01

Welcome to Directions 2007:

Cutting through the
noise of the climate
change debate.
Climate change is unavoidable these days: every time
you open a newspaper there is a new angle. Blogs,
information sites, dinner party opinions and political
standpoints abound. And that’s before you count all
the supermarkets’ announcements. So the topic for
this year’s Directions was really a one horse race.

Nigel Salter, salterbaxter
nsalter@salterbaxter.com
Lucie Harrild, salterbaxter
lharrild@salterbaxter.com
But the knock-on effect of the debate
about climate change going mainstream has
actually meant that there is a lot of noise and
confusion out there – it is hard to see what is
actually going on. So we decided it was time
to cut through the noise and try to put into
context what effective action looks like.
This Directions report isn’t doom and gloom,
apocalyptic scare stories and chest beating.
Instead it is a slice of real life action, an insight
into what to do to tackle climate change in the
way that’s right for you. John Gummer leads a
rallying call to take action; Steve Howard from
The Climate Group tells us about the practical
Together initiative; and Fiona Harvey from The
Financial Times guides us through the contentions
of carbon offsetting. The noise around climate
change also risks stealing the limelight from
the broader responsible business agenda. Julia
Cleverdon from Business in the Community argues
the case for not getting focused on just one issue.
And to give you your ‘fly on the wall’ fix on
who’s doing what in corporate responsibility
generally, the panel are back with their thoughts
on this year’s FT UK 100 CR reports. We’ve also
reviewed some of those companies’ actions
on climate change and we’ve analysed the
corporate responsibility activities of the
FT UK 100 and Euro 100.
It’s a bumper crop again so dive in and, if you’d
like to, let us know what you think!

DIRECTIONS 2007
Tackling climate
change – why us?
Al Gore’s film title ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ could not
have summed up the situation better. It is only human
nature to resist what is not seen as convenient.
Rt. Hon. John Gummer
Chairman of Sancroft International and Chairman
of the Quality of Life Policy
Climate change is the biggest physical
threat to mankind and the UK needs to take
a stand. In actual fact we need to play catch
up with some countries, such as Germany,
who are leading in tackling the climate change
agenda. In order to cut emissions by 80%
in fewer than 50 years there is need for a
universal response.
Climate change is currently the biggest threat
– but it is also a symptom of how our society’s
systems are set up wrongly. Increases in wealth
and happiness no longer correlate above quite
low levels of income. But the key to tackling the
issue is to not be overwhelmed by the scale of
what needs to be achieved – as in wartime, we
just need to get on with it.
It is true that there is a lot of information,
opinion and noise on climate change out there
– and some confusion. At Sancroft we have been
working with a range of businesses and the
Carbon Trust on the need for a user friendly and
universal approach. We need a system that not
DIRECTIONS 2007
only works for the UK, but also the rest of the
world – a one world philosophy. Then decisions
made based on that system will have the clarity
to cut through that confusion. Involving global
politics means the process is slow but
cooperation on a global scale is necessary.
The UK needs to wake up and realise we are
well placed to lead. Global cooperation has its
challenges but has had its successes. We have
played a key role within the EU – without Europe
there would have been no Kyoto Protocol where
responsibilities were shared amongst those
most able. And in 1997, when I was Environment
Secretary, we played a fundamental role in
the ‘Convention on climate change’ meetings.
Business has received a lot of criticism for
not doing enough to combat climate change.
However, in some cases businesses are moving
faster than governments.
Tesco took a leadership role announcing that
they are to publish the carbon footprint of their

products. In the same way BP are driving
towards renewable and alternative forms of
energy with plans to set up the world’s biggest
low-carbon power business. Coca-Cola’s approach
to refrigeration and the phasing out of HFCs has
meant a wholesale change to the way that sector
now operates. There is evidence that businesses
are more than capable of taking a lead in
combating climate change. However, these
are individual examples and a large number of
companies have not yet engaged. Many do not
understand their role and have not yet decided
what their position should be.
“ It is only human nature to resist what
is inconvenient. But consumers can
make changes, helped by the provision
of incentives. ” homes ‘carbon efficient’, the council tax could
Government needs to help them understand what is
expected of them. Then they must be given time to
deliver. The key is to keep businesses fully involved
in combating climate change without making them
02_03
feel that it is so daunting a task that they give up.
Similarly, encouraging consumers to make choices
and enabling them to do the right thing is the key.
At the moment people are not clear and it is not
made easy enough for them. In the end, they must
choose but we should be giving them a helping
hand with information and encouragement.
It is only human nature to resist what is
inconvenient. But consumers can make changes,
helped by the provision of incentives. For
example Tesco have saved one billion plastic
bags by incentivising customers with loyalty
points, encouraging them to reuse. It is also
important to focus on measures to improve
energy efficiency in homes, linking council tax
with energy consumption. We could offer cuts
in stamp duty to homeowners who make their
be reduced for people who recycle more. The
key is not to impose on people but offer choices.
We should cut the tax on fuel efficient cars
and increase it on gas-guzzlers.
DIRECTIONS 2007
The Quality of Life Policy Group, set up by David
Cameron, which I chair with Zac Goldsmith as my
Vice Chairman, outlines the need to be frank and
to face up to the real issues, however difficult.
It is simply not possible to attempt to tackle
climate change unless you address hard issues like
transport. We all like cheap flights and we have all
benefited from them. Nonetheless we also know
this is the fastest growing source of emissions and,
whatever Michael O’Leary may say, we cannot
exempt air travel if we are to reduce our carbon
footprint. Our proposals are designed to deal with
the problem in the least damaging way. Nearly a
quarter of flights from London’s airports go to
places that could reasonably be reached by train
in a similar timeframe. We therefore propose that
those flights should be more heavily taxed and
long haul flights should get priority for the slots at
airports. Doing this will mean that no new runways
will need to be built at Gatwick or Stansted. We also
want to change the Government’s taxation system
which penalises full planes to one which encourages
airlines to take the maximum number of passengers.
If we are to create a way of living that one planet
can sustain, then the approach also needs to
be thought through as a whole. The Quality of
Life Policy Group’s report emphasises the fact
that combating climate change creates wealth.
With these parameters in place business
and society will see their role and can make
choices based on clear information, avoiding
the current overload of contradictory
information and confusion.
The problem is that our party political structure,
with an election every four or five years,
makes it difficult for the kind of continuous
improvement that is necessary. That is
why we need a Climate Change Committee,
independent from government, tapping into
the scientific knowledge of the Royal Society.
They would focus on targets and measurement,
advising on the best course of action and
allowing business to do what they do best –
innovate to solve the challenge. The committee
would hold the government accountable and
each year undertake an independent audit of
their progress. Not only would the committee
keep government and opposition to the task
in hand, it would also stop the current
confusion which lack of expertise
in government has created.

“ With these parameters in place

business and society will see their role
and can make choices based on clear
information, avoiding the current
overload of contradictory information
and confusion. ”
The Green Revolution would be as valuable
today to Britain as the Industrial Revolution
was 200 years ago.

Our green products and services will be needed

throughout the world and we will have first
mover advantage. But we have to move quickly,
particularly since the United States has signaled
its intention to take global warming seriously.
President Bush’s Scientific Advisor publicly
stated that there is no argument about the
science of climate change, the only issue is
about how to counter it.

Our report sets out clearly how it can be done.

First our ‘One nation’ philosophy needs to be
extended to the one world we share. If those less
fortunate are expected to share the responsibility
to tackle climate change then it is only fair for
them to benefit directly from doing so. Secondly
the Government needs to lead the way and set
the parameters for business and consumers.

DIRECTIONS 2007
So for us to tackle climate change, and make the truth 04_05
less inconvenient, there are five things the government
needs to do – and business and consumers will then have
the direction they need to navigate their way through
the confusion and choose their path for meeting
the challenge of climate change:

1. L EAD
create policies and systems that can be
delivered globally.

2. G UIDE
set out the direction and clear parameters
and then the market will deliver. Once public
buildings are specified to deliver energy
savings it opens the way for big contracts,
prices come down and a market is created.
Then businesses know how to react.
And consumers can make their choices.

E G U LATE
R
3. develop frameworks to prevent distortion
but enable innovation and entrepreneurship.
Builders are the experts in delivering energy
efficiency, they just need to be encouraged
to do so.

NVEST
4. Inew ways of doing things need help at
the beginning.

C U B ATE
IN
5. give business and consumers the information
and the ability to make sense of the issues
and be encouraged to make their choices
– but without over prescriptive regulation
which can end up distorting the results and
the market.

DIRECTIONS 2007
Turning green consumption

into mass
consumption
Surely with the current attention and noise around
climate change there would be lots of individual
action? Actually, no. Consumers believe that solutions
are inconvenient, isolated and expensive. Business
(and government) needs to address this. That is why
the ‘Together’ partnership was formed.
Steve Howard
CEO, The Climate Group

It won’t have escaped anyone’s notice that

climate change is now big news in the UK.
Not a day goes by without another alarming
story or report hitting our TV screens or the
front pages of our newspapers.

We now have unprecedented levels of awareness

and concern on the climate issue. Research
conducted last year by The Climate Group shows
that an overwhelming 81% of people feel very
strongly about climate change or at the very
least recognise that it is important.

However, as yet, this has not translated into

significant individual action. Our research
also shows that people feel powerless in the
face of such a big problem. They don’t fully
understand the issue and hold the belief the
solutions are inconvenient and expensive.
Above all, consumers don’t want to feel that
they are acting alone. They need help (not more
lecturing) to overcome these barriers. The way
forward was pointed out by a 2006 research
report called ‘I will if you will’ which indicated
that people were willing to change but only
if they were met halfway by government and
business, who they perceive as more able to
effect change than themselves.

This is why, on 23 April of this year, a ground-

breaking new partnership was launched in the
UK aimed at enabling individual consumers to
be more climate friendly.

DIRECTIONS 2007
 06_07

a n ge bu t only if
e a re w illing to ch overnment and
“ Peopl t h a lfway by g ore able
a r e m e iv e a s m
they h ey perce
busines s, w h o t
ange th an th e m selves.”
eff ec t ch
to

DIRECTIONS 2007
‘Together’ is a coalition of famous brand
name companies and retailers committed to
making it easier for their customers to take
up low-carbon solutions.
Together they aim to help every UK household
to reduce their emissions by one tonne, a total
of around 24 million tonnes over the next three
years, more than the combined household
emissions of Scotland and Wales.
B&Q, Barclaycard, British Gas, Marks & Spencer,
02, National Express, MORE TH>N, BSkyB and
Tesco have all united behind the campaign and
are providing effective ways for people to
reduce their impact.
For example, Tesco is committed to selling
10 million energy efficient light bulbs this year
(a five-fold increase on the previous year) and
is offering them in-store and online at half price.
Marks & Spencer has launched a campaign
to persuade their customers to wash at 30°C
whenever possible, including changing the
labels on the majority of their clothing range.
Loft insulation is one of the biggest single
improvements that people can make to their
home to reduce emissions and B&Q is making
it easy to plan, buy and install insulation
– if everyone insulated their lofts to the
recommended level it would save four million
tonnes of CO2 per year – enough to fill the
new Wembley stadium 500 times.
British Gas recently launched Zero Carbon,
which goes further than any other green tariff
to provide genuine environmental benefits.
Householders signing up to the Zero Carbon
tariff will: reduce their household energy carbon
emissions to zero through Kyoto compliant
offset schemes which will meet the new DEFRA
requirements; help fund a direct increase in
investment in renewable energy generated in
the UK; and contribute to the new British Gas
green fund, which will invest in developing new
renewable technologies such as wave power, and
oversee a programme to help schools in the UK
reduce their CO2 emissions.
The campaign website (www.together.com) will
aggregate the achievements of all the partners
into one CO2 figure that will demonstrate in real
time the power of collective action (50,000
tonnes of CO2 have been reduced since launch,
equivalent to every household in Ipswich saving
a tonne or to 18,000 family cars off the road for
a year). Users of the site will be encouraged to
undertake certain key actions and show how
they can contribute to their one tonne target.
The reasons for bringing ‘Together’ to life at
this moment in time are compelling – both for
the planet and for business.
The environmental case is well established, but
it’s important not to become numb to the facts.
Atmospheric CO2 concentration, approximately
280 parts per million (ppm) before the Industrial
Revolution, has increased to around 380 ppm
today. Each doubling of greenhouse gas
concentration raises Earth’s equilibrium
temperature by about 3°C. Greenhouse gas
 08_09

“ The Climate Group’s research shows strong

evidence of latent demand for products, services
and brands that would allow people to reflect
their climate change concern in their spending. ”

emissions are still rising globally and under
‘business as usual’ trends the Earth’s temperature
is likely to increase by between 2 and 4.5°C by
2100. A rise of 2°C is widely accepted as the
threshold for unacceptable and unpredictable
change. Latest findings from the leading
international body on climate change, the IPCC,
suggest that in order to prevent a 2°C rise the
global growth in emissions would need to peak
at around 2015 and decline fairly sharply from
there to reach the 50% cut required by 2050.
The business case for action is also clear cut.
Many companies are already reducing emissions
in their operations and supply chains because
they are finding opportunities to reduce costs
at the same time as achieving ambitious
sustainability goals – for example through
improved energy efficiency. Looking beyond
operational emissions to the consumer, the
Climate Group’s research shows strong evidence
of latent demand for products, services and
brands that would allow people to reflect their
climate change concern in their spending.
“ It is against this backdrop that
companies are also now starting to
ask, in their branding and marketing,
what are the equivalent opportunities
that will create new revenues at the
same time as achieving environmental
objectives? ” We believe that bit by bit, and acting together,
It is against this backdrop that companies are
also now starting to ask, in their branding and
marketing, what are the equivalent opportunities
that will create new revenues at the same time
as achieving environmental objectives?
There is a growing belief, demonstrated by the
‘Together’ partner companies, that helping
consumers to overcome barriers to individual
action can unlock a significant market opportunity.
By acting in collaboration there is less risk of
individual corporate initiatives being seen as ‘one-
offs’ and greeted with cynicism about greenwash.
In fact, the campaign also benefits from help
and backing from a diverse and growing range
of non-commercial organisations – the City
of London, the Church of England, DEFRA and
the Energy Saving Trust, for example. Based
on this message of partnership, ‘Together’ is set
to expand globally and reach a mass audience
running into tens of millions of people already.
Instead of trying to argue that one sector is
more important than another when it comes
to reducing emissions, it is crucial to understand
the linkages between government, business and
individual action, to avoid a situation where
each sector passes the buck to another, and
to work in collaboration to develop solutions
that deliver the win-win outcomes for society.
we can tackle climate change.

DIRECTIONS 2007
Carbon
neutrality
Useful – when treated with caution.
There is a new phrase about town: ‘going carbon neutral’.
More and more businesses are talking about it, but what
does it really entail? Carbon offsetting projects are not
always as they seem, and businesses must be diligent
to avoid good intentions going wrong.
Fiona Harvey
Environment Correspondent, The Financial Times
Treadle pumps in India might seem an odd
kind of investment for a bank.
The pumps, which are worked by foot, are
alternatives to diesel-powered pumps for
drawing water from underground to irrigate
crops. By using treadle pumps instead of hiring
expensive diesel pumps, Indian farmers can
save money and water. The pumps also cut
the amount of fuel farmers use – and that
saves carbon dioxide emissions.
That is the key reason the Co-operative Bank
invests in the pumps, and the reason several
other companies also contribute to providing
them. These companies are using the investment
in pumps as part of their commitment to
becoming ‘carbon neutral’.
An ever-lengthening list of companies are
seeking carbon neutral status, ranging from
international banks, retailers and media
companies to small enterprises with a handful
of employees. Among the household names
that have pledged to become carbon neutral
are HSBC, Marks & Spencer, BSkyB and its
parent company News Corporation. A few
villages in the UK have also decided to go
carbon neutral, and individuals can even
seek carbon neutrality for themselves.
Being carbon neutral simply means cancelling
out the negative effect of one’s greenhouse
gas emissions on the climate by investing in
DIRECTIONS 2007
projects that reduce emissions elsewhere.
It is a way of making up for the damage that
a company’s activities cause – of erasing a
company’s carbon footprint.
“ Being carbon neutral simply means
cancelling out the negative effect of
one’s greenhouse gas emissions on the
climate by investing in projects that
reduce emissions elsewhere. ”
For any company seeking to go carbon neutral,
there is a three stage process. First, companies
must cut their own emissions as far as possible
– it could be as simple as turning off lights
and computers, or as complex as overhauling
processes, like installing new equipment or
using less materials.
Second, companies can look to buy their credits
from ‘green’ sources. A growing number of
companies are investing in their own wind turbines
and solar panels to cut their future energy bills.
But for companies where this is impossible, buying
environmentally friendly energy means taking
a green tariff from an electricity supplier, with
energy supplied from renewable sources such
as wind or hydroelectricity.
However, this is not always possible in the UK
as not enough renewable energy is produced
to satisfy the soaring demand. Most companies
that do not already have a green supply will find
 10_11

Best Prices
on the
Market

Solar Wave
Panels Wind Farms
in Farms in
India in Paraguay
China in

Efficient Methane
Energy
Cooking
Stoves
Pits
in
Efficient
Light bulbs
in Brazil in
Africa Jamaica

Wind Plant Methane

Farms
in
More Pits
in
China Trees Basildon
in
Finland

“ Companies embarking on
offsetting need to be wary
of a few potential problems
before they set out. Some
carbon offsetting projects
are not what they seem. ”
DIRECTIONS 2007
they cannot source one so easily now. But it
should become easier: the Government is aiming
for 20% of the UK’s electricity to come from
renewable sources by 2020, so the amount
of green electricity available is set to grow.
The final stage of carbon neutrality is to
‘offset’ a company’s remaining greenhouse
gas emissions by funding projects that reduce
carbon dioxide elsewhere.
This is where the treadle pumps come in.
By funding the purchase of treadle pumps for
poor farmers, companies can contribute to the
reduction of emissions in the developing world.
“ A tonne of carbon saved in the
developing world is just as valuable in
mitigating climate change as a tonne
of carbon saved in a rich country.
Cutting carbon in poor countries can
also bring additional social benefits,
such as improving people’s economic
situation and bringing them technology
to which they would not otherwise
” at p
have access.
Buuyy
B uy
B
DIRECTIONS 2007
It’s not just treadle pumps, either. Companies
that have already gone carbon neutral have
used a huge variety of projects: solar panels in
India, wind farms in China, energy efficient light
bulbs in Jamaica, hydroelectric power plants
in eastern Europe, more efficient cooking stoves
in Africa. All of these cut the amount of carbon
produced where they are used.
As more and more companies, and individuals,
seek to go carbon neutral, the amount of money
being raised for projects around the world
through the sale of carbon credits is growing
quickly – from zero a few years ago to a
projected $4bn by 2010.
Companies embarking on offsetting need
to be wary of a few potential problems before
they set out. Some carbon offsetting projects
are not what they seem.
In a wide-ranging investigation of the market,
the Financial Times recently found many
examples of bad practice. For instance,
offsets were being sold from projects
that brought no, or questionable, Chea
environmental benefits.
thehalf
Carbon credits were being sold to
companies for many times their real
value. The same credits were being
sold twice over. p rice
And companies that were already
profiting from their carbon cutting
activities were profiting twice over by
selling carbon credits to others wishing
to be green.
These potential problems should not necessarily
deter companies from offsetting. Businesses,
after all, have many good and valid reasons
for going carbon neutral: the desire to be good
corporate citizens, and the knowledge that
the Government is increasingly regulating on
environmental issues, for instance. Companies
can even cut costs in the process by improving
their efficiency. And taking on environmental
goals is a great way of engaging staff and
customers.
But in order to avoid the reputational risk of
investing in a bad carbon offsetting project, any
company taking such a step should carry out
proper due diligence on the project first – just
as they would for any other investment.

There are several guides to carbon offsetting
available to companies wishing to consider the
option: for instance, the Carbon Trust has one, as
does F&C Investments. But whichever guide you
choose, the key points are always the same:
If you are buying offsets through an
intermediary, ask for detailed information on
exactly where the credits are coming from.
Companies should take care that the
credits they buy are additional, which
means that they come from projects
which would not have happened without
the financing provided by carbon credits.
This is important because if a project,
such as a wind farm, was financially viable
in any case, buying carbon credits from it
simply enriches the owners and the money
could have been better spent elsewhere.
Do not buy any credits that have not been
verified by an independent third party –
there are examples where carbon credits
have been sold from non-existent projects,
or projects that do not generate the
carbon reductions they claim.
“ There are examples where carbon
credits have been sold from
non-existent projects, or projects
that do not generate the carbon
reductions they claim. ”
12_13
Demand that the carbon credits you buy
are placed in a registry, which guards
against the same credits being sold
several times over to different buyers
by unscrupulous offset intermediaries.
Consider carefully whether you want
to buy credits from forestry projects.
These are numerous, and tend to be the
cheapest credits, but they are also the
most controversial. Trees, as any schoolchild
knows, absorb carbon dioxide from the air
as they grow, so forests should be a good
way of cutting carbon. But there are
problems: it is difficult to tell how much
carbon a forest absorbs; the trees can take
70 years to grow, so it takes decades for
the carbon to be reduced; and it is difficult
to ensure that, over such a long period,
the trees do not die off or get cut down.
In addition, there is some evidence that
forests in northern regions may contribute
to global warming, absorbing heat that
would be deflected by snow cover.
DIRECTIONS 2007
 highly unce
certain and will be particular
to the geo
eographic circumstances

It presents
es us, along with
other businesses,
us governments
and other
her stakeholders,
s with a role
to play in the behavioural change
that is necessary to decouple
p
Ourur new ew strate
strateg
strategy y
economic developmentt from
environmental degrad
f
dation
tion
addresses
add dresses
d resse es more th tthan
han
Because e we reach a th
hird
of all ho just o
ourur
u
omes, even sm r ow
own
mall nNichg
Siir N
greenh
ee h hous
This proje
ous
us
ect hass
e
actionns are multiig
ga
gas
p as
as e em mission
missions
ssions
ionssnenefits
its f
8.5
.5 million tim
mes econ
no mithe local po
om opulatio
opu atio
and
an
nd clim
climate
cl mate change
chang

Climate chhange
ange
nge
g is a complex
ge c plex p a
areang
and we don't cllaim
aim to h hav
ave
ve d
e all di
l the
th
he answ
an f i rs.
answer
freigh
ht wit
withhoon pack lab
abelliing
But we do knnoow tha
th
hat
att w
we need
n to ac
actt fa
fast
f st
Partn
rtnerships are
being pursued
b
to develop lower Our Carbon
ccarbon technologies Management
ment
Plan consists
consi of
three phases

The
T he business lland
landscape
BT’ sustainability practice
BT’s
ca
emis
an a isGovernment
constantly
overnmentt ch
cha
anging
isssions produced by IT networks
of large
larg corporations and public
policy will p
g play
a decisive role
We are worki
For us, as a company, in our industr
the debate about whether
man-made climate change
We have instituted
a comprehensive understand and
programme of energy
is happening is over. The audits at our operations
debate now is about what
we can do about it.

BSky
BSk SkyB is rru Partnerships
Pa
Partner
unning
unni a a
are
re All of our business units
e
competition
mpe cal bein
bei
ei
eing pursued
alled pur d are implementing their own
wn
programmes in supportt of
o o
There issSho
T both
bot th a reduction
oots, encouragin n in
i iing the plan and each busin
iness
has a climate change chaampion B
greenhouse
gre nhouse
house
peoplete gas emissions
i
toemissions
make i and
short d fil
ilms
ilm
iin
n particulate
articulate
articula
articulat t i i andd at
ash
a to
h generinsp
What can we
genera
generation pire
ation customers
tion associated to be
b ev
with
w mor
ith the
th
he re climate
e burning
b friendly
of coal ndly
dly We
e are currently
US$4
c
S$4 million
m
spending
on ten projects
with tthe potential to reduce
ene
8
energy use and greenhouse
gas emissions in progress
across the group

DIRECTIONS 2007
 IS IT ALL TALK?
14_15
IN THE NEXT SECTION WE HAVE TAKEN A LOOK AT
WHAT COMPANIES ARE REALLY DOING TO TACKLE
CLIMATE CHANGE, AND WHAT THEY ARE TELLING US
ABOUT IT. DESPITE ALL THE NOISE AND CONFUSION
THERE ARE SOME PATCHES OF CLARITY, WHERE
e MEANINGFUL ACTIVITY IS GAINING MOMENTUM.
BUT IT ISN’T ALL GOOD NEWS…
or
on We will work with experts
expert to
improve our understanding
of the full lif
lifecycle of our
Use the monocle to reveal a selection of noteworthy products and str strategies for
effectively reducing g gre
greenhouse
responses to climate change. gas emissions from their
production and use

What can we
In addition
on to
t reducing our own
impact on climate change, our The BHP aBilliton’s
do about
e business
bnalsiness
it s
landsca
land
la
a ng dscape is
ds
We are actively recruiting
W ti
services
ces can help our customers
cu int
nternal Carbon Pr Pricin Envi
E
En vironmental Ambassadors
reduce their climate imp
impact constantly
con t ntly
tl changing
cha
h ping
i andnd we
One of our five top
priorities is to shrink belie that the enviro
believe
beli environm
nvir nm t id
to identify
ntify further opportunities
for investment
in projectts
it right down and climate
ccllimate
encoura
cliimate chan
change
nge
ng
n ge arwi
g are
aging alternative
within
with
w ion n the business and help us to
urr Carbonthe
Our e gy
agenda daa to
to ssttay
t yrreduc
re uce our environmental
nmental impact
Managem
gement
mentt
Plan consists
sist
ists
ts of Our actions in
three phases.
h thiss area
a have
received
ceived external
rec
ecognition
Unilever’s
ilever Brand d
ingg with
th
h others
ot
o Our Ca
imprint
mprint progrramm
Carbon
Car
rbon mme
y and beyond
bintegrates
eyo
eyond d
Manageme
t
to
agement
Management We M G
e’re encouraging
ncouraging people
ntegrates
Plan consist
Pl consists
i t oof cli
imm atee to
o pledge to make
p key small
sma l
rreducee our
ourthree
ri
impact
hre pa se t
phases
ase
change
hang int intoWWhat canelect
The
we a
aim
m
electrici
of the project is to genera
l t ity from agricultural biomass
ate changes
home eccto
too reduce
raudits
Brand d strateg d ab
do bout
st egiess aandforstar
str itthe
t e production of liquid gluco ose their
t carbo n footprint
nt
arch, replacing the
he ppower draw
awn
wn
from
rom India’s state ele
ellectricity grid
We wil
will work with
w an exporting the su
and urrplus power to it lik
Businesses, ike ours, need to turn CO2
experts to improve
e ove managementt iinto a business opportunity
by leading the search for responsible
onsible ways to
our understanding manage
age CO2, and use energyy more
m efficiently
There is a clllear
consensus thhat we
ha
ecause
ecause
ause we rea
reac
r ch We
Scottish Powerr
W ha ave a role must be mor
more
e efficient

third
ir ofisf one
allofhom tto pla
ay in the
themes
b
s,
behaviou
beeh
e ural chang ge
venn smallg action
actioonss
on
of wind energy
are
re multiplied
ultiplie
in the UK
8.5
5 million times We continue
co inu to
publicly
p y report
p our
actionsDIRECTIONS
and re results
2007
under
der th
the
h Carbon b
Is it all
talk?
68% of the FT UK 100 talk about climate change to some
degree in their corporate communications (73% of the
FT Euro 100 do too).*
The long-term target set by UK Government is a 60%
reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050.
55% of senior executives in a KPMG and YouGov survey
expect climate change to impact on their companies
strategic development plans and the Carbon Disclosure
Project has generated its highest ever response rate this
year – 77% of the FT 350 responded.
But according to DEFRA’s latest figures, CO2 emissions
in the UK for 2006 have risen by 1.25%.**

Confusing isn’t it?!

So we want to get to the stories behind the percentages, and find out the reality
of the corporate response to climate change – aside from all the noise of the
climate change debate. We believe their response to this issue should be tailored
to their operations – and that makes it hard to sum up with quick numbers the
effectiveness of UK plc’s strategy to tackle climate change.
But don’t worry, we’re not going to throw masses of conflicting information at
you to add to the confusion. Instead we are taking a snapshot to review good
practice. The companies voted best CR communicators by our independent
panel (see page 30) are reviewed here for their response to climate change
and we hope you will find some insights that help define your own strategy.

** according to salterbaxter’s analysis this year, see page 48 for details.

** taken from www.defra.co.uk. 2006 figures are provisional and expect to be within 1% of the final figure to be published in
January 2008. CO2 is the main greenhouse gas accounting for 85% of the ‘basket’ of greenhouse gas emissions in 2006.
Methane and nitrous oxide are the other two main greenhouse gases, and their levels are falling.

DIRECTIONS 2007
 16_17

How we did it Key:

We have reviewed the companies who are
identified as leading communicators by our
independent panel. We’ve looked at the companies’ A
communications in the public domain, nothing
else. We decided to do that because only A = Company is doing well with their efforts
transparent and open communication from a to tackle climate change.
company on their position and behaviour will
cut through the confusion on this issue. We
figure that if a company is doing something
well in this area they would definitely want B
people to know about it.
B = Company is working on a response but
We considered the effectiveness of the activities there is still lots to do.
and communications, and applaud ‘fit for
purpose’ – sophisticated programmes for carbon
intensive companies and smaller considered
programmes for low carbon users.
C
C = Company has either not fully engaged in the climate
And to understand the big picture we checked change debate, or is only just beginning to.
the emissions figures to see if the activities are
delivering real results.

BAE Systems BAE haven’t really grappled with their position on climate change yet,
beyond a recognition of the link with energy use, CO2 and greenhouse
Emissions status gases. But what does count in their favour is a willingness to publicly
discuss that. So it will be interesting to see what develops.
Slight drop in CO2 emissions in the UK,
but rising in the US

BHP Billiton Producers and users of fossil fuel based energy – so high impact,
high risk and high opportunity. BHP Billiton have raised their game this
Emissions status year and revised policy and activities: more partnerships; more R&D;
increased targets on efficiency. The challenge will be to quantify the
6% reduction in greenhouse gas intensity
results. An A rating for the strategy but it’s the performance that is
over five years.
the real test now.

A
DIRECTIONS 2007
Is it all talk?

British Airways The airline industry is often at the eye of the storm in the climate
change debate. BA does communicate about their carbon footprint,
Emissions status their emissions and include a piece on the debate in their industry.
But they don’t talk about adaptation and they state they aren’t a big
CO2 emissions from flights have crept up,
contributory factor to climate change without adequately acknowledging
though fuel efficiencies improved
the airline industry’s reputation. Fuel efficiencies have improved but the
actual CO2 emissions from flights have crept up. It’s a B rating but a
B minus really.
B

BSkyB
Emissions status
Overall emissions are up (though due to
acquisition), core business emissions are down
Sky are a leading company on this issue. They have programmes to
manage emissions and communications with all stakeholders including
employees and consumers. Highlights include: a recent TV advert;
a competition to upload short films about climate change on their
website; events; and roadshows. It will be interesting to see how quickly
they can instil the same ethos into acquisition businesses and continue
to bring emissions down.

BT A clear strategy (or carbon busting plan), which is accessible and

Emissions status
CO2 emissions dropped but now stabilised
engaging. There are separate information sites with pledges and
competitions. The tone is straightforward and the commitment to
awareness raising is definitely high. This extends to employees too,
a group often overlooked. So an A rating.

Experian A good example of an approach that is fit for purpose. Experian has
a clear strategy, convincingly argued, and the CO2 figures are falling.
Emissions status They aren’t the most carbon intensive business, but they recognise
their responsibilities and are taking action. A good progression would
CO2 emissions falling
be more engagement with the workforce and the supply chain to roll
the message out to a wider audience.

GSK have a comprehensive document on the website which covers

GlaxoSmithKline their understanding of their role in tackling climate change, their
Emissions status approach and some interesting insights into how they might adapt
in a world with a changing climate. A statement in the CR report puts
CO2 and equivalent emissions are down for energy
climate change into context as one issue amongst many important
and production but travel is going up
ones for GSK to tackle, showing a measured approach. However,
it does seem that GSK is just beginning to tackle this issue following
stakeholder pressure, so perhaps more is to come.
A
DIRECTIONS 2007
 18_19
HSBC HSBC have a high profile on this issue. They were an early adopter
and their strategy includes (amongst other things) carbon neutrality,
Emissions status a survey on public confidence, engaging Stern as an adviser, a carbon
management taskforce and the HSBC Climate Partnership. So their
Overall CO2 emissions are going up
rating is A but they must be careful: all those initiatives must remain
coordinated so as not to contribute to confusion; and performance
needs to be addressed.

Imperial Tobacco Imperial recognise climate change as an area for attention and have made
some progress but it sounds like they are really getting started in tackling
Emissions status it this year. They state they are considering approaches including low
carbon technology, renewables and offsetting. They have achieved some
CO2 emissions falling
energy efficiencies though. So a B rating for now but there should be
significant developments in order to keep that rating.

J Sainsbury Sainsbury’s consumer website takes the reader straight to the CR report
on this subject. Some consumers might find that information a bit
Emissions status confusing as it brings together energy, packaging and waste and doesn’t
talk about what climate change is all about. There are good initiatives
CO2 emissions reported to be dropping but would
but there isn’t the sense of strategy that others get across and this isn’t
be good to see figures over time
a sector that can shy away from the issue. So the communications feel
a bit lukewarm.

Johnson Matthey Johnson Matthey’s approach comes across as a measured response to

climate change in line with business needs. Initiatives are apparently in
Emissions status place and they note that some of their products have the ability to assist
in a transition to a low carbon economy – but on the other hand they
CO2 is falling for the second year
haven’t included some parts of the business in the climate change strategy
(eg transportation and precious metals). And they could engage with
a wider range of audiences with the information they have to offer.

Legal & General Legal & General don’t articulate a clear policy on climate change,
although they do monitor and report on greenhouse emissions.
Emissions status Their disclosure on climate change is low, especially as their SRI
business lists it first on the list of engagement topics. There are
Overall carbon emissions are increasing slightly
objectives for next year so perhaps improvements are on the way.

C
DIRECTIONS 2007
Is it all talk?

Man Group Another early adopter of a carbon neutral strategy, but with clear
energy reductions and thought around offsetting. Though not a carbon
Emissions status intensive business the strategy is a good example of being thorough
and fit for purpose. Working with employees is a large part of the
CO2 emissions down
approach including workshops, audits, mentors and internal
communications.

Marks & Spencer The doyen of the CR communications world, Marks & Spencer’s ‘Plan A’
(because there’s no Plan B) programme has climate change at the top.
Emissions status Marks & Spencer’s commitment to tackling climate change is clear
and it is being rolled out to customers – labels inform about washing
CO2 emissions from energy use are down,
clothing at lower temperatures and carbon from air freight. At the
but are up from transport
other end of the value chain they are working with suppliers, and they
partner with the Women’s Institute for more awareness raising. It is
definitely an A rating. Continued clear communications are key to avoid
A being part of the noise of the climate change debate.

National Grid National Grid have made climate change a focus area and publish a
clear public position statement. They use the World Resources Institute
Emissions status greenhouse gas protocol to break down how they monitor and manage
emissions, which is helpful in explaining what they consider is within
35% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions
their sphere of control. They also offer smart metering and energy
efficiency schemes in US and are conducting a Met office study in the
UK. But being such a significant player in the utilities sector, they
should engage consumers more.
A

Reckitt Benckiser Reckitt Benckiser have a vision to make eight billion products carbon
neutral in 2006 and 2007. They already tackle lifecycle analysis for
Emissions status the production and use of their products. So it’s a bold target and
mitigating climate change is high on their list of sustainability
Greenhouse gases from manufacturing and
priorities. They also pledge to tackle carbon footprint issues with
general energy use falling
suppliers, employees and customers. However, they could come under
fire for using only a forestry project to offset their emissions. If they
deliver on their plans an A rating would follow.
B

Rexam Rexam are overlooking climate change, both in terms of articulating

their responsibilities and in grasping an opportunity. They operate
Emissions status environmental management systems including resource efficiency,
eco efficiency and a mention of the use of alternative energy sources.
CO2 constant over three years, but energy savings
But this only links to climate change if you know how to read between
in parts of the business – a bit unclear
the lines. And it is an opportunity for the business to deliver packaging
which complements potential customers’ positive product values –
something missing from the business to business marketing site.
C
DIRECTIONS 2007
 20_21
Embarking on a new three year plan including emissions reductions,
Rio Tinto new technologies and better communication. They have conducted a
Emissions status risk assessment of climate change related losses and operate internal
knowledge sharing across regions. One of their videos also tackles the
Greenhouse gas equivalent emissions and
subject, though perhaps over-simplifies. An A rating for the amount
energy use rising
going on, but performance is a concern.

Royal & Sun Alliance Royal & Sun Alliance are running a number of initiatives: becoming
carbon neutral; eco-insurance products for customers; insurers of
Emissions status renewable energy projects; and part of the ‘Together’ initiative.
However, considering they are in insurance and weather-related risks
Emissions going down
are key to the business you might expect more information on their
strategic approach, and for them to include information on their site
aimed at intermediaries. So really a B rating.

SAB Miller SAB Miller do recognise their impact on climate change and how the
results could affect them – threatening crop and water supply, the raw
Emissions status materials for their business. They have programmes in place and are
communicating. What isn’t so clear is how effective programmes are
Overall CO2 emissions are going up
across the global operations. So you are left with the feeling you don’t
have the complete picture.

Sage has no information at group level. In the chief executive’s

Sage Group statement, the UK business says it’s tackling climate change backed up
Emissions status with some information about energy saving initiatives. There is also an
objective to measure carbon footprint but no figures are reported. The
No exact data although some energy
business is a low carbon emitter but the lack of a coordinated approach
reduction claims
across the group means a C rating.

Scottish Power Climate change is number four out of 12 material issues and Scottish
Power’s approach seems pragmatic – a significant issue, a challenge,
Emissions status with some positive achievements as well as difficulties. They use a
combination of policies and there are significant changes in their energy
A rise in CO2, NOx and SO2 in the last year,
supply portfolio. But there is something noticeably absent in their
though the trend is downwards
‘summary of approach’ document: a commitment to engage with
customers. So still an A rating but room for improvement.

A
DIRECTIONS 2007
Is it all talk?

SEGRO SEGRO recognise the importance of climate change, and have some
targets in place, but the coverage is low key when you take into account
Emissions status their sector and impacts. Their risk assessment does put energy use
and emissions as a material issue and there is a rare mention of
Incomplete data but CO2 in own offices falling and
adaptation – interestingly classed as high risk but low influence. As they
renewable energy rising
honestly admit that some targets are not met – one of which being
communications and awareness – and there has been work done on
carbon footprint calculation and renewable energy use, the rating is B.
B But there should be more.

Shell Interestingly when you first go onto the environment and society pages
of Shell’s website, there isn’t a main navigation area for climate change.
Emissions status But then there is significant information in the environment section
which links to other areas of the site. It is a detailed programme but it
Greenhouse gas emissions from operations are
can be hard work to find what you want on the website. An A rating but
falling but targets give them room to increase
as Shell have calculated that their products are responsible for 3.1% of
global CO2 emitted from the combustion of fossil fuels – and there are
no targets to reduce this – you are left wanting more.
A

Unilever Unilever has a working group which is trying to tackle the whole
range of emissions from product to consumer use. So they give a real
Emissions status impression of strategically getting to grips with all levels of their
impacts (though they are yet to communicate on how to adapt to
CO2 from energy use going down
changes caused by the climate). Unilever is also the leader in its sector
in the Carbon Disclosure Project. With such prominent brands and a
history in bringing corporate responsibility messages to the consumer,
they could consider engaging more in this area.
A

Vodafone Vodafone have an internal communications programme to promote

energy efficiency. Their CEO statement suggests that they are in a low
Emissions status carbon sector. But on the other hand they do have a huge customer
reach which they aren’t working with to raise awareness, and overall
Emissions are rising
emissions are rising. They do seem to have been working on the
network efficiency as their biggest impact. So some positive activity
but more needed before it could reach an A grade.

DIRECTIONS 2007
Our top 5 tips 22_23

for your approach to climate change

In our review, we saw a pattern emerging – so we’ve put

together five things we think companies need to remember
when considering their plans to tackle climate change:

01. Adaptation
01
Adaptation – it’s become that strange phenomenon, ‘there’s an
elephant in the room’. Companies and communities need to give
consideration to how they will adapt in a changing climate. While
many companies now frankly admit that climate change is a reality,
only a few talk about how they will react to weather change. This
might be identifying how operations will change, or how products
and services can meet new needs. The lack of consideration for
adaptation is both a risk, and a lost opportunity.
02. Awareness raising
Awareness raising – some companies with mainstream

02
consumers as a major stakeholder group are having some
success. But it’s not widespread and many of the other

03
stakeholder groups are being overlooked.

03. Plain language

Plain language – there are companies doing a good job of not skirting
around the issue, but others are not clearly articulating their approach,
perhaps because they aren’t clear themselves about what it should
be. We don’t advocate doom and gloom or scaremongering about the
effects of climate change, but companies do need to tell it like it is.

04. Numerous initiatives

Numerous initiatives – some companies have a raft of activities
which can be achieving a lot, but the challenge is to make sure

04
they don’t end up confusing and just make more noise around

05
climate change.

05. Relevance
Relevance – the approach to climate change needs to be right for the
company and its sector. It brings together all our top tips: the right
initiatives explained in plain language including plans for adaptation,
whilst raising people’s awareness.

DIRECTIONS 2007
 waste

ffoot
fo
oo
otp
otprr
global
g
gll all wa
w
war
warm
warmin
arm
a min
miin
i n
supply
up
pplly
pp
p ly
global
g
gllobal
oba
bal
al war
w
warmi
wa
warmin
a
arrrm
miiin
m n
climat
clim
c
cliliim mat
ma
mhum
g
at
a
human
uman
gas-gu

sus
sus
st
ta
tain
ai
ain
t
gn righ
rights
i hts
ss
rs

csu emis
em
bply
upply
lym
mi
c iis
chaiisnra
siioon
on
o
nss
of h ett
off

carbon n ne
DIRECTIONS 2007
 BEYOND CLIMATE CHANGE
24_25
CLIMATE CHANGE IS A FUNDAMENTAL ISSUE
BUT IT CAN’T HIJACK THE WHOLE CORPORATE
RESPONSIBILITY AGENDA. WE HOPE WHAT YOU
HAVE JUST READ HAS PROVIDED SOME USEFUL
INSIGHTS, BUT NOW WE ARE MOVING ON TO
OTHER ISSUES AND A ROUND UP OF THIS YEAR’S
REPORTING AND CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY
COMMUNICATIONS ACTIVITIES.

rint
int Use the monocle to pick out other key CR issues
that climate change must not eclipse.

ng
g
chain
hain
ain
in
n ch
c
challenges
ha leng
h enge
e e
ng
gcoombimm
mmu un
u nic
n cati
c tii h
tnaaabi
te e
ability
change
ch
c
bility
il
lity
ty
y
hange
han
ha
h ang
a
an
nge
n
ngg
gee
s cco footprint
corruption
orruption
p & brib
bribe
ery
ry
y
gree
green
gr
ree
reen
een
e wwash
wa
ash
a h
usiio
i
eutral
iion
p ution
pollution
pol n
DIRECTIONS 2007
 GREENWASH LIP-GLOSSING GREENWASH LIP-GLOSSING GREENWASH LIP-GLOSSING GREENWASH LIP-GLOSSING

SECRECY BRIBERY SECRECY BRIBERY SECRECY BRIBERY SECRECY BRIBERY

UNEMPLOYMENT ACCIDENT RATES UNEMPLOYMENT ACCIDENT RATES UNEMPLOYMENT ACCIDENT RATES UNEMPLOYMENT

SUPPLY CHAIN CHILD SUPPLY CHAIN CHILD SUPPLY CHAIN CHILD SUPPLY CHAIN
CHALLENGES LABOUR CHALLENGES LABOUR CHALLENGES LABOUR CHALLENGES

SOCIAL SKILLS SOCIAL SKILLS SOCIAL

EXCLUSION GAP EXCLUSION GAP EXCLUSION

ONE WAY
COMMUNICATION

BUSINESS

TRUST REPUTATION GROWTH LICENCE CONSUMER

TO OPERATE CONFIDENCE

DIRECTIONS 2007
 Fighting
climate change
– as well as other challenges
to sustainable business
Julia Cleverdon
Chief Executive of Business in the Community
With corporate attention focused on climate change, some
CORRUPTION MISTRUST are asking whether companies should return to the ‘green’
roots of corporate responsibility. Julia Cleverdon argues that
companies taking this approach are missing the point.
The role of business in tackling climate change
has been thrust onto centre stage over the
ONE WAY
COMMUNICATION past 12 months. Sir Nicholas Stern’s Review of
the Economics of Climate Change highlighted
the need for businesses to reduce their carbon
dioxide emissions to avoid severe economic
consequences, and the UN’s Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) emphasised
the short time window for action, with
emissions needing to peak and decline within
the next 20 years.
This has not gone unnoticed by the corporate
PRIVATE EQUITY
MISTRUST
world. Out of the 1,000 business leaders that
attended this year’s Prince of Wales’s May Day
Business Summit on Climate Change, nearly
two thirds saw climate change as a risk for
their business. What is encouraging, however,
is that 90% also saw the opportunities it
offered, whether through cost savings, new
market opportunities or as a driver to engage
and retain employees’ trust.
It is those companies that truly understand
those opportunities that are making a real
difference. Take for example BSkyB, winner of
the Man Group International Climate Change
Award 2007. It recognised the consumer desire
for affordable green products and introduced
20_27
26_27
the world’s first set-top box with an automatic
standby facility. It has also now engaged
employees in eco-schools. BT has taken a
different angle, working closely with its suppliers
to produce products that have a lower carbon
footprint than their predecessors, so emissions
savings can be passed on to its customers.
These companies are successfully combining
the reduction of their environmental footprint
with business benefits, and continuing to
create wealth for the UK. And they should
be commended and used to inspire other
companies, some of whom are only just
beginning their climate change journey.
But to see corporate responsibility
just through the lens of climate change
would be to miss the rich mix of issues
on which business has been making
an impact.
Taking a broader approach
When Business in the Community was formed
25 years ago in the wake of race riots and social
unrest in the UK, the purpose of the group of
leading businesses was to work collaboratively
to tackle the key social issues of the day. Since
DIRECTIONS 2007
“ For some businesses and sectors
climate change is an absolute
priority, but for others there are
more pressing and immediate issues
that they can impact upon.
then, our network of businesses has grown,
as has the range of issues that companies are
expected to address. In our jubilee year, David
Grayson, Professor of Corporate Responsibility
at Cranfield, has pulled together a commentary
on Business in the Community’s successes and
failures in doing this along the way, available
at www.bitc.org.uk.
A glance at our Corporate Responsibility Index,
published in the Sunday Times as ‘Companies
that Count’ and now in its sixth year, shows
how companies are having an impact across
the corporate responsibility spectrum, from
responsible selling to diversity in the workplace.
Taking this broader approach allows
companies to consider all potential social and
environmental issues that may impact upon
them and focus on those that are most pressing
to them and on which they can make the most
difference. Key to this is realising that every
business is different. For some businesses and
sectors climate change is an absolute priority,
but for others there are more pressing and
immediate issues that they can impact upon.
Recognising the challenges
The three main issues that business will need
to consider over the coming years are: the need
for improved skills and a greater social cohesion
to ensure that the UK remains competitive
in global markets; the need for transparency
across business to regain trust in an increasingly
questioning environment; and the need to
integrate corporate responsibility into the
heart of their operations.
DIRECTIONS 2007
PRIVATE EQUITY
” MISTRUST
A more enterprising and talent
driven skills base
The future skills base of the country is critical
to our competitiveness as so many of the job
opportunities will increasingly need much higher
level qualifications. Upskilling the existing
workforce, as well as developing a more relevant
and enterprising curriculum for 14-19 year
olds is vital. The roll call of companies who have
illustrated their impact through Business in
the Community’s excellence awards include
the Oracle learning programme, the Deloitte
employability initiative and the Esh Group
construction project for 14-16 year olds. We will
all need to step up the quality, impact and scale
of our business engagement in this area and
I am delighted that Gordon Brown has asked me
as Chief Executive of Business in the Community
to lead the review on how business-education
partnerships can help to achieve world class
educational excellence in the next 10 years.
Winning trust
Scrutiny of business by the public, media and
shareholders has grown in sophistication.
Companies are no longer taken at face value.
They have to back up what they are claiming
with hard evidence. This is particularly true
for the growing number of private equity funds.
Business in the Community’s membership
now covers one in five of the private sector
workforce, and one in five of that same
workforce is now employed by companies owned
by private equity. With the high stakes and
media coverage involved in the takeovers of
these businesses, many questions are being
asked on what these funds are doing to improve
the social and environmental impact of their BUSINESS
newly acquired businesses.

The Walker Report on private equity sends a
firm message to owners of those businesses
that the key to improving trust is transparency.
Open reporting of impacts and public
benchmarking of performance through tools
such as Business in the Community’s Corporate
Responsibility Index will help business to win
over the public, media and investors. That is
where the bar needs to be set, and is a key
challenge for businesses across sectors.
Making corporate responsibility part of
how business does business
In this climate of mistrust, it is important that
corporate responsibility activities are not applied
as ‘lip-gloss’ to core operations. They need to
be at the heart of the business. To achieve this,
companies need clear direction and commitment
from senior management and their approach
to corporate responsibility needs to be fully
integrated into their everyday operations.
Some companies stand out as clear examples
of this. Marks & Spencer’s ‘Plan A’, named
because the company believes there is no Plan
B, sets out how it will tackle the key issues
facing it as a business. From how it will reduce
waste, to how it will ensure it maintains fair
partnerships with suppliers, the Plan recognises
corporate responsibility as central to the
company’s success.
28_29
This is not a large company preserve. Masses
of small to medium sized enterprises also
provide inspiration on how to do this. When
asked ‘Why are you volunteering in your local
community?’ a small engineering company in
the West Midlands replied ‘it is just part of what
we do’. Smaller businesses have decision takers
closer to community need.
The challenge now is to spread good
practice to those companies that
are just starting on their corporate
responsibility journey. Collaboration
is key to this.
Whether through the supply chains of leading
companies or business networks such as
Business in the Community and its May Day
group of companies committed to tackling
climate change, using the leaders to inspire
the laggards will be vital in helping all
companies address not only climate change,
but the wider pressing issues which affect
our competitiveness and our cohesion.
DIRECTIONS 2007
The reporting
highs and lows
of the top 100 UK companies

The panel is on it
In last year’s Directions, the panel got under the skin of the top 100 companies
in the UK, looking at how effective their corporate responsibility reports were at
communicating strategy and activities.
Another year has passed and a fresh group of experts are looking at this year’s
crop of reports. The attention that climate change has received has really put
corporate responsibility in the spotlight. So businesses need to turn up the
heat on their communications to withstand the scrutiny. And there is evidence
that some are.
So this year there are high expectations and the panel are hot on the trail of the
companies under analysis. As in previous years the panel were given some basic
guidelines but their findings on the good, the bad and the ugly are their own.

Rules
1. The assessments should be based on information on
company websites or in public reports available up to
and including 3 August 2007.
2. The panellists are encouraged to be forthright!
3. The panellist’s decision is final (but please feel free to
get in touch with us if you’d like to discuss it).

Please note the views expressed are the panellists’ own and not necessarily those of their organisations.
Company list taken from the Financial Times, 30 March 2007.

DIRECTIONS 2007
The judging panel
01 02 03
01 Nancy Turrell
CSR Manager, Nestlé
Nancy joined Nestlé UK as CSR Manager in
July 2007. Before joining Nestlé she spent
five years at Sainsbury’s as CSR Manager.
Nancy read Business and Italian at
University College London.
02 Stuart Poore
Director of CR, Virgin Media
Stuart is Director of Corporate Responsibility
at Virgin Media where he leads on the social,
environmental and ethical dimensions of the
company’s reputation management. Prior to
joining Virgin Media, Stuart looked after CR
at QinetiQ having previously worked in public
affairs and environmental campaigning at
WWF-UK.
03 Cindy Cahill
Head of CR, Deloitte
Cindy is Partner responsible for Corporate
Responsibility and Sustainability Services
at Deloitte UK. In addition to providing CR
services to a number of Deloitte’s largest
clients, Cindy is also responsible for leading
Deloitte’s internal CR programme. She is a
member of the Deloitte Global CR executive
and has helped a number of member firms
to develop their CR practices.
04 Lucie Harrild
Head of CR communications, salterbaxter
Lucie has a background in corporate
and consumer communications, SRI and
CR consultancy. She holds an MSc in
Environmental Technology from Imperial
04 05 06
College and is responsible for corporate
responsibility communications work
at salterbaxter.
05 Angela McClowry
Environment Analyst, British Energy
Angela is an Environment Analyst with a
particular focus on CSR policy for industrial
and commercial electricity supplier, British
Energy. Her background is in environmental
management and she worked previously for a
large agribusiness investment management
company in her native Australia.
06 Andrew Vickerman
Global Head of Communications &
External Relations, Rio Tinto, London
Andrew has overall responsibility for media,
corporate communications, public affairs,
corporate social responsibility and community
relations. He has a BA, MA and PhD from
Cambridge University. Prior to joining Rio
Tinto he worked as a development economist
and as a consultant for international
organisations, including the World Bank.
In his current role Andrew played a leading
role in the Global Mining Initiative, a mining
industry exercise focused on addressing the
contribution of the industry to the transition
to sustainable development.
07 Adam Garfunkel
Independent CSR Communications
Consultant
Adam is an independent CSR communications
consultant. He has more than 10 years’
experience in ethical business
30_31
07 08 09
communications, working with leading
international brands writing CSR reports and
websites, and developing social marketing
campaigns. Adam holds an MSc in the Public
Understanding of Environmental Change from
UCL. Before working in communications
consultancies, Adam was a pollution
campaigner for Friends of the Earth.
08 Stephanie Maier
Head of Research, EIRIS
Stephanie is Head of Research at EIRIS,
a leading global provider of independent
research into the social, environmental and
other ethical performance of companies.
Stephanie works on developing new
research products and approaches, recently
launching the new climate change criteria.
She has researched and written on the
engagement approach to SRI and was a
member of the Indicators Working Group
developing the new GRI sustainability
reporting guidelines (G3).
09 Stefan Reichenbach
Head of Environment Markets, Reuters
Stefan is Head of Environmental Markets at
Reuters. Under Stefan’s leadership, Reuters
has emerged as a leading business media
company for the environmental finance
sector. Stefan introduced innovative online
initiatives that inform the global carbon
market and bring the market’s buyers
and sellers together. Stefan holds an MA
in Economics from Cambridge University
and an MSc in Environmental Change &
Management from the University of Oxford.
DIRECTIONS 2007
The FT UK 100
sectors
Sectors Page Sectors Page
Aerospace & Defence 32 Household Goods 39
Banks 33 Life Insurance 39
Beverages 33 Media 40
Chemicals 34 Mining 40
Construction & General Industries 34 Mobile Comms 41
Electricity 35 Nonlife Insurance 41
Fixed Line Telecoms 35 Oil & Gas 42
Food & Drug Retailers 36 Real Estate 42
Food Producers 36 Software & Computer Services 43
Gas, Water & Multi-utilities 37 Support Services 43
General Financial 37 Tobacco 44
General Retailers 38 Travel & Leisure 44
Health, Pharma & Biotech and
Healthcare Equipment & Services 38

Environment, health and safety (EHS) have
typically been the focus of aerospace and
defence reports, primarily due to the heavy
industrial nature of activities – manufacturing
aircraft parts and military equipment.
This year was no exception, with extensive
reporting on EHS activities from both
Rolls-Royce and Smiths Group.
Aerospace Climate change was also a common theme for
& Defence: reports and was broached through discussions
of ‘innovation’. Companies reported on
BAE Systems technological advancements in avionics systems
Rolls-Royce Group and engine design that promise to deliver
Smiths Group improved energy efficiency and fuel savings
for aircraft, whilst others reported on the latest
Panellist: developments with products such as ‘green’ lead
Cindy Cahill free bullets. Some of this may be due to the
Deloitte demands of buyers such as Boeing and Airbus;
meanwhile others have criticised it as being purely
‘greenwash’. Reports used emissions data to back
up environmental performance, both using their
own performance data and also by using
benchmark data, comparing themselves to more
pollution intensive sectors.
Comprehensive reporting on the key challenges
faced by defence related activities remained a
challenge for reports. Whilst BAE’s was the only
report that detailed issues raised by stakeholders
throughout the year, it failed to discuss them
in the necessary depth, brushing over issues
such as recent Saudi-related accusations.
Future challenges will include reporting more
transparently and thoroughly on their human
rights position, product stewardship, supply
chain and lobbying activities. So the winner,
based solely on the limited stakeholder
engagement, is BAE.
And the winner is:
BAE Systems

DIRECTIONS 2007
 32_33
Banks continue to invest significantly in their agenda. Alliance & Leicester’s ‘Right to Read’
CR profiles. The responsibility of helping to programme and RBS’ ‘Face2Face with Finance’
tackle climate change is now a clear priority deserve special mention in this regard.
for the sector with each of the ‘big 5’ jostling
for position and differentiation. HSBC remain Each of the companies reviewed appear to place
clear leaders, especially in view of their a strong emphasis on employee well-being,
Climate Partnership with environmental NGOs. creating a sense that these are very nice places
Banks to work. This is backed up with a raft of hard-
On the customer side, the issue of responsible hitting metrics on diversity and opportunity that
Alliance & Leicester lending takes top billing although one wonders undoubtedly differentiate this sector as ‘people-
Barclays whether these companies are ducking some oriented’. Refreshingly, HSBC also give the issue
HBOS uncomfortable truths. Beyond pledging to of executive remuneration and accusations of
HSBC share data on vulnerable borrowers, our big ‘fat-cattery’ some fairly ‘up-front’ treatment.
lending institutions are less than convincing
Lloyds TSB
in their claims to be meaningfully addressing
Northern Rock
soaring and distressing levels of personal debt. And the winner is:
Royal Bank of Scotland
HSBC
Standard Chartered Elsewhere, big sums of money are being
ploughed into building community investment –
Panellist: HBOS give £8m annually to their Foundation,
Stuart Poore for example – alongside some impressive and
Virgin Media meaningful contributions to the education

The companies in this sector are experienced SAB Miller and Scottish & Newcastle both
reporters. Diageo’s report sets up a clear use video on their website to articulate their
vision of the business reinforcing that sense approach, a great way to hold the interest of the
of confidence from the beginning. And their viewer/reader. However Scottish & Newcastle’s
marketing activities around the responsible actual report is less engaging, though quite
drinking message show they are integrating proficient. Being an 85 page document, it is
CR into other communications – and it will be on the long side. The winner is SAB Miller, for
Beverages: interesting to see where they take that in the good presentation of information online and in
future. However the relative achievements print, plus using features like video to get the
Diageo across global operations are a little harder to message across. But actually it is very close
SABMiller get a sense of. Overall the report can be a bit in this sector.
Scottish & Newcastle dense to read and breaking information up
* note, due to publication dates SAB Miller’s report is a more
would be helpful. recent version
Panellist:
SAB Miller’s* is also a heavyweight report,
Lucie Harrild
though not as bad as those 100 page tomes And the winner is:
salterbaxter
of years gone by. Its focus is more towards
SAB Miller
sustainability and it reports on 10 quite specific
key issues giving a clear sense of direction. SAB
Miller’s web information is straightforward to
navigate too, and it gives a fast insight into the
business and what it wants to communicate.

DIRECTIONS 2007
The FT UK 100 sectors

The two reports in this category varied indicators won me over more than the tabulated
considerably in size and content. ICI had the data at the back of ICI’s report. A five page case
benefit of being short, concise and full of study on low carbon generation at the end of
good data, though lacking a bit of imagination. Johnson Matthey’s Report tipped it over. So the
I was very impressed by their newly formed winner is Johnson Matthey!
Stakeholder Review Group which is made
up of a high calibre panel.
And the winner is:
Johnson Matthey faired better on these Johnson Matthey
Chemicals: aspects and, although longer, it was a better
read. Detailed employment statistics were
ICI interesting, including trade union representation.
Johnson Matthey Some other highlights are that a number of
sites worldwide have certified OHS systems.
Panellist: The report is cross referenced to the GRI
Angela McClowry guidelines, with detailed prominently placed
British Energy environment indicators.

With the chemicals industry as a big user

of electricity I was looking for significant content
on climate change. Both companies acknowledge
its importance and are involved in the policy
space. As anticipated both companies report on
greenhouse gas emissions. Johnson Matthey’s
more visible and descriptive performance

Hanson have not produced a report since the
Environment, Community and the Workplace
report in 2003, so there is no formal reporting
structure. In search of more information I went
to the website, and have to say that given
their position in the construction industry
Construction I expected more attention to climate change
& General – I was disappointed to find next to nothing.
They are, however, committed to continual
Industries: improvement in environmental performance.
There are clear objectives, but no set targets
Hanson
and the only mention of performance is
REXAM
related to Health and Safety and dated 2005.
Panellist: They refer to corporate responsibility as ‘integral
Andrew Vickerman to good business management’ and challenges
Rio Tinto they face are categorised into workplace,
environmental and community issues, also how
the web section is structured. The Health and
Safety section is the most detailed with policy
statements, monitoring of performance and
details of employee participation. They clearly
have internal communication on CR issues as
they have a quarterly employee magazine which
provides information about local communities,
employees’ achievements, etc. Could this be seen
as evidence of an integrated approach to CR?
REXAM’s latest available hard copy or
downloadable report is the 2004 Environmental
and Social Update. They have now moved
to online reporting in the form of the
‘Responsibility’ section of their website. The web
report is well structured and covers a substantial
amount. My favourite feature has to be the
‘Environmental footprints’ – these are diagrams
that map out the environmental impacts of the
businesses’ products and processes. The user is
also able to view data tables, policy documents
and various case studies.
To identify a winner between the two has been
difficult, given that they are two very different
companies. But based on the accessibility of
data and ease of navigation – REXAM has to win
this one. A fully downloadable version of their
report is going to be available some time this
year so I look forward to that.
And the winner is:
REXAM

DIRECTIONS 2007

As a sector, power generators have strong
Corporate Responsibility communications. All
three companies make available extensive data
on impacts, targets and performance and have
clearly formulated policies. Senior management
is involved in each case and third party
verification or certification of CSR activities
Electricity: is commonplace: Scottish & Southern Energy
and International Power have some of their
International Power operations ISO 14001 certified and Scottish
Scottish & Southern Power has an external assurance process for
Energy its CSR information. However, all is not perfect.
Scottish Power
The companies’ CSR summary reports are below
Panellist: par. International Power produces a decent
Stefan Reichenbach two pager but Scottish Power and Scottish &
Reuters Southern Energy’s materials are too dense.
Scottish Power acknowledges having received
this feedback before but its ‘at a glance’ section
does not do the job.
More importantly though, the companies are
not transparent enough about how they set
their targets, especially around climate change.
For example, Scottish Power does not explain
Window-dressing is too glamorous a term
for what Cable & Wireless has published
on CSR. There is just a single page for each
of the two main business units and four policy
documents. They have not published a report
since 2004.
Desperately searching for more information
Fixed Line I tried the site map, where one finds four new
Telecoms: pages not available from the main navigation.
Choosing one of these pages opens up a different
BT Group navigational structure. Confusing… but maybe
Cable & Wireless here’s the real content, I thought. No, click on
the links and blank pages appear. Not good.
Panellist:
Adam Garfunkel
If Cable & Wireless is more CSR pygmy than
telecoms giant, the same charge cannot be
Independent CSR
consultant levelled at BT. A comprehensive website is
sensibly complemented by a shorter printed
report. I particularly like the ‘Hot topics’ section
where external authors are invited to write
papers on topical and controversial CSR issues.
One small black mark is the navigation, which
can sometimes confuse, so keen is BT to offer
multiple routes to the content. Indeed, there is
even a page titled ‘Navigation’. Now navigation
34_35
why it uses 1999 as its base year for its
greenhouse gas emissions targets. And in
Scottish & Southern Energy’s case the chosen
base year is 2006 and the 20% reduction target
by 2016 would result in a carbon efficiency
that is above Scottish & Southern Energy’s
own 2005 performance. The company does
not explain this incongruity.
The power sector is very explicit about its
approach to CSR, stressing how CSR activities
are part of everyday operations. While this is
positive, the power sector has a particularly
critical role to play in addressing climate change
and CSR activities should be integrated into
business strategy as well as operations. This
element is missing, which may account for the
fact that all three companies had higher total
carbon dioxide emissions in the last year, despite
reductions in carbon emissions per GWh.
And the winner is:
Scottish Power
is as inherent to a webpage, as page numbers
are to a book. This page is the report table of
contents, so why not call it that? But overall,
BT has done a great job and these structural
weaknesses can quickly be put right.
Choosing a winner out of these two is easy.
It is Manchester United at home in the FA Cup
to the Codswallop Village pub team. BT wins
hands down.
And the winner is:
BT Group
DIRECTIONS 2007
The FT UK 100 sectors
This sector has, in the past year, not only been in
the firing line of the media due to its economic,
social and environmental impact – but it seems
to have caught the eye of Private Equity giants.
Where has the Alliance Boots buyout by KKR
left them? Unfortunately the merged group
has not as yet released a combined corporate
Food & Drug responsibility report. However, if the 2006 report
is anything to go by we can only hope they
Retailers: continue to base their ‘healthy business’ on trust!
Boots Group
So what impact has the past year had on the
J Sainsbury
corporate responsibility communications of this
Morrison Wm sector’s companies? As in previous years both
Supermarkets
Sainsbury’s and Tesco show their strength in
Tesco
measuring their performance against clearly
defined targets and use of case studies. And the
Panellist: way in which the key performance indicators are
Andrew Vickerman documented is very clear and provides a good
Rio Tinto overview for Tesco. Morrisons is the weaker
Unilever and Cadbury Schweppes are clear
leaders in this group, devoting significant efforts
to communicating their approach to key CSR
issues in their reports and on their websites.
The key to effective communication is often to
be found in the structure used to help navigate
the information and in providing a balance of
information to meet a range of stakeholders’
Food needs. It is here that Unilever comes out on top.
Producers:
An overview of its impacts and relevant
Associated commitments organised around the lifecycle
British Foods of its business, from understanding consumer
Cadbury Schweppes needs and innovation and R&D to distribution and
Unilever retail, sets the scene well and provides a context
for Unilever’s CSR activities. Throughout the
Panellist: report weblinks are used to signpost further
Stephanie Maier information, keeping the report a sufficiently
EIRIS digestible length. Cadbury’s could benefit from
applying this approach as their report is almost
twice as long. The balance of information in
Unilever’s report allows space for climate change
to be clearly addressed. Information on the
company’s carbon footprint, clear targets, verified
DIRECTIONS 2007
communicator, however credit where it’s due, this
year they have produced their first stand alone CR
report.
The Sainsbury’s report is clearly laid out and
makes it easy for the reader to find what they
are looking for. Climate change is also part and
parcel of one of five of their guiding principles,
‘Respect for Environment’. Their recognition
that climate change is not just about energy –
makes me think that they ‘get it’! Sainsbury’s
also display good use of Rich Media taking
advantage of online communications tools. So
it’s a close call between Tesco and Sainsbury’s,
but the winner for me is Sainsbury’s.
And the winner is:
J Sainsbury
data and its public position and governance
structure gives the reader a good picture of
Unilever’s approach. Cadbury has concentrated
heavily on communicating on consumer issues
such as obesity which have attracted much
attention recently, leaving little room for climate
change, although the basics of policy and data
are covered. However, this may be remedied in
the next report; Cadbury operates on a biennial
reporting cycle.
For Associated British Foods the task is more
complicated – a diversified company comprising
businesses such as the British Sugar Group
alongside Primark – it does its best to present
a comprehensive overview of CSR performance.
There is a good level of information which is
clearly presented, however it does not compare
with the others in this group.
And the winner is:
Unilever

Historically this has been a strong sector in
reporting, driven primarily from the high level
of regulation and the need for comprehensive
environment, health and safety data. This year
there is a clear move towards more online
content and stakeholder focused reporting.
This is a key sector in the climate change debate
Gas, Water in three ways: the sector can be a large producer
& Multi- of emissions (operational impact); the companies
and infrastructure will be directly impacted by
utilities: climate change; and the companies play a key role
in helping society deliver the solutions necessary
Centrica
to tackle the problems. The extent to which these
Kelda Group
three issues are addressed by each company
National Grid varies, with the water companies having a strong
Severn Trent sector approach to tackling sustainability issues
United Utilities (e.g. Water UK Sustainability Indicators), but with
the individual energy companies generally leading
Panellist: the way in terms of having clear climate change
Cindy Cahill policies and strategies.
Deloitte
This sector is split in two in terms of
disclosure on corporate responsibility. 3i Group
and Man Group are at the top, both producing
decent reports. Invesco, Schroders and ICAP
are in the bottom half, though Invesco offers
some brief statements on their website and
Schroders has reported in the past (there
haven’t been any recent updates). On a
General positive note Schroders does have a video
Financial: that discusses their climate fund and gives an
insight into the business opportunities which
3I Group can be created by climate change.
ICAP
INVESCO So the competition here is between 3i Group
(was called Amvescap) and Man Group. 3i produce a short but
Man Group competent report which covers the bases.
Schroders Though the corporate responsibility governance
structures are described, there is no statement
Panellist: from a senior executive which might be a cause
Lucie Harrild for concern for their internal commitment. But
salterbaxter
interesting information is offered on workshops
conducted for investment staff about corporate
responsibility issues.
36_37
The sector is one of the leaders in gaining
assurance over sustainability information,
with all reports having some form of
independent assurance.
Challenges that this sector face include
reporting effectively on the volume of
information now required by stakeholders and
being able to effectively demonstrate that the
sustainability activities go beyond compliance.
So the winner is National Grid for this sector.
And the winner is:
National Grid
Man Group’s report is the winner in this group,
and it goes much further than 3i. There is senior
executive support, strategic thinking and useful
insight from members of the CR committee
which gives a real flavour of the individuals
involved, the business and how it approaches
corporate responsibility. Programmes are
thorough and there is evidence of internal
engagement on key issues which is encouraging
evidence of a business working towards
integrating CR in the day to day operations.
Further information is provided in supplements
on key issues: environment, people and
community. And by publishing their corporate
responsibility manual online, they are achieving
a good level of transparency.
And the winner is:
Man Group
DIRECTIONS 2007
The FT UK 100 sectors
As an independent company following the
demerger from GUS plc, Home Retail Group
published their first corporate responsibility
report this year. The report outlines the new
management structure’s approach to corporate
responsibility suggesting that CR is integral
to their operations. Although they aim to
General make CR part of the fabric of how they work
I struggled to find evidence of whether they
Retailers: do. Marks & Spencer’s corporate responsibility
report on the other hand clearly does.
DSG International
Home Retail Group Entitled the ‘How we do business’ report it is
Kingfisher clear that Marks & Spencer’s CR activities are
Marks & Spencer supported and led from the top. Whereas last
Next year the report seemed to cover almost 20
issues, causing some confusion for the reader,
Panellist: this year’s ‘Plan A’ lists five clear commitments
Andrew Vickerman to be tackled over the next five years. All
Rio Tinto round a clearly documented report explaining
activities, performance and targets in a succinct
way. The only flaw I would have to note is that
everything is positive and very limited detail,
if any, is presented on targets not met.
Kingfisher’s reporting format is a good example
of a company using the web to report
CR in the pharmaceutical sector appears to
have a very clear purpose: to generate trust
among stakeholders. And when your product
is relied upon to save lives, trust is a very
important commodity.
The value of comparisons in CR performance
between big operators such as GSK and smaller
Health, healthcare/equipment providers such as
Smith & Nephew is always likely to be limited
Pharma & although progress at both ends of the spectrum
Biotech and is evident.
Healthcare,
Both GSK and AstraZeneca articulate a very
Equipment clear business case for CR that cleverly directs
& Services: attention towards the social benefit delivered
through their products while also facing up to
AstraZeneca more specific ethical challenges such as safety
GlaxoSmithKline in clinical trials and animal testing. AstraZeneca
Shire should be particularly applauded for the
transparency afforded to their ‘Priority Action
Smith & Nephew
Planning’ which sets out very clearly what the
company sees as its core objectives.
Panellist:
Stuart Poore Smith & Nephew deserve credit for embracing
Virgin Media the language of sustainable development even
if, as with the sector as a whole, there is little
by way of ‘headline-grabbing’ activity on the
DIRECTIONS 2007
extensively, supported by a printed summary
report. Throughout the report the reader is
guided to the website for more information, for
example the Chief Executive’s statement is an
extract supported by an online video. They also
feature a country specific reporting tool that
can be used by readers to track how operating
companies meet their CR policy commitments.
DSG are still, disappointingly, reporting
within the Annual Report and Accounts. More
information on how they tackle corporate
responsibility within the traditional marketplace,
workplace, community and environment
structure can be found online. The last company
for this sector is, I’m afraid, not much more
innovative. Next’s report is very text intensive,
doesn’t engage with the reader and there is
little mention of performance against targets.
Although Kingfisher is progressing well, for me
the winner is Marks & Spencer.
And the winner is:
Marks & Spencer
management of environmental impact. It is
also a little disappointing not to see greater
effort being expended on encouraging science
in education. Shire’s ‘educational grants’ and
GSK’s science teaching programme are notable
exceptions in this regard.
Overall, a ‘solid if unspectacular’ approach
towards CR characterises the sector. A far
more dynamic approach to CR reporting
(getting stuck into a proper dialogue with
the NGO sector on some of the testier issues
would be a good start) is essential if levels
of trust are to significantly increase.
And the winner is:
GlaxoSmithKline

Comparing the proverbial apple and pear
we find ourselves looking at a company
producing household products such as
cleaners and detergents and a company
building the houses to put them in. While the
challenges the companies face are clearly
different, the principles of CSR communication
are universal and in this comparison Reckitt
Household Benckiser is the winner.
Goods:
Reckitt Benckiser outlines the company’s definition
Persimmon of sustainability and tackles economic, social and
Reckitt Benckiser environmental issues in turn. The product lifecycle
perspective ensures that not just their direct
Panellist: impacts are addressed. This approach is particularly
Stephanie Maier useful when looking at climate change where the
EIRIS company considers its ‘Total Carbon Footprint’.
However, while the impact of their suppliers and
products in use is identified, the impact is not
yet quantified. There is clear disclosure on issues
like responsibility, targets and data. The basis
of the reporting data section and verification are
particularly useful. Including the GRI content index
helps the reader to navigate the information.
Persimmon is clearly aware of its stakeholders
and includes a useful description of how they
The quality of CR reporting in this sector was
high, and with a large number of companies
the competition was stiff. It was encouraging
to see that just about all the companies are
active in the Climate Change arena and are
reporting on their CO2 emissions, though as
some critics would say their direct carbon
Life footprint is pretty small.
Insurance: Aviva sets out good environmental policies such
as their goal to be carbon neutral. They also
Aviva
report on total CO2 emissions. The community
Friends Provident section was a bit disjointed but covered key
Legal & General areas. Prudential mention the importance of
Old Mutual sustainable development which is promising.
Prudential They do well to represent a big company across
Resolution a number of countries, presenting examples
Standard Life of employee engagement.
Panellist: Legal & General had clear guiding principles,
targets and a practical approach to CSR.
Angela McClowry
Comparisons to industry benchmarks,
British Energy
detailed figures, a comprehensive and easy
to understand report with its own flavour
– not a carbon copy of other CR reports.
CR reporting for Old Mutual is listed within the
Annual Report – content is brief but with some
38_39
engage with each of these groups. The report
and website are easy to navigate and cover
important issues such as inclusiveness and
affordable housing although this is not always
backed up with clear targets and data. Climate
change reporting includes the average energy
performance of homes built measured using the
Standard Assessment Procedure (SAP) ratings,
but clear targets are missing. More quantitative
data and clear targets in all key areas would
improve the quality of reporting.
And the winner is:
Reckitt Benckiser
objectives and initiatives in community and
the environment. There is however a separate
Corporate Citizenship report for their South
African operations.
Standard Life puts a strong emphasis on
customers, shareholders, has a section on Climate
Change and reports on their CO2 emissions.
Resolution is new to the FT 100, incorporating CR
in their Annual Report. Content is brief, but does
include a number of indicators, including CO2.
Friends Provident engaged Forum for the Future
to provide a commentary on the report which
was interesting. Performance indicators and
targets are set out clearly and the environment
section of the report has been replaced with
one on Climate Change.
The winner is Legal & General: you get
the sense CR is really part of the business.
Tangible targets on climate change also added
to their rating.
And the winner is:
Legal & General
DIRECTIONS 2007
The FT UK 100 sectors
As a group the standard and depth of CR
reporting was wildly different. From a fleeting
mention in some annual reports to the weighty
tomes of Reed Elsevier and WPP this sector
clearly has differing views of the relevance of
CR to their brands.
Media: Looking specifically at environment, most (not all)
were able to show some degree of performance
BSkyB
data. In the case of Reed Elsevier’s they were
Daily Mail
able to show the global trend over several years.
ITV However, targets relating to forward looking
Pearson environmental performance were thin on the
Reed Elsevier ground. DMGT, ITV and Yell had none. There was
Reuters Group a scattering of carbon reduction targets among
WPP Group the rest until you arrived at the top end of the
Yell Group scale with Pearson and WPP who have committed
to going carbon neutral. BSkyB get best in class
Panellist: for having already got there. The comments of
Nancy Turrell both DMGT and Pearson that environmentally
Nestlé
they were low impact may be true, compared
to other companies, but in the context of a CR
report seemed to jar with the prevailing tone of
responsibility and accountability.
Mining is a heavyweight sector for corporate
responsibility and the standard is high. Anglo
American, Rio Tinto, BHP Billiton,* Xstrata and
Lonmin all produce in depth, interesting
communications.
Antofagasta and Vedanta include their
Mining: information in the annual report. Kazakhmys
lags behind but does have a few pages on the
Anglo American website. Case studies in Xstrata’s report make
Antofagasta for an interesting read and the performance
BHP Billiton summary is very clear. Lonmin’s performance
Kazakhmys information is also well presented. Anglo
Lonmin American use the five capital model and it makes
Rio Tinto for a clear progression through the information
Vedanta Resources they present, though it is a dense report.
* note, due to publication dates, BHP Billiton’s 2006
Xstrata
In their opening statements climate change is
recognised as an important (and topical) issue
for their business and Anglo are also making
Panellist:
significant progress in their HIV programme.
Lucie Harrild
salterbaxter
Alongside their report Rio Tinto make great use
of video on a range of subjects, and what really
DIRECTIONS 2007
The readability and imagination of the reports was
largely disappointing for organisations whose core
business is communication. Yell’s report stood
out (possibly the bright yellow!) as having tried to
communicate clearly, their presentation of data by
way of interesting facts being an example of this.
The best read by a long shot was WPP: they
brought together interesting thought pieces,
exciting examples of their own and clients’
CR work and used case studies in a way that
genuinely reflected the conundrums and
tensions companies experience in balancing
their business with a position of corporate
responsibility. But for their achievements to
date, the level to which CR is obviously part of
the culture and their innovations that transcend
both their own operations and their products,
BSkyB must fall to the top of the pile.
And the winner is:
BSkyB
comes across is that sustainability is being
embedded in the business. BHP Billiton present
their information very well with an easy to
navigate online report, a summary report and a
full report. I particularly like the use of ‘you are
here’ in the summary report when explaining
how it fits together.
It’s sad that for many, zero fatality targets are
not being met. Having said that this sector is
a beacon of good practice but winner(s) have
to be chosen. I have chosen two: BHP Billiton
for the balance between readability and solid
information, and Rio Tinto for use of video.
But others are doing well too.
report is assessed
And the winner is:
BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto
 40_41
I would hesitate to draw conclusions for the Climate change may be given less space than is
entire sector from only having assessed one warranted but Vodafone did assess its carbon
company, and I will focus on just reviewing footprint, set targets and has initiated projects
the one. Vodafone’s corporate responsibility that are credible attempts to prototype and pilot
communications are concise, focused and scalable solutions for energy reduction across
believable. Vodafone’s website is easy to the company. Overall: impressive.
navigate and information is categorised logically.
Mobile In terms of effectiveness of reporting Vodafone And the winner is:
Comms: was among the best companies I reviewed. Best Vodafone Group
practices are followed, senior management
Vodafone Group is clearly engaged, reporting is third party
verified, policy statements are clear and brief,
Panellist: the company’s impacts are well communicated
Stefan Reichenbach and targets and performance are tracked
Reuters closely. While for many of the companies
I reviewed, the corporate responsibility reports
still appear to be a public relations exercise,
even where progress is being made, Vodafone’s
communications give the appearance of a
company that actually believes it has an
important role to play in the world.

The companies within this category are is less extensive, for example, health and safety
reporting on CR to notably different degrees. performance, but nonetheless they are able to
Admiral’s very light touch approach clearly show trends over several years and haven’t shied
reflects that it is early days for them away from publication where the trend isn’t
understanding their impacts as a business and always moving in the right direction.
communicating that with stakeholders. This is
their first year of collecting basic environment What the report lacks in addressing more difficult
Nonlife data and allocating responsibility for managing issues or trying more imaginative presentation it
Insurance: the business approach to environmental issues. makes up for in clarity and structure.
Clearly they expect to be able to say more
Admiral next year.
Royal & Sun Alliance And the winner is:
By contrast Royal & Sun Alliance have published Royal & Sun Alliance
Panellist: a report that within a very clear structure takes
Nancy Turrell a comprehensive look at their UK operations
Nestlé
and to a degree those globally. The data in their
environment section demonstrates that they
have robust mechanisms in place to understand
their footprint and report against it, as does their
achieving carbon neutral status in December
2006. Despite not all centres of global operations
having provided data, the relative completeness
of the data is impressive. Non-environment data

DIRECTIONS 2007
The FT UK 100 sectors
Here we have two titans of corporate
responsibility reporting – BP and Shell.
The challenges faced by oil and gas exploration
and production companies are considerable
and, while both have over a decade of reporting
experience, effectively communicating and
organising the considerable volume of corporate
responsibility disclosure continues to present a
Oil & Gas: further challenge which they both stand up to
well. It’s a close call but in this group, Shell pips
BG Group
BP to the post.
BP
Royal Dutch Shell BP and Shell rightly focus on incidents or
regions where the company is facing particular
Panellist: challenges and criticism, such as the Texas City
Stephanie Maier incident (BP) and Shell’s operations in Nigeria.
EIRIS Transparency on these types of issues is
increasingly important for the credibility of
reporting. All companies in this group give due
weight to the issue of climate change as you
would expect, with BP devoting one of its three
main chapters on the subject and Shell placing
I am still recovering from my attempts to
find my way through the labyrinth of PDF files
that make up the real estate sector’s CSR
communications. You could not call this effective
communication and reporting. To be fair, the
CSR reports themselves are usually good but
the overall experience of finding out about these
companies’ CSR approaches is overwhelming.
Real Estate: The one exception is SEGRO (formerly Slough
Estates), which has a clear and well-presented
British Land
CSR section on its website. Where the real
Hammerson estate sector does do a good job, is in providing
Land Securities summary information: British Land, Hammerson
Liberty International and Liberty International make available fairly
SEGRO good summary reports and Land Securities and
SEGRO make it easy to access key information.
Panellist:
Stefan Reichenbach Climate change is moving up the priority list
Reuters for all of the companies in this sector and
British Land has committed to going carbon
neutral by 2008/09. Outside of climate change
DIRECTIONS 2007
the energy challenge and Shell’s response up
front. In addition, BP and Shell have numerous
links to further information and data on their
websites covering pretty much any area a
reader might be interested in. BG Group does a
good job on clarity and structure of information,
including helpful diagrams on material issues
for stakeholders, linking targets to business
principles and a detailed breakdown of
greenhouse gas emissions. While BP and BG
Group integrate auditor and stakeholder
comments and dialogues, Shell appears to have
strongly emphasised the inclusion of a variety
of viewpoints and perspectives including a CEO
interview and a report by the External Review
Committee which gives greater credibility and
confidence in the company’s reporting.
And the winner is:
Royal Dutch Shell
the CSR targets of the different real estate
companies are quite varied, which amplifies
the need for clear communications around the
structure and priorities of the CSR programmes.
Again, SEGRO does a particularly good job and
wins this sector hands down. Also noteworthy
is Land Securities, which reports effectively
and tries to take its CSR messages to the public
in such innovative ways as online CSR-related
computer games.
And the winner is:
SEGRO
 42_43
With only one contestant in this category I checked out the German SAP and only found
I followed last year’s approach of looking to a few pages in their annual report on Corporate
the EURO 250 which opened it up to include Governance and Corporate Citizenship on their
SAP. The quality and depth of the reporting website. With just a few examples of CR related
for both of the companies was not great. activities and no mention of climate change,
SAP are not rated highly.
Software Sage Group does have a number of pages on
their website discussing social responsibility.
& Computer They state at this stage they do not set specific And the winner is:
Services: targets for CR. Sage (UK) Limited which is part Sage Group
of Sage Group plc has produced their second
Sage Group CR report. This report does cover some main
policy issues and lists key objectives with a
Panellist: progress update. Climate change is given a
Angela McClowry passing mention in the report and on the web.
British Energy There is no reporting of carbon emissions
just some examples of initiatives taken to
reduce emissions.

As this is a very diverse sector, with very
different types of companies, it is difficult to
compare overall. Support services are generally
much newer to corporate responsibility
reporting and therefore the reports are not
as advanced as they are in other sectors, for
example utilities or consumer goods.
Support The reports focused on social issues and were
Services: comparatively light on reporting the breadth
of CR performance data. The companies also
Capita Group need to work on the presentation of the CR
Experian information: two have very limited additional
Wolseley CR information on their websites; and only
one has a well designed and easy to read
Panellist: downloadable PDF report.
Cindy Cahill
Deloitte On climate change none of the reports have a
great deal of content. Each of them states that
their environmental impact is lower than other
sectors but there is no comparison with
companies within the sector, or a real picture
of any climate change policy and strategy for
the company.
Overall, reporting in this sector has improved
this year but it can do better, particularly with
regard to more detailed performance metrics
and targets, along with how CR activities have
been integrated into the business and strategy.
The winner for this sector is Experian –
impressive as it’s a first time reporter and it is
also independently assured.
And the winner is:
Experian

DIRECTIONS 2007
The FT UK 100 sectors
BAT’s web pages begin with a refreshingly
frank statement – if a business is managing
products which present a health risk then
it’s all the more important for them to do
so responsibly. Whatever you feel about the
tobacco industry, they have a point.
Tobacco: This year BAT have dispensed with their huge
report and are reporting more briefly while
British American Tobacco they assess reporting structures for the future.
Gallaher Group Encouragingly they have produced updates
Imperial Tobacco on their commitments, including stakeholder
engagement and dialogue on the key issue of
Panellist: harm reduction in tobacco products. Their
Lucie Harrild
website is also a useful resource for information
in this transition phase, which hopefully will stay
salterbaxter
once the new reporting structure is unveiled.
Imperial continue to produce a wealth of
information and they have a highlights list
which helps introduce the reader to the content.
Imperial produce an HTML version of their
report which is a good way to navigate around
the annual information but their top level web
pages aren’t as engaging as BAT’s. Gallaher is
Many of the companies in this sector provide
consumers with food and drink. With recent
public interest in issues of health, nutrition and
provenance, you would expect they would have
lots to say. Unfortunately, this is not the case.
Enterprise Inns and Punch Taverns produce
Travel & just a single page on their websites. Mitchells
Leisure: & Butlers, another pub chain, does better with
a well organised website and a report that
British Airways includes figures for employee satisfaction and
Carnival energy consumption. But targets are missing.
Compass Group
Compass has gone some way to meeting
Enterprise Inns
consumer concerns. Its ‘Balanced Choices’
Intercontinental Hotels
programme offers menus of healthier and more
Mitchells & Butlers
sustainably sourced foods. It also acknowledges
Punch Taverns that performance information is an area it
Whitbread needs to address. Whitbread includes some
environmental performance data, but again
Panellist: no targets.
Adam Garfunkel
Independent CSR In its 2006 annual review Intercontinental
consultant Hotels recognises that growing stakeholder
pressure provides a business opportunity.
Let’s look out for the promised CSR report
to be published at the end of 2007.
DIRECTIONS 2007
now part of the JT Group, and whilst there is
information on JT Group’s website it is difficult
to see Gallaher’s performance specifically.
It’s a difficult one to judge this year as though
BAT haven’t produced a full report, they must
be congratulated for handling a transition
year with transparency and clarity. And their
clear tone of voice still outstrips Imperial’s
combination of using a very corporate style
language on one hand but strong words from
senior executives at the beginning of the report.
But Imperial are making improvements and
publishing expert (and critical) commentary on
their progress makes for an interesting read.
So this year Imperial takes top slot. But it will be
interesting to see what happens next year and
hopefully we’ll see more information on the true
sustainability of the tobacco sector.
And the winner is:
Imperial Tobacco
Carnival has achieved ISO 14001 certification for
all its operating companies. Its environmental
management report is an internal document
and not really fit for public consumption.
British Airways has a clear website section called
‘Respecting our World’ that covers its principal
impacts including climate change, but the website
is missing a sense of the lively debate about air
travel. There are also five pages in the annual
report, an environmental review and separate
downloadable chapters of a 2005/06 corporate
responsibility report. Why these are PDFs and not
html is unclear. And why ‘Respecting our World’
does not link to the report is also a mystery.
With few performance figures, next to no targets,
and no sense that stakeholder views have been
considered, the overall impression is of a sector
that is immature in its CSR reporting. BA wins
against pretty weak competition.
And the winner is:
British Airways
The 44_45

winners
Aerospace & Defence: Gas, Water & Mobile Comms:
BAE Systems Multi-utilities: Vodafone Group
National Grid
Banks: Nonlife Insurance:
HSBC General Financial: Royal & Sun Alliance
Man Group
Beverages: Oil & Gas:
SAB Miller General Retailers: Royal Dutch Shell
Marks & Spencer
Chemicals: Real Estate:
Johnson Matthey Health, Pharma & SEGRO
Biotech and Healthcare,
Equipment & Services:
Construction & GlaxoSmithKline Software &
General Industries: Computer Services:
REXAM Sage Group
Household Goods:
Reckitt Benckiser
Electricity: Support Services:
Scottish Power Experian
Life Insurance:
Legal & General
Fixed Line Telecoms: Tobacco:
BT Group Imperial Tobacco
Media:
BSkyB
Food & Drug Retailers: Travel & Leisure:
J Sainsbury British Airways
Mining:
BHP Billiton
Food Producers: and Rio Tinto
Unilever

DIRECTIONS 2007
 47% off co
47 om mpaanin es
e rep epor
o tiing
ng
on
o nli
liin
ne a
ne are
rree usi
ussiing
ng H
HTM
TMMLL

90
9 0% are repo
porting online
ne

60% of reports are

independently verified

DIRECTIONS 2007
ANALYSIS
46_47
THE FOLLOWING CHARTS ARE THIS YEAR’S ROUND
UP OF WHO IS DOING WHAT IN CORPORATE
RESPONSIBILITY AND COMMUNICATIONS. WE’VE
LOOKED AT THE FT UK 100 AND FT EURO 100, PAYING
SPECIAL ATTENTION TO THE VARIOUS TYPES OF
ONLINE AND INTEGRATED CR COMMUNICATIONS,
AND MENTIONS OF CLIMATE CHANGE.

Use the monocle to reveal some of this year’s findings.

67%
67
7% of
of ccompa
ompa
o
om p ni
pani
pa
panies
nies
nies
es aree in
the
th
he FT
FT
TSE
SE
SE4G
E44GGOO
OOD In
Indeex

62% produce
printed reports

DIRECTIONS 2007
FT UK and Euro 100

Analysis
Methodology: We have made every effort to ensure that the data in Directions is accurate.
The research is based on company websites and printed reports. Every attempt was made to
verify the data with each company on the phone or via email. If we have missed data, please
get in touch and we will update our records. The categories we have chosen are not judgemental
but the following rules and definitions were applied to ensure a consistent approach.

All research conducted by salterbaxter

s
et
rg
ta
s

ma cia ntal
ion

ge ts
e
at

ch arg
No n to inst onm
nic

lt
mu

ir
rti line ion

an
nv
om

rm aga ex
ML
rti mmu rt

so
te
he onli DF
t
o

d
FT UK 100 listing on the left
a

FT tion CR c
Ve tegr – HT
Re R co rep

Pe anc p in
nic

–P

ins

te
i
ed ears

e C ary

a
rm rsh
ne

ed

FT Euro 100 listing on the right

ag

cli
ed rt

t
m

e
a
n
y

ce
Pr repo

Cli king

Pe lead
On sum

o
Pr rt –

an
ng

ng

oo

an
n

io
ry

po

ica

te
4G
ri

nt
nt

Cr

tes
ma
GC

rfo

rfo
re

lin

po

po
int

int

rif

SE

SI

te
u

BiT
UN
CR

DJ
Co

Re

Ot

At
Sector name
28 117 COMPANY NAME UK 7 • -- • • • -- • -- • -- -- -- • •
KEY Yes a See comments CR/CSR = Corporate Responsibility/Corporate Social Responsibility AR = Annual Report EHS = Environment, Health & Safety m = Member of Business in the Community

The cut-off date
Our assessments are based on information
in the public domain by 1 August 2007.
The list of FT UK 100 and
FT Euro 100 Companies
Taken from the Financial Times website
and dated 30 March 2007.
CR Report – years
Shows the number of years the company has
published either a CR Report, Sustainable
Development or EHS Report. Reports not
archived in the company’s website may not
be counted. Mergers and acquisitions may
affect these data by reducing the number
of years recorded.
CR Report – format
Shows the format of the report ie printed
summary, printed in full, web report. We
indicate if the report is limited in scope
or integrated within the annual report.
We do not count the following as reports:
web pages on CR which cover policies
and programmes (without time-specific
performance information) and single issue
reports e.g. on community, HIV, supplier
diversity. If reporting online we have
specified whether this is in the form of
an express PDF, HTML format or both.
Other integrated CR communications Climate Leadership Index 2006
Identifies whether there are any examples Shows inclusion in the Climate Leadership
of CR communications outside of CR report. Index. The index is based on company
Examples might include product advertising responses to the Carbon Disclosure Project
and internal campaigns. and comprises the 50 ‘best in class’.
Independent verification statement Performance against
Report includes a formal verification environmental targets
or assurance statement by third parties. The report covers a range of environmental
We have not counted informal comments impacts and the company’s performance
by external commentators. data is reported against specific targets
for continuous improvement.
FTSE4Good Index
Company included in any of the FTSE4Good Performance against social targets
Index Series (Global, US, Europe, UK). The report covers a range of social impacts
and the company’s performance data is
Dow Jones Sustainability Index (DJSI) reported against specific targets for
Company included in any of the DJSI continuous improvement.
series (World, STOXX, EURO STOXX) as
of May 31 2007. Attention to climate change
Shows if the company has paid attention
United Nations Global Compact (UNGC) to climate change including statements
Signatory to the United Nations Global on strategy, tackling the issue, targets
Compact. and performance on either the website
or within the report.
Business in the Community Ranking
Shows if the company is ranked in the The FT UK 100 and FT Euro 100
Business in the Community’s (BITC) CR The FT UK 100 and FT Euro 100 combined
index. Each identified company would have are a group of 177 companies. This means
been placed within the performance bands: that 74 companies are in the FT UK 100 but
platinum, gold, silver or bronze. It is also fall outside the FT EURO 100. The following
stated if a company is a member but not charts and the analysis overview lists
part of the index. information for the group as a whole but
separated by sectors for ease of reference.

DIRECTIONS 2007
FT UK and Euro 100 48_49
Analysis overview

90 %
90% are reporting online
6767% of companies are in
the FTSE4GOOD Index
%

62 62% produce printed reports

%
60 %
60% of reports are
independently verified

51 %
68 %
51% of companies show evidence of
integrated CR communications

47 %
47% of companies reporting 68% of companies pay some
online are using HTML attention to climate change

Last year VS this year:

We had a quick look for trends in UK reporting, comparing UK data from last year’s analysis with UK data from this year.

Printed reports last year 49% Printed reports this year 54%

Web reports last year 59% Web reports this year 91%

Reports independently verified last year 55% Reports independently verified this year 91%

DIRECTIONS 2007
FT UK and Euro 100
Analysis

s
et
rg
ta
s

ma cia ntal
ion

ge ts
e
at

ch arg
No n to inst onm
nic

lt
mu

ir
rti line ion

an
nv
om

rm aga ex
ML
rti mmu rt

so
te
he onli DF
t
o

d
FT UK 100 listing on the left

FT tion CR c
Ve tegr – HT
Re R co rep

Pe anc p in
nic

–P

ins

te
i
ed ears

e C ary

a
rm rsh
ne

ed
FT Euro 100 listing on the right

ag

cli
ed rt

t
m

e
a
n
y

ce
Cli king
Pr repo

Pe lead
On sum

o
Pr rt –

an
ng

ng

oo

an
n

io
ry

po

ica

te
4G
ri

nt
nt

Cr

tes
ma
GC

rfo

rfo
re

lin

po

po
int

int

rif

SE

SI

te
u

BIT
Aerospace & Defence

UN
CR

DJ
Co

Re

Ot

At
28 117 BAE SYSTEMS UK 7 • -- • • -- • • -- • • • • • • •
42 181 ROLLS-ROYCE GROUP UK 8 • -- • • • • • -- • -- • -- -- -- --
59 269 SMITHS GROUP UK 6 • • • • • • • -- • -- m -- • • •
Automobiles & Parts
33 DAIMLERCHRYSLER G 5 • -- • • -- • -- -- • -- • • • • •
65 VOLKSWAGEN G 6 • -- • • • -- • • -- • -- -- • • •
89 BMW G 6 • • • • • • -- • • • -- • • • •
Banks
3 4 HSBC UK 7 • -- • • -- • • • • • m
• • • •
6 14 ROYAL BANK UK 5 • -- • • • • • • • • -- --• • --
OF SCOTLAND

7 27 BARCLAYS UK 8 • -- • • • • • • • -- • • • • •
10 38 HBOS UK 4 • -- • • -- • • • • -- • • • • •
13 50 LLOYDS TSB UK 11 • • • • • • • • • -- • -- • -- •
21 86 STANDARD CHARTERED UK 6 • -- • • -- • -- • -- • -- -- • • •
71 ALLIANCE & LEICESTER UK 6 • -- • • -- -- • • -- -- m -- -- -- --
73 NORTHERN ROCK UK 7 -- -- • • • -- • • -- -- -- -- • • •
13 UBS Sw 9 • -- • • • • • • • • m • • • •
16 SANTANDER CENTRAL Sp 5 -- -- • • -- -- • • • • -- -- • -- --
HISPANO

20 BNP PARIBAS Fr 7 • -- • • -- -- -- • • • -- -- • -- --
21 INTESA SANPAOLO IMI It 3 • -- • • -- -- • a -- b -- -- • • • a = will join in September 2007
b = Banca Intesa S.p.A July 2006 only

31 BBVA Sp 5 • -- • • • • • -- -- -- -- -- • • •
32 CREDIT SUISSE Sw 11 -- -- • • • • -- • • • m
• • -- •
34 ABN AMRO N 4 • -- • • • -- • • • • -- • • • •
36 SOCIETE GENERALE Fr 6 • -- • • • -- -- • • -- m -- • • •
41 SBERBANK OF RUSSIA Ru 0 • -- -- a -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- a = within AR

42 DEUTSCHE BANK G 9 • -- • • • • -- • • • -- -- • • •
49 CREDIT AGRICOLE Fr 2 • -- • • • -- -- • -- • -- -- -- -- --
53 FORTIS B 4 • -- • • • -- • • • • -- • ---- •
74 KBC GROUPE B 2 • -- • • • -- • • -- • -- -- • • •
84 NORDEA BANK Swe 0 -- -- • -- -- -- -- • -- • -- -- -- -- --
99 DEXIA F 6 • -- • • -- -- • • • • -- -- • • •
Beverages
15 51 DIAGEO UK 8 • -- • • -- • • • • • • • • • •
26 103 SABMILLER UK 8 -- -- • • -- • • • • -- m -- • • •
62 279 SCOTTISH & NEWCASTLE UK 7 • -- • • -- • • • -- -- • -- • • •
76 INBEV B 3 • -- • • • • -- -- -- • m -- • • •

KEY Yes a See comments CR/CSR = Corporate Responsibility/Corporate Social Responsibility AR = Annual Report EHS = Environment, Health & Safety m = Member of Business in the Community

DIRECTIONS 2007
 50_51

s
et
rg
ta
s

ma cia ntal
ion

ge ts
e
at

ch arg
No n to inst onm
nic

lt
mu

ir
rti line ion

an
nv
om

rm aga ex
ML
rti mmu rt

so
te
he onli DF
at
o

d
FT UK 100 listing on the left

FT tion CR c
Ve tegr – HT
Re R co rep

Pe anc p in
nic

–P

ins

te
i
ed ears

e C ary

a
rm rsh
ne

ica ted
FT Euro 100 listing on the right

ag

cli
ed rt
m

e
a
n
y

ce
Cli king
Pr repo

Pe lead
On sum

o
Pr rt –

an
ng

ng

oo

an
n

io
ry

po

te
4G
ri

nt
nt

Cr

tes
ma
GC

rfo

rfo
re

lin

po

po
int

int

rif

SE

SI

te
u

BIT
Chemicals

UN
CR

DJ
Co

Re

Ot

At
56 262 ICI UK 17 --• • • • -- • • • • -- -- • • •
91 411 JOHNSON MATTHEY UK 5 -- •-- • -- -- -- • -- -- m -- • • •
60 BASF G 19 • • • • -- -- • • • • -- -- • • •
68 BAYER G 8 • -- • • • • • • • • -- • • • •
Construction & Materials
60 273 HANSON UK 4a • -- • • • -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- b -- a = no reporting update since 2003 report
b = only Health and Safety targets from 2005

94 VINCI Fr 2a a -- • a -- -- -- -- • • -- -- -- -- • a = within AR

97 SAINT-GOBAIN Fr 2a a -- • a -- -- -- • --• -- -- -- -- -- a = within AR

Electricity
31 125 SCOTTISH & UK 7 • -- • • -- -- • • -- -- • -- • • --
SOUTHERN ENERGY

32 120 SCOTTISH POWER UK 11 -- • • • • • • • a a

• • • • • a = parent company Iberdrola

57 263 INTERNATIONAL UK 5a a --• • -- -- -- • -- -- • -- -- -- • a = within AR

POWER

9 EDF Fr 10 -- -- • • • • • -- -- • • -- • • •
47 ENEL It 10 • -- • • -- • • • • • -- • -- -- •
56 UNIFIED ENERGY Ru 2 • a b
• -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- • • -- a = summary in english
SYSTEM b = no web pages, only link to report

58 ENDESA Sp 6 • • • • -- • • -- • • -- -- -- -- •
79 IBERDROLA Sp 8 • -- • • -- -- • -- • • -- • • -- •
Electronic & Electrical Equipment
22 SIEMENS G 8 -- -- • -- • -- -- -- • • m
• -- -- --
92 ABB Sw 12a • -- • • -- -- • -- • • m -- • • • a = past 3 yrs as Annual Report Sustainability review

Fixed Line Telecommunications

18 70 BT GROUP UK 15 --• • • • • • • • • • -- • • •
83 370 CABLE & WIRELESS UK 6a a
•-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- a = no update since 2003 report

17 TELEFÓNICA Sp 5 • • • • • • • • • • -- -- • • •
40 DEUTSCHE TELEKOM G 9 • -- • • -- -- -- • • • -- -- • -- •
45 FRANCE TELECOM Fr 7 • • • • -- -- • • -- • -- -- • • --
63 TELECOM ITALIA It 9a b -- • • • -- • • • • -- -- • • • a = 2003 current report as part of AR. Previously produced
a sustainability report
b = within AR

Food & Drug Retailers

11 44 TESCO UK 6 • -- • • • • • • • -- • • • • •
39 170 SAINSBURY (J) UK 12 • -- • • • • • • • -- • -- • • •
43 196 MORRISON (WM) UK 2 a a a
• -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- a = within AR
SUPERMARKET

66 CARREFOUR Fr 6 • • • • • -- • • • • -- -- -- • --
165 ALLIANCE BOOTS UK 8a • -- • • • • • • • -- m -- • • • Boots group is listed as 37 on FT UK 100 list
a = not yet released report as merged Alliance Boots.

KEY B = Belgium Den = Denmark Fin= Finland Fr = France G = Germany It = Italy Ire = Ireland N = Netherlands Nor = Norway Ru = Russia Sp = Spain Swe = Sweden Sw = Switzerland UK = United Kingdom

DIRECTIONS 2007
FT UK and Euro 100
Analysis

s
et
rg
ta
s

ma cia ntal
ion

ge ts
e
at

ch arg
No n to inst onm
nic

lt
mu

ir
rti line ion

an
nv
om

rm aga ex
ML
rti mmu rt

so
te
he onli DF
t
o

d
FT UK 100 listing on the left

FT tion CR c
Ve tegr – HT
Re R co rep

Pe anc p in
nic

–P

ins

te
i
ed ears

e C ary

a
rm rsh
ne

ed
FT Euro 100 listing on the right

ag

cli
ed rt

t
m

e
a
n
y

ce
Cli king
Pr repo

Pe lead
On sum

o
Pr rt –

an
ng

ng

oo

an
n

io
ry

po

ica

te
4G
ri

nt
nt

Cr

tes
ma
GC

rfo

rfo
re

lin

po

po
int

int

rif

SE

SI

te
u

BIT
Food Producers

UN
CR

DJ
Co

Re

Ot

At
22 18 UNILEVER N/UK 11 • -- • • • • • • • • • • • • •
30 123 CADBURY SCHWEPPES UK 6 • -- • • -- • • • • • • • • • •
49 228 ASSOCIATED BRITISH UK 5 • • • • • • -- -- -- -- m -- -- -- --
FOODS

7 NESTLÉ Sw 7 • -- • • -- • -- -- • • m -- -- -- --
80 DANONE Fr 9 • -- • • -- • • -- -- • -- -- -- -- --

Gas, Water & Multiutilities

20 81 NATIONAL GRID UK 10 -- -- • • • -- -- • • -- • -- • • •
TRANSCO

29 119 CENTRICA UK 5 -- • -- • • • • • • • • • • •
--
52 220 UNITED UTILITIES UK 10 • • -- --• -- • • • -- • ---- •--
92 414 KELDA GROUP UK 8 • -- • • • -- • • -- -- • -- • • --
94 419 SEVERN TRENT UK 12 • -- • • -- • • • -- • • -- • • •
26 E.ON G 3 • -- • • -- • • -- -- • m -- -- -- •
46 SUEZ Fr 7 • • • • -- • • -- -- • -- -- -- -- •
55 RWE G 9 • -- • • • • • -- • • • • • • •
73 GAZ DE FRANCE Fr 7 • • • • • -- • -- -- • -- -- • • •

General Financial
34 153 MAN GROUP UK 2 • -- • • • • • • -- • m -- -- • --
65 292 3I GROUP UK 4 • -- • • -- -- -- -- • -- • -- -- -- •
74 325 AMVESCAP UK 0 -- -- • -- -- -- -- • -- -- -- -- -- -- --
89 400 SCHRODERS UK 5a -- -- • • • -- -- • • -- -- -- -- -- -- a = formal reporting moved to online in 2005

90 409 ICAP UK 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

General Industrials
96 431 REXAM UK 3a -- -- • -- • -- -- • -- -- -- -- -- -- • a = 2 printed reports in 2003 & 2004. 2006 report online only

General Retailers
33 142 MARKS & SPENCER UK 5 • -- • • • • •
-- • -- • -- • • •
53 244 KINGFISHER UK 6 • -- • • • • •
-- • -- • -- ---- •
68 301 NEXT UK 3 -- -- • • -- -- • • -- -- m -- -- -- --
84 374 HOME RETAIL GROUP UK 1 -- -- • • -- -- • -- • •-- -- • • •
98 443 DSG INTERNATIONAL UK 4a a -- • a -- • -- • • -- • -- ---- • a = within AR

82 HENNES & MAURITZ Sw 5 -- -- • -- • • -- • • • -- -- • • --

87 INDITEX Sp 4 • -- • • -- -- • • • • -- -- • -- •
Healthcare Equipment & Services
54 258 SMITH & NEPHEW UK 7 -- -- • • • -- -- • • -- m -- • • •
Household Goods
24 93 RECKITT BENCKISER UK 6 -- • • • -- • • • • • • -- • -- •
81 357 PERSIMMON UK 2 • --• • • -- -- -- -- -- -- -- • • •
KEY Yes a See comments CR/CSR = Corporate Responsibility/Corporate Social Responsibility AR = Annual Report EHS = Environment, Health & Safety m = Member of Business in the Community

DIRECTIONS 2007
 52_53

s
et
rg
ta
s

ma cia ntal
ion

ge ts
e
at

ch arg
No n to inst onm
nic

lt
mu

ir
rti line ion

an
nv
om

rm aga ex
ML
rti mmu rt

so
te
he onli DF
at
o

d
FT UK 100 listing on the left

FT tion CR c
Ve tegr – HT
Re R co rep

Pe anc p in
nic

–P

ins

te
i
ed ears

e C ary

a
rm rsh
ne

ica ted
FT Euro 100 listing on the right

ag

cli
ed rt
m

e
a
n
y

ce
Cli king
Pr repo

Pe lead
On sum

o
Pr rt –

an
ng

ng

oo

an
n

io
ry

po

te
4G
ri

nt
nt

Cr

tes
ma
GC

rfo

rfo
re

lin

po

po
int

int

rif

SE

SI

te
u

BIT
Industrial Engineering

UN
CR

DJ
Co

Re

Ot

At
96 VOLVO Sw 13a a -- • • -- -- -- -- • • -- -- -- -- • a = within AR

Industrial Metals
23 ARCELOR MITTAL Fr 1a b -- • • • -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- • a = as merged Arcelor and Mittal Steel company
b = within AR

98 MMC NORILSK NICKEL Ru 4 • -- • • -- -- • -- -- -- -- -- • • --

Industrial Transportation
75 A.P. MOLLER-MAERSK Den a a -- • a a -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- a = briefly mentioned in AR

95 DEUTSCHE POST G 4 • -- • • • • • • -- • -- -- -- -- •
Leisure Goods
77 PHILIPS ELECTRONICS N 8 • -- • • -- • • • -- • -- -- -- -- •
Life Insurance
23 91 AVIVA UK 9 --• • a • -- • • • • m -- -- •
-- a = pdf of summary

25 100 PRUDENTIAL UK 6 • • • -- • -- • -- -- m
-- -- • • •
35 156 LEGAL & GENERAL UK 6 • -- • • -- -- • • • -- • -- • • •
41 180 OLD MUTUAL UK 6a • -- • • • • -- b -- c -- -- -- -- • a = Old Mutual South Africa only
b = UK Old Mutual plc
c = Old Mutual Kenya

51 236 STANDARD LIFE UK 2 • -- • • -- • • • • -- -- • -- • --

78 350 RESOLUTION UK a -- -- a
• -- -- --• -- -- -- -- -- -- -- a = within AR

82 362 FRIENDS PROVIDENT UK 5 -- -- • • -- • -- • • -- • -- • • •

25 ING N 12a -- • • • • • • • • • -- • • • • a = 3 yrs CR reports & single issues before that

Media
38 166 BRITISH SKY UK 6 • -- • • -- • • • • -- m -- • • •
BROADCASTING

40 172 WPP GROUP UK 4 • -- • • • • -- • • -- m -- ---- •

46 118 REED ELSEVIER N/UK 5 -- -- • • • --• • • • • -- • • •
48 223 PEARSON UK 4 -- -- • • • • • • • • • -- • -- •
58 268 REUTERS UK 4a a -- • • • • -- • • -- m -- • • • a = within AR

75 327 YELL GROUP UK 3 • -- • • • • -- • • -- m -- -- -- --

80 353 ITV UK 4 • -- • • • • • • • -- • -- • • •
99 434 DAILY MAIL UK 2a • -- • • • • -- • -- -- -- -- -- -- • a = within AR

72 VIVENDI UNIVERSAL Fr 8 • -- • • -- • • • -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Mining
9 37 ANGLO AMERICAN UK 7 • •
-- • -- -- • -- • • • • • • •
14 57 RIO TINTO UK 11 • •
-- • • • • -- • • • • • • •
16 64 BHP BILLITON UK 7 -- • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
17 69 XSTRATA UK 6 • -- • • • • • -- • • • • -- -- •
64 286 KAZAKHMYS UK 0 -- -- • -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

KEY B = Belgium Den = Denmark Fin= Finland Fr = France G = Germany It = Italy Ire = Ireland N = Netherlands Nor = Norway Ru = Russia Sp = Spain Swe = Sweden Sw = Switzerland UK = United Kingdom

DIRECTIONS 2007
FT UK and Euro 100
Analysis

s
et
rg
ta
s

ma cia ntal
ion

ge ts
e
at

ch arg
No n to inst onm
nic

lt
mu

ir
rti line ion

an
nv
om

rm aga ex
ML
rti mmu rt

so
te
he onli DF
t
o

d
FT UK 100 listing on the left

FT tion CR c
Ve tegr – HT
Re R co rep

Pe anc p in
nic

–P

ins

te
i
ed ears

e C ary

a
rm rsh
ne

ed
FT Euro 100 listing on the right

ag

cli
ed rt

t
m

e
a
n
y

ce
Cli king
Pr repo

Pe lead
On sum

o
Pr rt –

an
ng

ng

oo

an
n

io
ry

po

ica

te
4G
ri

nt
nt

Cr

tes
ma
GC

rfo

rfo
re

lin

po

po
int

int

rif

SE

SI

te
u

BIT
Mining (continued)

UN
CR

DJ
Co

Re

Ot

At
67 300 LONMIN UK 6 • -- • • • -- • • • -- -- -- • • •
69 302 ANTOFAGASTA UK 3a a -- • • -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- a = within AR

85 380 VEDANTA RESOURCES UK 3a a -- • • -- -- • -- -- -- -- -- -- -- • a = within AR

Mobile Telecommunications
5 11 VODAFONE UK 7 • -- • • • • • -- • -- m -- • • •
90 TELIASONERA Swe 3a -- -- • • • -- -- • • -- m -- ---- • a = CSR report 2004 and 2005. 2006 in AR

Nonlife Insurance
72 315 ROYAL & SUN ALLIANCE UK 8 -- -- • • -- • • • -- • • -- • • •
100 456 ADMIRAL UK 1a a -- • • -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- a = within AR

28 ALLIANZ G 7 • -- • • -- • -- • • • -- • • • •
30 AXA Fr 5 • -- • • -- • • • -- • m -- -- -- --
61 GENERALI It 2 • -- • • -- • -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
83 ZURICH FINANCIAL Sw 2 -- -- • • -- -- -- • • • • -- -- -- --
SERVICES

88 MUNICH RE G 7 • • • • • • • • -- -- -- • • -- •
Oil & Gas Producers
1 2 ROYAL DUTCH SHELL UK 10 • • • • • • • • • • m
• • -- •
2 3 BP UK 10 • -- • • • • • • • • m
• a -- • a = extensive data on performance but not against targets

19 71 BG GROUP UK 11 • -- • • • • • • • -- -- -- • • •
1 GAZPROM Ru 2a • -- • • -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- a = environmental reports 2005 & 2006

5 TOTAL Fr 7a • -- • • -- • • • • • • • • • • a = including 2 yrs prior to name change

12 ENI It 10 • -- • • • • • -- -- • -- -- -- -- •
29 ROSNEFT Ru 1 • -- a -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
39 LUKOIL Ru 3a • -- • -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- a = no update since 04 report

52 STATOIL Nor 13a • -- • • • -- • • • -- -- -- -- -- • a = 8 yrs within AR, 5yrs sustainable development report

67 SURGUTNEFTEGAS Ru 0 -- -- a -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- a = two sentences, referring to charity work for theatres

and music

78 NORSK HYDRO Nor 13a b -- • • -- • • • • -- -- -- -- -- • a = 6yrs as Environment report, 7 yrs as part of AR

b = within AR

85 REPSOL-YPF Sp 8 • -- • • • -- • • • -- -- -- -- -- •
Personal Goods
43 L’OREAL Fr 4 • • • • -- • • • -- • -- -- -- -- --
62 LVMH Fr 6 • -- • • -- --• • -- -- m -- • -- •
Pharma & Biotech
4 6 GLAXOSMITHKLINE UK 7 -- • • • -- • • • • a
• • b -- • a = GSK in Bulgaria, Pakistan, Romania and Ukraine
are signatories
b = for performance against targets reader is referred
to the 2005 report

8 35 ASTRAZENECA UK 8 -- • • • -- • • • • -- • -- • • •

KEY Yes a See comments CR/CSR = Corporate Responsibility/Corporate Social Responsibility AR = Annual Report EHS = Environment, Health & Safety m = Member of Business in the Community

DIRECTIONS 2007
 54_55

s
et
rg
ta
s

ma cia ntal
ion

ge ts
e
at

ch arg
No n to inst onm
nic

lt
mu

ir
rti line ion

an
nv
om

rm aga ex
ML
rti mmu rt

so
te
he onli DF
at
o

d
FT UK 100 listing on the left

FT tion CR c
Ve tegr – HT
Re R co rep

Pe anc p in
nic

–P

ins

te
i
ed ears

e C ary

a
rm rsh
ne

ica ted
FT Euro 100 listing on the right

ag

cli
ed rt
m

e
a
n
y

ce
Pr repo

Cli king

Pe lead
On sum

o
Pr rt –

an
ng

ng

oo

an
n

io
ry

po

te
4G
ri

nt
nt

Cr

tes
ma
GC

rfo

rfo
re

lin

po

po
int

int

rif

SE

SI

te
u

BiT
Pharma & Biotech (continued)

UN
CR

DJ
Co

Re

Ot

At
61 274 SHIRE UK 3a • -- • • • -- -- • -- -- • -- -- b -- a = 2006 report was released after cut off date
b = for Health and Safety

8 ROCHE Sw 15a a
• •
-- -- • • • • -- -- -- -- • • a = now within AR

10 NOVARTIS Sw 13 -- • • • -- -- -- • • • -- -- -- a
• a = for Health and Safety

15 SANOFI-AVENTIS Fr 3 • -- • • -- -- • • • • -- -- -- -- --

Real Estate
36 161 LAND SECURITIES UK 5 • •-- • • • • • • -- m -- • • •
44 203 BRITISH LAND UK 6 -- • • • • • • • • -- m -- • • •
70 304 HAMMERSON UK 4 • -- • • -- -- • • • -- m -- a a
• a = produce a separate target review

76 335 LIBERTY INTERNATIONAL UK 5 • • • • -- -- • • -- -- • -- -- -- --

87 391 SEGRO UK 4 • -- • • • -- • • -- -- m -- • • •
Software & Computer Services
93 415 SAGE GROUP UK a -- -- • -- -- -- -- -- -- -- m -- • • -- a = no separate report produced, however Sage UK
have been reporting for 4 yrs

59 SAP G 1a -- -- • -- -- -- -- • • • -- -- -- -- -- a = within 2005 AR

Support Services
45 207 WOLSELEY UK 1a a -- • • • • -- • -- -- m -- -- -- -- a = within AR

55 261 EXPERIAN GROUP UK 2a -- -- • • • -- • -- b -- m -- -- -- • a = 2yrs, since demerging from GUS plc in October 2006,
prior to which 5 yrs reporting as Gus plc
b = GUS plc was a signatory, Experian will be assessed in 2007

79 351 CAPITA GROUP UK 2 -- -- • • -- • -- • -- -- -- -- • • •

Technology Hardware & Equipment
24 NOKIA Fin 7 -- • • • • • -- • • • -- -- ---- •
54 ERICSSON Sw 11 • --• • -- • • • -- • -- -- • • •
Tobacco
12 48 BRITISH AMERICAN UK 6 • -- • • -- -- • -- • -- • -- • • •
TOBACCO

27 106 IMPERIAL TOBACCO UK 6 • -- • • -- -- • -- -- -- • -- -- -- --

47 214 GALLAHER GROUP UK 6a • -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- • -- -- • -- a = acquired by Japan Tobacco Inc in 2007, not produced
a report since

Travel & Leisure

50 230 COMPASS GROUP UK a -- -- • -- • -- -- • • • m -- -- -- -- a = reporting as Compass Group North America

63 281 BRITISH AIRWAYS UK 17 -- -- • • -- -- • • -- • m -- • -- --

66 295 CARNIVAL UK 2 -- -- • • -- -- -- • -- -- -- -- -- -- --
77 341 INTERCONTINENTAL UK 1a • -- • • -- • -- • -- -- -- -- • • • a = focussed on Americas only so does not cover entire
HOTELS organisations. Only in AR. No update since 2005 report

86 388 WHITBREAD UK 4 -- -- • • • • • • -- -- • -- -- -- --
88 395 ENTERPRISE INNS UK 3a a -- a a -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- a = within AR

95 423 PUNCH TAVERN UK 1a a -- a a -- • -- -- -- -- m -- -- -- -- a = within AR

97 437 MITCHELLS & BUTLERS UK 2 • -- • • -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

KEY B = Belgium Den = Denmark Fin= Finland Fr = France G = Germany It = Italy Ire = Ireland N = Netherlands Nor = Norway Ru = Russia Sp = Spain Swe = Sweden Sw = Switzerland UK = United Kingdom

DIRECTIONS 2007
About us
Salterbaxter advise companies
on strategy, branding, corporate
communications and design.

Our clients are extremely varied and include FT UK 100

companies; some of the world’s most exclusive brands;
independent, entrepreneurial businesses; world leading
educational establishments; law firms; private equity
firms and media companies.
We are widely perceived to be one of the leading consultancies
in the field of corporate responsibility.
We have worked on over 130 CR communications programmes
since we started in 1998. Our offer covers the full range of
advisory work. From pure strategic consulting for a FT UK
100 board, to the launch of complete CR programmes from
scratch; from internal embedding of CR, to highly sophisticated
online CR reporting; from building CR into global consumer
brand strategies, through to small, targeted single issue
campaigns – our experience is unrivalled.
If you would like to discuss a project with us, please get
in touch.

DIRECTIONS 2007