Partnerships Count was the title of a session at a high-level conference convened by the UN and New Partnership for Africa’s Development in 2005 around the time of the G8 meeting, when Africa and the Millennium Development Goals were at the top of everyone’s priority list. Partnerships are certainly in vogue at the moment and the subject of an upcoming Ethical Corporation conference in London. But how essential are partnerships and how effective are they in practice?
Problems
Every organisation has a mission and a limited area in which to focus their efforts, either geographically or according to what they are good at. But in practice, NGOs, corporate foundations, UN organisations and the private sector operating in developing countries are all tempted to reach outside these ‘core competencies’.
Foundations and NGOs wish to do all they can to help, the UN has an all-encompassing mission and the private sector often has to contribute to developing countries’ infrastructure or education systems to allow themselves to operate efficiently and profitably.
Increasingly, the tension between focusing on core competencies and meeting the needs highlighted by these temptations, means two organisations with complementary missions and competencies need to partner up – surely an easy “win-win” situation where everyone benefits?
Ted Turner felt so strongly about this and in particular the potential of the UN that he gave $1bn to establish a UN Foundation (UNF) to help increase cooperation both within and with the UN system. In turn, the UN Fund for International Partnerships (UNFIP) was established. UNFIP has proved to be very successful, acting both as a focal point for UNF collaboration and a central point for facilitating partnerships with the UN system, increasingly fielding inquiries from the private sector. Additionally, UNFIP has become a focus for the UN reform program and has helped focus UN efforts on the MDGs.
There are other multi-stakeholder groups trying to facilitate partnerships, but not all have been terribly successful. Make Poverty History immediately springs to mind, achieving unprecedented levels of awareness but little lasting legacy. The World Business Council for Sustainable Development is another, although this is often accused of promoting the business agenda over development. Both have strengths and weaknesses, and as multi-stakeholder fora, have somewhat open objectives that are subject to those of the membership.
Case Studies
Looking at NGO-business partnerships, it is perhaps difficult, if not impossible to assess how successful they are. For instance, Coca-Cola worked with PSI, the international NGO working in social marketing for public health, for a number of years to distribute HIV/AIDS awareness and prevention literature and, in some cases, condoms, to remote corners of African countries. The partnership got off to a good start, and was well implemented in some countries. However the latest report that covers 2004-5 mentions these initiatives with no data on progress and the company and foundation’s relevant websites show latest news dated November 2004, so it is hard to ascertain the impact of this admirable partnership.
It is perhaps indicative of a one-sided nature to the partnership which demanded too much of Coca-Cola and its bottlers with too little in return; or of a lack of sufficient resources or priority for a programme which is managed by the company’s public relations arm; or simply of dependence on the enthusiasm of one senior manager in Coca-Cola who may have lost interest and has since moved on.
Access to finance is an issue all over the world that affects economic development and social inclusion. In the UK, Barclays Bank has established partnerships with credit unions and Community Development Finance Institutions, advocating externally to “promote financial inclusion and internally raising awareness of financial exclusion to ensure products and services are accessible,” according to its website. This has been deemed so successful that Barclays is learning from its experience in the UK to address exclusion in other countries such as by a microfinance initiative in Ghana. A significant factor in the UK appeared to be dedication of sufficient resources, both financial and human, to keep the initiative high up the priority list and ensure implementation was successful. It is be to hoped that similar dedication and importance is attached to the African initiative, and related programmes to improve the bank’s services to small businesses, all of which should ultimately bring more new customers and help existing ones grow in another example of enlightened self-interest.
Shell is one of the world leaders in oil, an industry whose effects are often controversial partly due to the vast and swift riches that it can bring to a country, although not evenly distributed and not easily controlled. In Nigeria, for example, it has spent millions and plans another $32m by 2009 in a strategic community development partnership programme, in collaboration with multilateral organisations like UNDP, bilaterals like DFID and USAID, international NGOs and local community groups. Projects vary from environmental conservation and rehabilitation, to community benefit such as education, to providing economic benefit through the supply chain and the direct and indirect provision of employment. Yet in recent months the company has suffered kidnappings and violent assaults from the community, and even a declaration of “all out war” from one of the community groups, the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta. It is possible that the company could be accused of missing out some elements of the community, in some other way not consulting deeply or widely enough in designing the programme, or not communicating the programme and its benefits clearly enough. However it is also possible that local, state and federal politics are involved so that this is a situation where Shell could never do right.
Nestlé is a company that has suffered at the hands of campaigners for many years. Baby Milk Action and associated groups have instigated worldwide consumer boycotts and almost irreparable damage to Nestlé ’s brand, in protest against sales malpractices and mis-marketing of infant formula milk. Once touted as a panacea which would allow women to return more quickly to work while still providing their children with essential vitamins and minerals, the milk was found to have less desirable effects such as a risk of disease from the water in which it was mixed, especially if this could not be boiled or sterilised easily, and a likelihood that it did not contain all the nutrients and, importantly, immune system boosting antibodies that a newborn baby needed. Nestlé has at times denied the allegations, and at times as in its recent report on Nestlé ’s commitment to Africa, maintained that it has responded to them by implementing World Health Organisation-approved procedures. In the same report, Nestlé outlined a partnership with the International Red Cross and Red Crescent (ICRC) which is to be admired, although a relatively recent partnership and therefore hard to evaluate its full impact as yet. However despite the WHO approval and the ICRC partnership, and numerous reports and advertising campaigns, Nestlé ’s reputation is still damaged. Why? There is no easy answer, except that it appears that Nestlé has responded to the allegations by producing glossy reports, establishing high-profile partnerships in other areas – in short, by throwing money at the problem. At the London launch of Nestlé ’s commitment to Africa, a rather polished question which lavished praise on Nestlé was posed by a member of the audience, who turned out to be an ICRC spokesperson – Nestlé were perhaps too much in control, too obviously trying to gain PR mileage in a situation where its detractors wanted a more honest dialogue.
Authenticity is the key
This is one essential element – authenticity. Last year’s Ethical Corporation conference on this topic has been accused of being all spin and no substance so let us hope there is more honesty and open dialogue in this year’s, some deeper analysis of what works and, importantly, what doesn’t work.. In this article I have identified a lack of focus that can afflict multi-stakeholder fora, Coca-Cola’s waning enthusiasm, Barclays’ dedication of sufficient resources, and Shell’s encounter with local politics and elements outside of its control.
There is no panacea, but when partnerships accord with all partners’ other self-interests, are transparently authentic, are the outcome of sincere agreement on priority, and supported by sufficient management, human and financial resources, partnerships can be of great benefit to the partners and their stakeholders.
This is a longer version of the article that is published in Corporate Citizenship Briefing Issue 86, Feb/Mar 2006
James Laing is an accredited GoodCorporation consultant and Associate Director at africapractice responsible for the Citizenship Centre, which designs and implements communications and ethical business strategies for large blue chip organisations and development agencies in Africa, including reports to shareholders.
COMMENTS