Ross

Citizens as CSR Partners Experiences of partnerships between Citizens’ organizations and Businesses in Europe Melody Ross Active Citizenship Network 24 November 2007, Athens

PRESENTATION 1. Not Alone: study of good practices in partnerships - Guidelines 2. Lisbon minus 3: Evaluating CSR partnerships- Toolbox

ACTIVE CITIZENSHIP NETWORK • Active Citizenship Network (ACN) was started at the end of 2001. • It is a network of citizens’ organizations working at the national level in 30 European countries with over 70 organizations. • It is a flexible network without membership, based on the concrete participation in activities and projects. • Promoted by a national Italian organization, Cittadinanzattiva, not Brussels based

ACTIVE CITIZENSHIP NETWORK • The main goal of our network is to promote the participation of citizens’ organizations in Europe and at the national level: – In general policy-making – In specific public policies such as healthcare. • Bridge the gap between European Institutions and citizens promoting the construction of a European citizenship as an “active citizenship. • To favor the empowerment national of civic org

CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY (CSR) • A concept whereby companies integrate social and environmental concerns in their business operations and in their interaction with their stakeholders on a voluntary basis. (Commission Green Paper 2001 “Promoting a European Framework for Corporate Social Responsibility”, COM(2001)366 Final)

• CSR is one of the instruments for reaching the objectives of the Lisbon agenda in 2010 identified by the EU institutions: in particular to contribute to a sustainable development.

RATIONALE • General consensus that CSR is characterized by dialogue and interaction between companies and their stakeholders, communities or relevant environment. • Citizens involved in companies’ activities are one of the most relevant actors of CSR. The active role of citizens: difference between CSR and traditional forms of “social dialogue”. • Lack of empirical information on citizen-corporate partnerships reflects a general problem of CSR: knowledge of concrete experiences / existing ones.

OBJECTIVES • To improve the knowledge on citizen-corporate partnerships. • To clarify added value • To strengthen citizens organizations’ participation in corporate social responsibility policy

1. THE STARTING POINT: THE NOT ALONE PROJECT (2005-2006) • 36 success partnerships in 8 countries (Austria, Cyprus, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Malta, Poland, Slovenia, United Kingdom) • A in-depth interview with representatives from companies and civic organisations • Focus on: Basis, Management, Evolution, Effects • Outputs: – Definition of a European “partnership profile” – Suggestions for European guidelines based on experience

PARTNERSHIP PROFILE •

Projects developed through partnerships are primarily: –

aimed at concerns,

–

developed at the national, less at the local, and not at the European level;

–

medium or long term;

–

managed by marketing departments or public relations offices (for companies) and by the entire organization (for ACOs);

–

supported by other investors

tackling

welfare

and

environmental

PARTNERSHIP PROFILE •

At the core business

•

Coming from previous relations

•

Not yet an ordinary activity

•

Flexibility, formality and personal relations

•

Trend towards equality

PARTNERSHIP PROFILE •

Investment of human rather than financial resources

•

Long-term, stable relationship

•

Added value and incremental character

AMBIGUITIES AND RISKS: – Actors reluctant to report conflicts – Actors reluctant to report power divide situations – Lack of involvement of intended beneficiaries – Risk of a prevailing paradoxical sense of self-sufficiency and a self-referential attitude of partnerships

GUIDELINES •

Partnerships’ bases: – –

•

Relational: transparency, integrity; mutual trust and respect; compatibility btw visions and values; enthusiasm and trust in achieving the goals Operational: fair selection and evaluation of partners

Building of partnership – –

Relational: understanding the partners’ differences and specific needs; commitment of both partners Managerial: clear and shared objectives from the beginning; clear rules on development and management of p.; avoid too much bureaucracy

GUIDELINES •

Management of partnerships: – Relational : dialogue and communication –

Operational: professional behavior and competencies; long term p.; ogoing redefinition of rules; respect of agreements, accountability.

2. EVALUATING CSR PARTNERSHIPS -

14 countries: Austria, Bulgaria, Denmark, France,Germany, Hungary,Italy, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, United Kingdom

-

Process: Methodology and Indicatores, National experience, European Workshop, final Evaluation Toolbox (2007)

EVALUATION TOOLBOX • •

Guidelines Evaluation Matrix – – –

4 dimensions (P. bases, building, management, effects) 19 sub-dimensions 42 indicators

• •

Partnership Score and Diamond Evaluation outputs: Lessons learned and future commitments

DIMENSIONS AND SUBDIMENSIONS 1.

2.

Partnership bases 1.1. Selection of the potential partners 1.2. Transparency 1.3. Recognition and trust 1.4. Strategy Partnership building 2.1. Commitment 2.2. Objectives 2.3. Responsibilities and contributions 2.4. Rules 2.5. Evaluation

DIMENSIONS AND SUBDIMENSIONS 3. Partnership management Management of the relation between the partners 3.1. Communication 3.2. Transparency and accountability 3.3. Misunderstandings, disagreements and successes Organizational management of the partnership 3.4. Responsibilities and powers 3.5. Stability of the partnership 3.6. Stakeholder engagement 3.7. Unexpected events

DIMENSIONS AND SUBDIMENSIONS 4. Partnership effects 4.1. Improvements in the partnership 4.2. Improvements in the partners 4.3. Results

EVALUATION PROCESS LESSON LEARNED AND FUTURE COMMITMENTS

PARTNERSHIP DIAMOND

Dimensional Scores

Subdimensional Scores

Indicator Scores

Shared scoring exercise

INDIVIDUAL PARTNER EVALUATION (Company)

INDIVIDUAL PARTNER EVALUATION (Civic organisation)

PARTNERSHIP DIAMOND

Bases 1,8

Effects

1,6

1,9

Building

1,7

Management Score

REMARKS ON THE EVALUATION METHODOLOGY AND TOOLS Merits/Strengths: • • • •

Very extended evaluation process, to investigate the whole cycle of the partnership (how the relationship is going and its future development) It exceeded participants expectations Improving communication through face to face meetings It enables to think about partnerships in terms of strategy

REMARKS ON THE EVALUATION METHODOLOGY AND TOOLS Weaknesses: • • • • • •

Sometimes difficult to understand; Time consuming It is developed at the end of rather than at the beginning or during the partnership It presupposes continuity in the partnership’s “owners” Its results could be influenced by the kind of project for which the partnership is started Applicable to large bodies rather than to small or medium ones

LESSONS LEARNED • • • • • •

Clear bases since the beginning, to prevent problems during the partnership Importance of transparency, sharing, recognition, honesty, openness and trust To disseminate information about the partnership inside the whole institutions Partner selection: potential partners should be identified in terms of their ability to implement the objectives; to be very rigid in the selection process Partnership relationships has to be flexible, allowing selfinitiative The objectives should always be clearly articulated and understood by all people involved

LESSONS LEARNED • • • • • • •

Evaluation is important in order to be aware of what is going on To find a balance between personal and institutional relations To know more about prevention and management of misunderstandings Involvement of the public institutions in the projects To ensure continuity of the partnership, just beyond the personal relationships Setting up more precise goals To organise a final evaluation meeting at the end of the project

CONCLUSIONS Partnerships as CSR “technologies”: –

On the companies’ side: linking companies and stakeholders in a common framework able to generate a significant impact inside companies and in their reputation, and to enrich their identity, thus increasing their value.

–

On the stakeholders’ side: enhance the awareness of their role and their ability to interact with companies, thus overcoming prejudices and “standard views” and constructively challenging companies to take corporate social responsibility seriously.

For more information

www.activecitizenship.net Thank you