback and priorities for the organisation.

DEUTSCHE TELEKOMDeutsche Telekom, the name behind T-Mobile, is currently reviewing its CR practice and realigning responsibilities. As a result, it has published ‘Facts & Figures’ which is an interim report for 2007. Deutsche Telekom has a long way to go in terms of its CR communications, although it has been reporting on these issues since 1996. Hopefully, this is what Deutsche Telekom is working on and we can hope to see the full report next year. There is a fair amount of work to be developed if it wishes to be in the same league as its competitors. However we are hopeful as the organisation intends to ‘develop a CR strategy, which takes into account the needs of society, the market and our stakeholders in equal measure’.

BRITISH AMERICAN TOBACCOThe most interesting part of BAT’s communications is a Q&A section of the recent report where the CEO addresses the question that everyone wants answers to. ‘How can a tobacco company be sustainable and is CR used as a PR spin?’ BAT is open for dialogue with all of its stakeholders to debate the highly controversial issues it needs to be addressing and there is evidence that it is. Working with various scientific bodies and health communities, it is working towards developing and introducing potentially reduced-risk products, identified as its number one priority. Its sustainability agenda also addresses the key issues of concern around business operations, as well as the issues related to the nature of the products. BAT has no problem addressing general housekeeping issues, although the thorny issues are definitely much harder to handle for a business of this kind, so it warrants the mark of CR 2.0.


TECHNOLOGy

29


TECHNOLOGy

40

FT EURO RANK TOBACCO38

Directions 2008 The Research

Documents

Transcript of Directions 2008 The Research