Global framework, local action
Our business has established a clear strategic focus founded on four key priorities. The first is to create a balanced and attractive global spread of businesses – one that is well distributed geographically across both developed and developing markets. Secondly, we aim to create a portfolio of brands that matches the aspirations and preferences of consumers within each market. Our third and fourth priorities are to keep raising the performance of local operations and to gain maximum value from our global scale.
Our approach to sustainable development complements this overarching business strategy. The global nature of our business allows us to take what we have learned in one market and share it in another, whether it is transferring our African experience in tackling HIV/Aids to India and Russia or applying our model for developing entrepreneurs in Latin America. Through further cross-company training, engagement with the operations and better software tools, we continue to improve the collaboration and sharing between our operations in different parts of the world.
This sense of decentralised collaboration also runs through our approach to sustainable development and we have developed what we believe to be a unique approach – one that provides an overall framework but gives our operations the flexibility to implement programmes that best meet their local circumstances.
Testing our approach with stakeholders
Our approach has evolved in dialogue with national and international stakeholders. In the last two years, for example, we have held workshops in Cape Town, Washington DC, London, Geneva and Bogotá to discuss our overall approach to sustainable development.
Stakeholders attending included a range of NGOs, academics, UN agencies and business organisations. Opinions have been varied, wide-ranging and sometimes conflicting. However, the areas in which we have received the clearest messages have been water, enterprise development, HIV/Aids and transparency with a smaller number of less consistent views on alcohol. We have taken these views into account in developing the action plans for the relevant priorities.
In London and Washington DC, participants were impressed by the extent to which we had made water a priority. However, stakeholders in London asked for greater recognition of the water stressed countries in which we operate. In Bogotá, participants requested a clearer connection between our water sources and the wider ecosystem, while in Washington DC, some participants recommended we get involved in catchment management initiatives and help suppliers to reduce their consumption.
Participants in London felt that our approach was innovative and reflected a move from traditional philanthropy towards a greater focus on core business strengths. However, there was a view that we should make a clearer connection between corporate social investment and our supply chain. Participants in Bogotá wanted us to increase our work with smallholder farmers and to promote employment.
In Bogotá and London we received positive feedback for hosting the stakeholder workshops and for our commitment to transparency. Participants in Geneva said we should begin dialogue with stakeholders earlier (a sentiment echoed in Cape Town) and emphasised that we should be even more open on tough issues such as irresponsible drinking in areas of high HIV/Aids prevalence. Stakeholders in Bogotá thought we should establish strategic partnerships to achieve a greater impact and should influence public policy through sharing of best practice.
Participants were impressed by the high levels of participation in voluntary counselling and testing programmes and our commitment to treating employees and their dependants. Some in Cape Town suggested that our approach ‘doesn’t inspire, stretch or challenge’, while others in London suggested it was too local and cautioned us against separating HIV/Aids from the other priorities. They also said our position paper should better reflect our work in the supply chain and local communities.
Other comments
Feedback from Cape Town and Geneva suggested we might have too many ‘priorities’ and questioned whether we could, or should, take a leadership position across all 10. Other issues that stakeholders identified and felt should be included were, for example, corruption, malaria, workforce skills and a stronger connection to the Millennium Development Goals. Finally, in London, participants thought we should continue to question and review what it would take to be considered truly sustainable.