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 tackling welfare and environmental
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
 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. Partnership bases
1.1. Selection of the potential partners
1.2. Transparency
1.3. Recognition and trust
1.4. Strategy
2. 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
PARTNERSHIP DIAMOND LESSON LEARNED AND FUTURE
COMMITMENTS

Dimensional Scores

Subdimensional Scores

Indicator Scores

Shared scoring exercise

INDIVIDUAL PARTNER EVALUATION (Company) INDIVIDUAL PARTNER EVALUATION (Civic

organisation)
PARTNERSHIP DIAMOND

Bases

1,8

1,6
1,9
Effects 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 self-
initiative
• 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