Search

Joe Franses is director of corporate responsibility and sustainability (CRS) at Coca-Cola Enterprises. He tells Ethical Performance how he works across the business’s network of experts


Q CSR impacts broadly on a business – how wide is your remit?

It’s a wide remit, which we capture through our sustainability plan; Deliver for Today, Inspire for Tomorrow. The plan sets sustainability targets across seven areas that are central to our business, the environment and society, and sets out a roadmap for how we will reduce the carbon footprint of the drink in your hand by one third, by 2020.


Q What are the key CSR areas for CCE?

We have commitments across seven focus areas and want to demonstrate best practice across all of them, but we believe we can make the biggest difference in two specific areas: Energy and Climate Change and Sustainable Packaging and Recycling. Our commitment to “reduce the carbon footprint of our products by one third by 2020” is central to our plan, particularly as it will require action to reduce carbon emissions across our entire value chain. Our target to “recycle more packaging than we use” is also critical, as our packaging represents just under half of our total value chain carbon impact. Both targets are a significant stretch for our business and we recognise that we won’t be able to find all the answers on our own.


Q You’ve just published your CR & sustainability report in a new format and for the first time online, what triggered this new approach?

The key thing about sustainability reporting is that it needs to be easy to understand, accessible and engaging. As a business, we’re conscious that reporting can also be very technical and data driven, so through our virtual town we’re telling a story that is engaging and enables users to dip in and out of the areas that are of interest to them.


Q What would you say are the main highlights of the report?

In 2012 we made strong progress towards our sustainability plan goals with significant achievements in carbon reduction, water usage and packaging recycling. Achieving an absolute 15% reduction in our operational carbon footprint versus 2007 and reaching our lowest ever water usage ratio have been particularly significant.
Later this year we’re looking forward to sharing the findings of our recently launched research study with the University of Exeter, where we’re working with 20 households in Great Britain and France to observe and learn from at-home recycling behaviours


Q Given your 8-year tenure at CCE, what have been the main changes you’ve seen?

Our sustainability agenda is led from the top, which means that sustainability is genuinely at the heart of day-to-day business and embedded into everyday decision-making. With the launch of our sustainability plan, we acknowledged that our carbon footprint can no longer be considered as resulting only from our core business operations, but instead we must take responsibility for the impact across our wider value chain. Recognition of this throughout the business has required a significant change in mindset and has been highly significant changes.


Q What are the main challenges in CSR & sustainability today?

Sustainability never stands still, and expectations evolve rapidly, as does associated policy. You continuously have to think further outside your business, and consider the impacts related to your entire value chain.
Raising awareness and understanding of sustainability among our employees is also critical, and just recently we trained our procurement professionals on how to embed that mindset into their day-to-day relationships with suppliers. Further to that, over 150 senior leaders have undertaken a specialist sustainability leadership course with the University of Cambridge’s Programme for Sustainability Leadership, to learn more about the sustainability challenges our industry faces. 


Q What has been your most successful CSR initiative so far (and why)?

The development of our sustainability plan (Deliver for today; Inspire for tomorrow) has been the most critical initiative that I’ve been involved with. It is central to how we are growing our business, while building a more sustainable future. Within that, it has been really important to acknowledge that we don’t have all of the answers. We will only be able to meet our goals by working in partnership with others and by collaborating to solve not only the challenges facing our business, but the industry at large. rather than the “why” or “what” of corporate responsibility. Indeed, not so much is it relevant or applicable in business but how it should be driven, governed, managed and implemented.


Q What competitive advantage does having an active CSR programme give CCE?

Our sustainability plan is important to our customers, their consumers, and increasingly investors, so isn’t something any business can afford to ignore. It is also of high importance to our own employees who continue to encourage us to move forward on our sustainability journey. For CCE, it is also about ensuring that we are able to reduce our reliance on natural resources. As such, it is central to the long-term commercial success of our business, and the health of the wider economy.
 

Among UK Funds it was Guinness Alternative Energy C, a £1.96m fund, which secured the yellow jersey over the last one year to 30 June 2013 with a cumulative return of +39.76%. However, it compares poorly to its -26.04% over the past three years. Effectively the fund swapped places over last 12 months with the £146.37m Robeco New World Financial Eqs D EUR fund with a +39.63% return. This mirrored solid double-digit percentage performances over three and five years of +30.12% and +23.21%, respectively. Sarasin Sustainable Equity USA B, a £18.34m fund, came third top with +39.12% . Bottom once again was SUNARES but with a deteriorating -31.82% over the prior month. This exceeded the second worst performer - Robeco Natural Resources Equities D EUR - over the past year with -4.65% vs -25.94% for the past five years.

Click to view UK Registered Funds chart

 

Top among US Mutual funds was Eventide Gilead N on one-year with a +35.61% return versus a whopping +92.77% over the past three years, from Great-West Ariel Mid Cap Value Init fund (top last time) at +34.07% in second place (versus 76.94% over the past three years) and Calvert Small Cap A fund (+33.45%). Bottom ranked in this 198-fund sector was again GuideStone Funds Inflation Prtctd Bd GS4 with -4.80% .

Click to view US Mutuals chart



LSF Asian Solar & Wind A1, a European OE equity alternative energy fund, scooped the top spoils once again for the past year among the universe of European funds with +46.88%, beating Robeco GTAA D with +41.43% and Incometric Global Valor B fund (+35.74%).

Click to view European Funds chart

Top ranked in the UK Pension funds sector was as previously, Skandia/Ecclesiastical Amity Europe Pension, over the past one-year horizon with +33.86%, although a tad lower than the +42.80% in the prior month to end May 2013. The fund just pipped Standard Life Ethical UK 2 Pen (+33.82%) and Aviva/ATSF European Growth inet Pen (+33.58%) . The top five funds were tightly bunched on the 1-year performance and separated by only 0.37% points. ReAssure NM Deposit Pension fund ranked bottom with just +0.34% over the last 12 months. This sector exhibited the best peer group average of all five sectors (+20.99%) for the past year.

Click to view UK Individual Pensions Funds chart

Within the UK Insurance Funds sector Skandia performed well with its Skandia/Ecclesiastical Amity Europe Life fund once again coming top from 122 funds with +32.98% over one year, followed by Skandia/Premier Ethical Life (+29.61%). L&G/Life Neptune Green Planet was bottom ranked over one-year for the second month running but with -6.61% this time.

Click to view UK Insurance Funds chart

In June, Apple, AOL, Dropbox, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, PalTalk, Skype (Microsoft), Twitter, Yahoo! And YouTube (Google) were accused of allowing intelligence services to access their servers to retrieve data about users, through the monitoring programme (PRISM) endorsed by the Obama administration.

All over the world, companies in the Information & Communications Technology (ICT) sector face increasing government pressure to comply with domestic laws and policies in ways that may conflict with the internationally recognized human rights of freedom of expression and data privacy. In the last decade, ICTs, have opened new channels for the free flow of ideas and opinions, thereby promoting democracy and human rights. Companies’involvement in ensuring the respect of these rights is crucial.

The UN Guiding principles on Business and Human Rights do not leave this in any doubt: under the “Protect, respect and Remedy” Framework, it is not only States have the obligation to protect the human rights of their citizens, but also companies that have the responsibility to respect these rights.

The PRISM case shows that the extent to which a company protects customers’ private data (‘data privacy’), in addition to informing them of their rights and the companies’ own legal obligations in terms of providing information to legal authorities is becoming increasingly important. It is one of the main responsibilities for companies to ensure that the privacy of data exchanged in their networks is ensured.

Human rights violations, including violations of privacy of data, represent a reputation risk, given the strong media attention. Privacy breach cases can also expose the company to legal action, damage claims and fines. On the other hand, companies that adopt explicit and appropriate human rights principles and goals along with mechanisms for their implementation and reporting might be better prepared to prevent human rights abuses and to deal effectively with allegations of wrongdoing that may arise.

Awareness within ICT companies has grown, and interesting initiatives undertaken. The Global Network Initiative (GNI) has created a collaborative approach to protect and advance freedom of expression and privacy in the ICT sector. By signing the GNI’s principles, companies commit to respecting the human rights of freedom of expression and privacy.

The PRISM case shows that the corporate responsibility of preventing the violation of human rights and the privacy rights of company’s customers does not arise only in authoritarian regimes, but also in democratic countries. Companies must respect ‘the right to know’ of their customers and at least inform them in a clear and intelligible way that their communications can be observed and monitored by public authorities.

Fouad Benseddik, director of methodology & institutional relationships, Vigeo 

Submitted by Guest Contributor

By Danna Pfahl, VP, Stakeholder Engagement, Future 500

NGOs and corporations often don’t see eye-to-eye on a number of issues, and so the opportunity for the two parties to publicly engage in civil discourse is rare, especially on social media, where strongly charged sentiments often prevail.

While it is tempting for corporations to bury their head in the sand, delete negative comments, and avoid contact with adversarial stakeholders, such actions have consistently proven to increase risk, not deter it. On June 18th, CSRwire partnered with Triple Pundit to host a live Twitter chat with Nestlé Waters North America to show how one of the biggest bottled water companies is creating “shared value."

The online discussion, which attracted its share of critics and advocates, covered prepared questions in the beginning, leaving roughly half an hour for questions and feedback from the audience. The hashtag #SharedValue reached more than 560,000 Twitter accounts and was included in over 1,000 tweets between June 11-18^th.

Engaging with Critics:

But it's not just about the numbers. The audience acknowledged Nestlé Waters’ progress, but also shared differing perspectives.

Some tweeters pointed out that clean tap water is not available everywhere, while others noted that places where most bottled water is sold tend to also have clean drinking water from the tap and water fountains available.

Besides the availability and conservation of water, Nestlé Waters also brought up the importance of collaboration “across industry, government, municipalities, NGOs and nonprofits.” Other topics included:

Reuse:

Health:  

Drought:

At the end of the hour, it was appreciable to observe that rather than ignoring critical comments or becoming defensive, the company used the feedback to engage in a meaningful conversation and clearly explain the brand’s approach.

Since there wasn’t enough time to answer all the individual questions during the chat – over 50 – Heidi Paul, EVP, Corporate Affairs, responded to them in a blog series on Talkback, thus closing the loop on the many issues that came up during the dialogue.

Value of Stakeholder Engagement Via Twitter

So why did the company choose to use an open forum like Twitter to invite and answer its boldest critics?

Because, Twitter chats are a great way to have an organized conversation with a company’s most emboldened stakeholders. The company can present a new idea or strategy, develop its community network, and address issues of concern early on. Other key benefits include:

• Feedback loop in real time: Understanding concerns now, not tomorrow, will keep the company ahead of the curve. Twitter uniquely fills this need.
• Humanize the company: Authentic and transparent responses to stakeholders shows your human face. Follow-up from specific staffers can take it to the next level.
• Decrease conflict: The company can diffuse tension by quickly, directly, and genuinely engaging those campaigning against them.
• Make friends before you need them: Often companies look for allies after they are attacked, which corners them into a reactive (rather than proactive) strategy. Early contact with activist groups and others can build trust before conflicts arise.
• Engage internal stakeholders 

An Emerging Tool?

According to a recent study by Harvard Business Review, almost 80 percent of companies are either using or planning to use social media, but only 12 percent feel that they are using them effectively.

A look at the participants in CSRwire's recent chats – Nestle Waters, ARAMARK, Campbell Soup, Mars, Unilever, Walmart – offers a glimpse of an emerging list of commendable leaders in the area. They understand that social media is an exciting way to reach out to stakeholders and forge new, mutually beneficial relationships and have found that social media helps them listen to the concerns of their clients, customers and communities.

Unfortunately, a large percentage of companies are still hesitant to get serious about social media or thinks it’s a “passing fad.” "At the C-Suite level, they don't want to talk about social media because they don't understand it," as one executive admitted in the Harvard study.

While companies' wariness about engaging on social media platforms due to the perceived risks associated is understandable, they – especially consumer facing brands – must accept the reality: they can’t control attacks on their brand anymore. The companies that understand this fact and adapt will set themselves apart from their competitors and be more successful as conflicts arise. It is definitely better for a company to be involved in the conversation, than to let it happen unmonitored and unanswered.

You may not win everyone over in the process, but you will be respected for being transparent and tackling difficult issues.

Companies like Unilever, Nestlé Waters and Walmart have begun to forge shared solutions to the challenges that face not only the public, but also private corporations in the 21^st century. There will always be criticism of the private sector, but companies must use social media as an opportunity to help communicate more directly. Show that its values align with those of many different stakeholders, even those with whom it may not agree.

About the Author:

Danna Pfahl is the VP of Stakeholder Engagement, supporting the development of strategic stakeholder relationships and core programmatic work at Future 500. She has a background in environmental policy and coalition building, working with Oxfam America, Global Exchange, Amnesty International and a handful of SF-based political consulting firms on environmental and social issues.

After working at the grassroots level, Pfahl wanted to explore ways to work within corporations in order to understand the hurdles and areas of potential alignment with the activist community. She currently works directly with some of the largest utilities and consumer brands in the country to advance market based approaches to environmental problems.

ArcelorMittal, the world’s largest steel producer, has scrapped its project for a plant in Orissa state, eastern India, mainly because its attempts to acquire the necessary land have been continually obstructed.

The company, which makes about 6% of the world’s steel, had signed an agreement in December 2006 to build a $12bn (£7.8bn, €9.1bn) complex. Annual steel production from the site was due to reach about 12 million tonnes.

However, farmers whose land would have been taken voiced strong objections and complained they were being expected to sell at below the market rate.

ArcelorMittal’s offers to purchase hit legal blocks, and repeated approaches to R.K. Singh, the steel and mines minister, received no response. Another obstacle was the company’s failure to obtain a licence to mine iron ore at the site for use in its steel production.

ArcelorMittal’s pull-out troubled some senior figures. The Orissa Congress president Niranjan Patnaik protested: “The government stands exposed by the withdrawal of the ArcelorMittal steel project. Its tall claim of pushing industrialisation in the state over the last 12 years has fallen flat as none of the major projects have taken off yet.”

Former industries minister K.V. Singhdeo accused the government of a lack of vision and blamed its refusal to welcome big projects for driving investors away from Orissa.

The ArcelorMittal decision came a day after the Korean manufacturer Posco dropped plans for a $5.3bn (£3.5bn, €4bn) steel plant in Karnataka state, southern India, because it too failed to acquire the land and to obtain permission for iron ore mining.

Despite its disappointment, ArcelorMittal is continuing with two other factory projects in Karnataka and Jharkand state, located in eastern India.

The stubbornness of the Orissa farmers whose land was eyed by ArcelorMittal did not surprise Nitya Rao, professor of gender and management at the University of East Anglia international development school.

Rao recalls that Orissa has a recent history of rights activism, making its citizens more aware of injustice.

Large companies wishing to start up in India have always tried to obtain land on the cheap, she told Ethical Performance.

She wondered why corporations were prepared to spend heavily on building factories and to make deals with the government but would not offer, say, an extra $2m to the people whose land they took.

“They feel they can browbeat the poor,” she said. “These people have always had a bad deal.”

Another problem for farmers being displaced by industrial development was that many did not own their land and had no rights over it. 

Professor Rao called for a clearer law on land rights in India. 

When Shakespeare’s Juliet poses the question, “What’s in a name? A rose by any other name would smell as sweet” she is alluding to the fact that what matters is what something is, and not what it is called. In the responsible business model what that something is has a heightened importance and in our brand oriented 21st century, what it is called is pretty important too.

I recently came across a story about a high school sports team in the US which has recently changed its name, a name that had been part of the local area’s DNA since 1926. The school in question, located in the northwest corner of Washington State, dropped the nickname ‘Redskins’, following similar moves by other districts to drop offensive names.

What I found interesting was that the school board made this decision despite overwhelming public opposition to the idea. The majority, it seemed, saw no harm in the moniker. (And of course the professional team, the Washington Redskins NFL franchise, is still the second most valuable club in the USA today.)

The story reminded me of the time when I was studying Ibsen’s Enemy of the People in which the lead character, Dr Thomas Stockmann, on discovering a huge community health risk, is shocked to find that he is not listened to. It always shocks me too to think that ‘the majority is not always right’, having been brought up on a diet of community and the basic principles of democracy.

One of the memorable quotes from the play is “the strongest man in the world is the man who stands most alone” which could describe the modern day whistleblower (depending on your viewpoint). Margaret Heffernan, the writer and business woman, knows a lot about whistleblowers. In her book, Wilful Blindness (which, by the way, I heartily recommend), she talks to quite a few to find out what drove them to stand up and be counted. She also calls them Cassandras – based on the Greek mythology of Cassandra who had the gift of prophecy but also cursed by Apollo to never be believed.

I was lucky enough to hear Heffernan talk at the Institute of Business Ethics’ summer event a few weeks ago. Both passionate and logical, she is an inspiring figure. She found that what all the female whisteblowers she met had in common was that they had grown up in small neighbourhoods/towns where there is a sense of “oh goodness, there’s trash in that vacant lot, better pick it up. There’s that sense that your actions matter. What you do matters.”

Another woman who helped inspire an audience in recent weeks about businesses making a difference, was actress Joanna Lumley. Perhaps in a lighter vein, but just as passionate, Lumley - a keen supporter of responsible business - was a co-host at the recent Business in the Community Responsible Business Awards. Admittedly she was preaching to the converted but her enthusiasm and her verve could not be reined in. Speaking about businesses being responsible and being sustainable, she advocated that businesses be “reckless”: “You know it’s the right thing. Just do it!”

[email protected]
 

More than half the 114,000 people in 107 countries interviewed in a Transparency International survey believed corruption had spread during the past two years.

At the same time participants were convinced they could make a difference, and about 90% said they would act against graft.

The interviewers for Transparency International’s Global Corruption Barometer 2013, the world’s largest public opinion survey on corruption, found 27% of respondents had paid bribes when accessing public services and institutions in the past 12 months.

By contrast, two-thirds of those asked for bribe money had refused.

The extent of the corruption was reflected in findings that in many countries the institutions that should fight crime are not trusted.

Citizens in 36 countries viewed the police as the most corrupt institution, and in those countries 53% of people had been asked by the police for bribes.

People in 20 countries considered the judiciary was the most corrupt institution, and 30% of those dealing with the judicial systems there had been asked for bribes.

In 51 countries political parties were seen as the most corrupt institutions, and 55% of respondents there thought their governments were run by special interests.

Huguette Labelle, chair of Transparency International, said: “Governments need to take this cry against corruption from their citizenry seriously and respond with concrete action to elevate transparency and accountability.

“Strong leadership is needed from the G20 governments in particular. In the 17 countries surveyed in the G20, 59% of respondents said their government is not doing a good job at fighting corruption.”

Transparency International recommended politicians to lead by example by publishing asset declarations for themselves and their families. The political parties and their candidates were asked to disclose the source of their money and reveal potential conflicts of interest.

Public reaction, said the report, suggested that businesses, civil society and governments should engage more with citizens to beat corruption.

Labelle said: “Governments need to make sure that there are strong, independent and well-resourced institutions to prevent and redress corruption.

Too many people are harmed when these core institutions and basic services are undermined by the scourge of corruption.”
  

Plastic carrier bag use in Britain rose slightly last year despite environmental appeals to reduce the practice.

The overall number of bags issued to customers by the main supermarkets rose from 8.4bn in 2011 to 8.5bn, representing a 1.2% increase. However, the 2012 figure is 32% below the number for the 2006 baseline year. 

The statistics were compiled by the Water and Resources Action Programme, better known as Wrap, a publicly funded but independent non-profit company.

A significant fall in use was recorded in Wales, where a compulsory charge was introduced in October 2011. Charging brought about a 76% reduction and some retailers were able to eliminate plastic bag use altogether.

A compulsory charge was introduced in Northern Ireland in April this year and Scotland is due to follow suit in October next year. The UK government has been criticised for failing so far to extend the charging to England.

The increase in UK plastic bag use is due to changing consumer habits, explains the British Retail Consortium. It says more customers are now topping up between their larger weekly shopping trips, resulting in more visits overall.

Andrew Opie, the consortium’s food and sustainability director, said: “Bag usage may not have fallen, but that doesn’t mean that supermarkets’ progress has stalled on addressing this and wider environmental issues.”

In June Italy banned carrier bags made of non-biodegradable material. This follows reports that three years ago 72% of the waste washed up on Italy’s coasts consisted of plastic bags.

The EU is now considering legislation that could impose an EU-wide levy on plastic bags, a total ban, or measures to promote the use of biodegradable bags or limit their weight.

Another report from Wrap shows local authorities in England are recycling, composting or re-using 10.7mn tonnes of waste – more than they are sending to landfill. About 43% of the country’s household waste and 52% of business refuse are now being collected for recycling.

Altogether 98% of the 10.7mn tonnes collected is reported as being successfully recycled.

Wrap says the progress made is “due largely to the work done by local authorities, householders, the waste management sector and the UK’s reprocessing industry”.

Submitted by Guest Contributor

Part of the Consumer Research: Turning Insights into Action series

By Alison DaSilva

Rising economies such as those in Brazil, China and India are undeniably growing global powerhouses with combined GDPs (plus Russia) expected to exceed those represented by the G7 by 2050. 

As business booms, the spotlight on pressing issues, including human rights, education and wealth gaps, shines ever brighter. With societal and environmental needs both poignant and urgent, all eyes are on multinational corporations to play a role in addressing critical issues where government cannot or has not.

In stark contrast to industrialized nations such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany and France, where government regulations at least ostensibly standardize good operating principles, Brazil, China and India are nascent yet burgeoning CSR greenfields.

Acute Needs Create Hyper-Engaged Consumers

Perhaps because of those very acute and tangible needs, these markets are home to some of the most passionate and engaged consumers the world has ever seen. The unbridled and near unanimous consumer support and enthusiasm for corporate social responsibility efforts is striking. They welcome corporate involvement with open arms, not only encouraging companies to be involved in issues outside their manufacturing walls, but ready and excited to join those efforts.

Consider these findings from our recent 2013 Cone Communications/Echo Global CSR Study:

Nearly all consumers in Brazil, China and India state they are more likely to have a positive image, trust and be loyal to companies that engage in CSR. More so than other countries examined in our research, including most of the G7, citizens in these emerging markets are walking their talk.

Further, Brazilian, Chinese and Indian consumers are far more likely than their global peers to not only say they would get involved with corporate efforts, from educating themselves on corporate behavior to volunteering, but to actually do so:

• Bought a product with a social/environmental benefit:
  • Brazil: 79%
  • China: 86%
  • India: 88%
  • Global average: 67%

• Researched a company’s business practices or support of social and environmental issues:
  • Brazil: 52%
  • China: 43%
  • India: 56%
  • Global average: 34%

• Donated:
  • Brazil: 65%
  • China: 69%
  • India: 67%
  • Global average: 60%

• Volunteered:
  • Brazil: 46%
  • China: 45%
  • India: 48%
  • Global average: 37%

Consumers in Brazil, China and India Demand Responsibility

These consumers are trumpeting CSR through their personal networks as well, and nowhere more than in social media. But they’re not just talking amongst themselves – they’re raising their voices directly to companies.

Nearly two-thirds (62 percent) of global consumers report using social media to engage with companies around social and environmental issues – but the majority of that usage is happening in these highly mobile-savvy countries:

• Told friends or family about a company’s CSR efforts:
  • Brazil: 64%
  • China: 75%
  • India: 77%
  • Global average: 50%
  
  
• Use social media to engage with companies around CSR efforts:
  • Brazil: 85%
  • China: 90%
  • India: 89%
  • Global average: 62%

But companies be warned – this enthusiasm can just as quickly work against you. Consumers in emerging markets are not shy about calling out bad behavior, boycotting or sharing negative information with friends and family – meaning these potential brand advocates can also be powerful adversaries. In the past year alone, these citizens say they have:

• Boycotted a company’s products/services upon learning it behaved irresponsibly
  • Brazil 69%
  • China 84%
  • India 65%
  • Global average: 55%
  
  
• Shared negative information about companies CSR practices via social media
  • Brazil 35%
  • China 49%
  • India 35%
  • Global average: 26%

The tremendous gusto with which consumers in Brazil, China and India not only engage in but propagate CSR issues and efforts is at least in large part a result of a remarkable sense of personal empowerment. More so than other markets, citizens in these countries possess a keen sense of their own ability to drive change and positively influence corporate behavior.

Belief in individual impact varies by market, with emerging countries such as Brazil (57 percent) and India (52 percent) indicating a strong conviction of substantial personal impact through purchasing, versus only 14 percent in the U.K.

Turning Insights into Action: Harnessing the Emerging Opportunity

Emerging markets represent the greatest CSR opportunity for companies because of their vibrant and avid consumers. Not only are these citizens ready for companies to play leading roles in critical issues – they’re ready to work with companies to bring about positive change. So where to begin?

• Leverage CSR to Differentiate: If your company is already established in these markets, look to your CSR efforts to serve as a powerful brand differentiator. More than offering a license to operate, authentic CSR engagement will build your reputation and almost certainly drive sales.

• Give Them a Job: These consumers are ready to work – so give them a job. Adept communicators, they will influence their personal networks for or against companies. Give them the information they need and a tangible call-to-action to make sure their influence works in your favor.

• Demonstrate Return: Reward their teamwork by clearly articulating how they’re personally making a difference, as well as your collective impact. Failure to define return on engagement may convert your advocates into adversaries.

• Get Social: The importance of social media in these markets cannot be emphasized enough. Consumers are using these channels not only to communicate with friends and family about CSR issues but also to call out corporate behavior and rally for change. Ensure social media is a core part of your communications and engagement strategy, and watch it closely for any rising issues.

Next: As many communities around the world struggle to recover from natural disasters, what do consumers expect from corporations?  

About the Author:

As executive vice president of Cone Communications’ Research & Insights group, Alison tracks and identifies trends to keep clients on the leading edge within the rapidly evolving landscape of CSR. She loves to fill the information gaps with proprietary research on stakeholder expectations, attitudes and behaviors with corporate CSR efforts. During her 15 year tenure at Cone, Alison has led the development of more than 35 studies, including: 2013 Cone Communications/Echo Global CSR Study, 2013 Cone Communications Green Gap Trend Tracker, 2012 Cone Communications Corporate Social Return Trend Tracker, 2010 Cone Cause Evolution Study, and the Cone Nonprofit Power Brand 100.

Alison has also served as strategic counsel for several key accounts, such as NARS Cosmetics, Neiman Marcus, Walgreens, Target, American Cancer Society and Deloitte. To further keep Cone on the pulse of the industry, Alison serves as a regular contact for the media and a speaker at many leading conferences.

Submitted by Guest Contributor

By Heidi Paul

In my final post responding to the questions that came up during our recent Twitter Chat about Creating Shared Value or #SharedValue, I will address the following topics:

• Privatization of water
• Sustainability/Water as a vital resource

Privatization of Water

Along with the questions, it was exciting to see several of you participate with valuable comments and suggestions about water as a resource as well as debating how water should be best used.

For example, @solarmelissa said: "Water is necessary for survival, and @NestleWatersNA  has chosen to privatize it. What's next for consumers-- bottled air?" @foodandwater replied: "Recycling is great and has its place, but not commodifying water is the true solution" and @CleanWaterforNC added "Those who need safe water the most are also the ones least able to afford it."

NWNA uses water like most food and beverage businesses: as an ingredient and in our processes. 

The drinking and utility water sources we use can either be municipal, where we are a customer, or permitted wells on private land. When we buy water from public suppliers, we pay market rates established by the public water authority just like any other business customer.

For our spring waters, we pay for permitting and licensing fees, as well as the cost of infrastructure needed to serve our operations. Drop for drop, bottled spring water is one of the most efficient users of water in the beverage market.

Sustainability/Water as a Vital Resource

@SusanHeaney tweeted a good point on this issue, noting that the sustainability “issue [is] bigger than bottles. We waste so much water, especially in U.S. Water is seen as free commodity, not precious resource.”

We agree, which is why at an operational level, we have a long history of reducing our water use where possible.

To @Francavilla, who asked how we are creating shared value when ground water is non-renewable, in fact, ground water is renewable when managed sustainably in the long term. This also goes back to a question from @LemonadebyLaura, who asked how we justify removal of water during droughts.

As I said during the chat, NWNA regularly monitors environmental conditions and precipitation patterns to manage its sources for long-term sustainability. Our geologists use that data to determine when and if it's necessary to modify water collection activities at any of our sites. Additionally, spring water for bottled water has an additional governor on its use that other groundwater users do not. 

To be labeled spring water, the spring has to have water emerging out of the ground, which is an indication that the water continues to be available.

Today, we manage 40 spring sites and spend millions of dollars each year maintaining them and more than 14,000 acres of watershed land as open space, helping to safeguard the local ecosystems.

To @Missangiemolina, who asked how are we addressing production with the depleting of water resources worldwide, Nestlé Waters only uses .0009 percent of the total fresh water withdrawn globally. We also only use water that is naturally replenished over the long-term.

Which brings me to a question from @egerdt: When are we going to see global agreements or policies relating resources like water?

On a global level, Nestlé SA is a founding member of the CEO Water Mandate, a United Nations Global Compact initiative with a focus on developing strategies and solutions to contribute positively to the emerging global water crisis, including disclosing water sustainability and management practices.

Nestlé also takes on global water issues through funding and operational support and training, helping communities better their water supply using their own resources.

On a local scale, NWNA collaborates with local governments and other stakeholders to advocate for comprehensive, science-based laws that seek to protect water resources. We have actively worked to support groundwater protection laws in Maine, Michigan, New Hampshire, and the Great Lakes basin. For example, we supported Michigan House Bill 5067-5072 and Maine P.L. 2007, Chapter 399, both groundwater use laws that are critical for protecting groundwater sources in those areas. We will continue to work with stakeholders to pass fair groundwater protection legislation.

So, thank you once again to everyone who participated in the Twitter chat about our Creating Shared Value report.

As a natural resources company, CSV is our core business strategy and our business depends on our commitment to environmental stewardship. Water efficiency and sustainable water management practices are key to our long-term success. We believe transparency is critical to building trust, and producing a CSV report and participating in this Twitter chat are just two examples of the various ways we engage in dialogue with stakeholders.

NWNA will continue to work on its challenges and delivering where value can best be created for both society and shareholders. We hope you will continue to engage with us @NestleWatersNA.

____________________

Part II: Packaging, Waste & The Contest Between Bottled vs. Tap Water & Soda: Nestlé Waters Responds to Critics

Part I: Creating Shared Value through Transparency: Nestlé Waters North America Answers Its Stakeholders