2008 Global Review of UNICEF’s Corporate Alliances

Prepared by

23 November 2008

2

2008 Global Review of UNICEF’s Corporate Alliances

Introduction

UNICEF’s Private Fundraising and Partnerships Division (PFP) is currently engaged in

the development of a new “Strategic Framework for Collaborative Relationships and

Partnerships” to be presented to the UNICEF Executive Board in June 2009. UNICEF’s

significant global network of active corporate alliances forms a key part of this composite of

collaborations. The organization has a rich history of working with businesses of every type and

size -- and an acute appreciation for the importance of these collaborations to mission. In 2007

UNICEF had alliances with hundreds of regional and international companies whose combined

donations totaled $117,000,000. Of these, 193 companies contributed over $100,000 each.

These figures represent an impressive network of corporate alliances, but to date

UNICEF’s engagement with the corporate sector has been limited mainly to mobilizing funds

and other resources toward the implementation of its own programmes. Building from the

current framework, the new Strategic Framework seeks to leverage the corporate sector’s unique

potential, given its reach into every aspect of society, to become a yet more effective and

powerful ally when it comes to achieving results for children and ensuring that their rights are

upheld. UNICEF is now actively considering how it may engage businesses more widely,

effectively and strategically, beyond resource mobilization. The goal is to move toward a more

efficient achievement of its objectives through a holistic approach to integrating the corporate

sector into the lives of children. In short, UNICEF’s approach to working with its corporate

partners is evolving away from exclusively financial giving and toward more comprehensive

forms of partnership which address all aspects of a company’s operation for mission-related

collaborative opportunity.

A comprehensive survey of current corporate alliances was undertaken to support the

formulation of a new strategy to be applied to these critically important collaborations. This

report presents the goals, results and findings of that survey as well as follow-up interviews with

key partners. This information is intended for UNICEF’s use, to build on its strengths and

address its weaknesses in managing its collaborations with businesses, thereby maximizing their

potential for growth.

Over the last decade, UNICEF has been engaged in an ongoing effort to enhance its

alliances with the business community. Moreover, the current Mid Term Strategic Plan for 2006

3

– 2009 specifies in Article #136 that “Other promising avenues for leveraging resources and

results for children will be assessed. These include … the further development of corporate and

individual donors as allies, advocates and actors for children.” Further, the mission statement of

UNICEF’s Private Fundraising and Partnerships (PFP) Division emphasizes the mobilization of

political and organizational resources, advocacy and educational, not just financial, in working

with corporations, foundations and civil society organizations.

UNICEF collaborations with businesses are governed by its 2001 Guidelines for Working

with the Business Community. There have been ongoing efforts since that time to further

develop UNICEF’s corporate alliances including a 2005 Sponsorship Audit conducted by IEG

and a 2006 study by The Partnering Initiative. The objective of the Sponsorship Audit was to

enhance the range of sponsorship/alliance packages designed for the corporate sector by valuing

existing packages and creating new offers to attract global, regional and national corporate

fundraising partners. The Partnering Initiative (TPI), a global programme of the International

and Business Leaders Forum, assisted UNICEF in developing a broader vision for corporate

engagement and Corporate Social Responsibility beyond resource mobilization. TPI’s final

report, “Realizing the Potential: Mobilizing and Maximizing the Corporate Contribution to

UNICEF” presents a set of drivers within the business community, the NGO community, the UN

system and UNICEF itself, and recommends to UNICEF strategies for deeper and wider forms

of engagement with the corporate sector.

Building on the work of the IEG Sponsorship Audit (2005), and the Final TPI report

(2007), the objectives of this review were to:

1) Present an overview of existing alliances with the corporate sector, assessing the level of

satisfaction amongst companies with the outcomes from these collaborations;

2) Assess UNICEF’s corporate partners’ perceptions of the benefits, challenges, and reasons

for engaging with UNICEF;

3) Assess firms’ interest in the new forms of partnership being proposed by UNICEF, and

whether their feedback confirms the strategy and body of knowledge that emerged from

the IEG Sponsorship Audit and the TPI report;

4) Capture areas which firms identify as needing improvement, and make recommendations

for strengthening alliances between UNICEF and the corporate sector based on the results

of the survey.

4

Objectives and Methodology

Given its goal of increasing the number and effectiveness of its corporate alliances,

UNICEF must be able to identify and implement new working structures that can be

individualized to meet the unique needs of each partner, while encouraging creativity and

delivering clear mutual benefit. A comprehensive survey of current corporate alliances was

identified as the instrument best suited to provide UNICEF with the information it needs to move

forward with this goal.

The survey was designed to generate an overview of the level of satisfaction currently

experienced by UNICEF’s diverse corporate partners and to explore the potential for

strengthening and expanding these collaborations. Beyond the results of the 2005 IEG

Sponsorship Audit and The Partnering Initiative’s 2007 report, UNICEF sought a fuller

understanding of the value corporations place on their collaboration with UNICEF in terms of

reputation enhancement and other benefits. The survey results give an overall picture of the

areas where UNICEF is succeeding in facilitating productive collaboration, and in the areas

where it needs to improve its process. This data will help UNICEF ensure that it is ready to

build on its strengths and address its weaknesses in managing its corporate alliances. It will also

directly inform the development of the new “Strategic Framework for Collaborative

Relationships and Partnerships” as it pertains to UNICEF’s work with the corporate sector.

The survey was structured to provide an overview of existing alliances and their level of

function. It covered the multiplicity of profiles presented by the partners, including a range of

motives which inspire them to work with UNICEF. It also highlighted the corporations’

estimation of both the most and least rewarding aspects of partnering with UNICEF, thereby

framing areas for improvement. Finally, and key to the development of the new Strategic

Framework, this survey assessed the respondents’ openness to moving toward the new forms of

engagement currently under consideration by UNICEF, and suggests avenues to be explored for

strengthening, expanding and multiplying these alliances.

In its final format, the survey consisted of a total of 76 questions. Of these, 18 addressed

demographics, 30 addressed respondents’ views of UNICEF’s general programs and

performance, 8 addressed UNICEF’s management of its alliances, and 6 questions addressed

potential methods of future engagement.

5

Mapping

Eight hundred and forty eight corporate contacts were identified by Country Offices,

National Committee (Nat Coms) focal points, and the Division of Private Fundraising and

Partnerships. The survey was distributed to 819 of these contacts, as 29 of the contacts received

did not include e-mail addresses or other contact information.1 The survey was sent to 628

different corporations. Early in the process, the OTF Group and PFP decided together that

distribution of the survey to multiple members of a single company (global corporation with

offices in many countries throughout the world who each maintain independent relationships

with UNICEF) would proceed, thereby providing regional insight into relationships, and

perspectives from partners in the same firm across the globe. Therefore, in analyzing this data it

was not assumed that multiple sources of feedback from a single company would be considered

as duplication, particularly in areas of performance. This also allowed for local offices of global

corporations to report on their relationship with UNICEF beyond HQ.

The largest number of duplicate sends within a single corporation were Proctor &

Gamble (33), followed by Ikea and ING (both with 16). The survey was distributed in English,

French, Spanish, Portuguese, Japanese, Chinese, Korean, and Farsi using the OTF Group’s

Insight survey tool, and in English and Spanish using Survey Monkey. Twenty-nine percent of

corporations responded (235); of those who responded, 39% (91) requested that their feedback

remain anonymous.

Phone interviews and survey data indicated that global corporations choose to work with

UNICEF because of its global reach. Phone interview data further illustrated that while some

companies with global alliances are managed through one centralized site, many cannot achieve

this level of centralization due to UNICEF’s compartmentalized structure as an agency.

Therefore when considering multiple points of contact within a single corporation, while two

members of the same company in theory represent the same value structure and brand, they may

engage with UNICEF differently based on their geographic location as well as their local

programmes.

The geographic distribution of UNICEF’s corporate alliances is as expansive as the

organization’s programmatic profile. Thirty one out of 36 Nat Coms provided corporate contact

1 UNICEF staff members were followed up individually if they submitted incomplete contact information; however by the deadline for survey distribution, 29 still lacked complete data.

6

information for the survey, with only one indicating that they did not have any alliances to

report.2 Ninety three out of 128 UNICEF country offices approached provided corporate contact

information, including 48 out of 56 from UNICEF country offices in regions/countries actively

and historically engaged in corporate alliances (seven indicating that they did not have any

alliances), and 45 out of 72 in country offices/regions historically less engaged in corporate

alliances (23 indicating that they did not have any alliances to report). 3 A geographic look at the

survey’s distribution delivered the following results:

Region % of partners sent survey in each region

% overall respondents from each region

% response rate within each region

North America 13% 16% 32% Latin America/Caribbean

13% 7% 14%

South/East Africa 6% 3% 16%

West/Central Africa 5% 2% 11%

MENA 5% 3% 16%

South Asia 0% 2% 100%

Western Europe 38% 44% 30%

Central Europe and CIS 8% 10% 32%

East Asia and Pacific 12% 13% 29%

In developing the survey the following steps were taken to ensure its success in capturing

the required information:

• Consultation with key internal and external constituents around content;

2 It cannot be assumed that those who did not respond to our request for corporate contact information had partnerships to report. Nat Com without partners: Israel 3Country offices actively and historically engaged who indicated that they are without corporate alliances: Montenegro, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Haiti, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, and Panama.

7

• A desk study of past reviews of UNICEF alliances in general, and corporate alliances in

particular, and of relevant UNICEF strategy documents;

• Analysis of trends in corporate donations to identify those sources with greatest growth

potential plus analysis of corporate donors by category;

• Creation of survey draft tested by staff and selected partners; incorporation of feedback

into final draft; concurrent design of cross-tabulation system covering type, age, size

location and other attributes of partners surveyed;

• Launch of survey using corporate partner contact information and monitoring responses

to ensure critical mass;

• Upon receipt of completed surveys, analysis of trends in types of corporate alliances and

collaborative activities;

• Cross-tabulation of results.

After a preliminary presentation of the results of the survey, the following steps were taken to

finalize the study and transmit its findings to UNICEF:

• With PFP, the selection of twenty (20) corporate partners for in-depth follow-up

interviews; the development of a template to guide those interviews;

• Completion of interviews and incorporation of resulting information into the survey

report;

• Power point presentation of final results to PFP and UNICEF’s Evaluation Office;

• Drafting and submission of a final written report.

Profile Data:4

The majority of partners who completed the survey indicated that their partnership with

UNICEF was fairly new, falling within the range of 0 – 3 years. Based on data collected from

phone interviews, it is clear that global partners with multiple collaborations based in different

countries may have differing perceptions of how long the partnership between UNICEF and their

company has existed. For example, in an interview with an executive from Proctor and

Gamble’s Pampers division, the interviewee stated that he considered their partnership with

UNICEF as beginning in 2006. He did acknowledge, however, that the overall partnership with

Proctor and Gamble had been “going on for decades.” 4 The complete survey can be found in Appendix A

8

When asked for the “total amount you invest in your relationship with UNICEF annually,

in dollar equivalency,” the majority of respondents selected a range of $25,000-$100,000,

followed by $100,000-$500,000. When asked this question in a phone interview however, some

respondents had a difficult time valuing their partnership within such a range because they felt

that while they contribute relatively little to UNICEF in the form of a written check, they

considered their contribution in areas that are less tangible, such as marketing and awareness-

building, to be invaluable in financial terms. Therefore it should be noted that this question,

while seemingly straightforward, may have been answered differently based on whether the

respondent attempted to quantify non-financial contributions in addition to financial ones when

calculating their investment in UNICEF.

The majority of respondents (64%) indicated that their partnership is managed from their

local office, and 38% selected a Nat Com as their primary point of contact, followed by an office

in a developing country (29%).5 To the extent that companies tend to manage their partnership

with UNICEF via their headquarters office, a majority of those surveyed indicated that their

headquarters are located in Western Europe (44%). Geographically, corporate partners primarily

support UNICEF’s work in Eastern and Southern Africa (38%) and Western and Central Africa

(33%).6

In an attempt to capture corporations’ motivation for working with UNICEF, respondents

were asked to select up to three child-related issues of particular interest to their company.

Respondents selected Child Health and Nutrition (56%), and Basic Education (55%) as their

primary areas of concern. The two areas which received significantly lower ratings were the

Ability to Influence Decision-makers (8%), and Gender Equality (7%).7

Respondents were given a choice of 39 industries from which to select, including the

option of adding one that was not listed.8 The top five industries selected by respondents were

Retailers, Tourism & Leisure, Business & Professional Services, Financial Services, and

5 This finding is consistent with the feedback from our phone interviews which indicated that given the structure of UNICEF, liaising with the local office was the most feasible way of carrying out the partnership. Twenty-two percent of respondents selected a UNICEF regional office as their primary point of contact, 6% selected the global headquarters in New York and 3% selected the global headquarters in Geneva. 6 Respondents were able to select multiple regions. 7 If should be noted that approximately 75% of phone interviewees stated mission alignment or shared values as the primary reason why their company chose to work with UNICEF. 8 The list of industries came from UNICEF’s website and was subsequently edited by members of the PFP division.

9

Telecommunications. Four industries were not selected by any respondents: Aerospace &

Defense, Alcohol & Tobacco, Biotechnology, and Containers and Packaging.

Key Findings9

The following key findings from the online survey address the level of satisfaction

currently experienced by UNICEF’s corporate partners and inform how UNICEF can strengthen

and expand these alliances in the future:

• 75% of respondents thought UNICEF’s performance in managing their relationship was

above average.

• 67% of respondents found that compared to their experience working with other non-

profit partners, UNICEF performed better.

• Respondents identified the most important partner attributes to be: transparency (93%),

alignment with CSR goals (92%), and working effectively and getting things done (87%);

overall, UNICEF performed very well on these items, though an important minority felt

UNICEF needed improvement in these areas.

• While overall satisfaction levels with UNICEF are very high, there is room for

improvement in the following areas:

o UNICEF’s administrative structure, rules, and systems

(Importance Rating: 5.1; Performance Rating: 4.5)

o The provision by UNICEF of information needed by its corporate partners

(Importance Rating: 5.2; Performance Rating: 4.7)

o UNICEF’s ability to work effectively and get things done.

(Importance Rating: 5.4; Performance Rating: 4.8)10

9 Because a randomized respondent pool was not created and individual respondents were targeted for response, the data in this survey in aggregate is not necessarily representative of the entire range of UNICEF’s corporate partners’ experiences. 10 Respondents were asked to rate on a scale of 1 to 5 the level of importance they attributed to a number of factors relevant to a successful alliance. Next, respondents were asked to rate UNICEF’s level of performance in these same areas. The above analysis was conducted by examining which areas presented the largest gaps between relatively higher importance and relatively lower performance.

10

• Respondents identified giving targeted funds (60%), consumer motivation (48%),

integrating CSR strategies into marketing and communication strategies (42%), as the

most popular current forms of engagement.

• Consistent with the current forms of engagement, respondents identified giving targeted

funds (47%) and consumer motivation (47%), as ongoing priority areas for future

alliances. Employee motivation (44%) emerged as one of the key “newer” areas for focus

of future methods of partnership.

• 42% of respondents identified including UNICEF in its long-term strategic planning as a

current priority; 39% identified this priority for the future as well.

• Overall, partners felt that the best aspects of working with UNICEF stemmed from the

solidarity they felt with UNICEF’s mission as well as trust in the organization’s

reputation. This was followed by UNICEF’s demonstrated awareness that the partnership

must also deliver business results for the partner.

• Overall, partners felt that the worst aspects of working with UNICEF stemmed from the

organization’s “bureaucratic” structure and “restrictive” protocols, followed by

UNICEF’s failure to maximize the full range of assets offered by the partner.

• Partners would like to see UNICEF start making better use of their assets as well as to

improve communication and transparency.

Satisfaction with UNICEF’s Performance

Several questions were asked throughout the survey to gauge partner satisfaction levels

with UNICEF’s general performance. When asked to score UNICEF’s performance by

indicating their level of agreement with the statement “Overall, UNICEF performs very well in

the areas that matter to my company,” respondents gave an average score of 4.9, or good.11

When asked to compare their company’s experience working with UNICEF to other non-profit

partners in terms of overall performance, 67% of respondents indicated that UNICEF performed

better or much better, 27% indicated that UNICEF performed the same as other partners, and 6%

indicated that UNICEF performed worse or much worse.12

11 Scale of Very Poor to Excellent, a 4.9 falls between Above Average (4) and Good (5). 12 In light of phone interview data which indicated that a significant number of UNICEF’s partners do not have other alliances which are comparable in scale or scope, it is difficult to determine how many respondents were able to make a true comparison when calculating their response to these questions.

11

Respondents were also asked to rate, on a scale of “Very Poor” to “Excellent,”

UNICEF’s performance with regard to six relationship-management criteria. Between 69% and

85% of respondents indicated that UNICEF performed “Good” or “Excellent” for each criterion

listed, with the highest (at 85%) being “UNICEF’s commitment to its goals and mission.”

Seventy-five percent of respondents rated UNICEF’s performance as “Good” or “Excellent” in

managing the overall partnership, with less than 1% indicating that UNICEF performed poorly.

Performance Versus Importance

Respondents were given the opportunity to rate the level of importance they attributed to

a range of attributes commonly considered when selecting a non-profit partner. On a scale of

“Not at All Important” to “Very Important,” respondents chose 50% of the attributes listed to be

“More Important” and “Very Important;” the top five being:

• The partner is transparent in its operations and its reporting;

• The partner’s mission and priorities align with our corporate social responsibility (CSR)

goals;

• The partner works effectively and gets things done;

• The partner’s brand reinforces our image;

• We can easily get the information we need from the partner.13

Respondents were then given the same list of attributes and asked to rate UNICEF’s performance

in these categories based on a scale of “Very Poor” to “Excellent.” On average, respondents

placed four categories in the range of “Good” to “Excellent”:

• UNICEF’s mission and priorities align with our corporate social responsibility (CSR)

goals;

• UNICEF’s brand reinforces our mission;

• UNICEF’s technical expertise is world class;

• UNICEF understands out approach to CSR.14

13 50% indicates that of fourteen attributes, seven received ratings which fell between the More Important to Very Important range. Top five listed in order of highest (very important) to lowest. 14 The four categories listed had average scores between Good (5) and Excellent (6). The top four are listed in order of highest to lowest score. “Transparency in Operations and Reporting” came next on the list, with an average score of 4.98.

12

Out of fourteen attributes, UNICEF’s performance on transparency ranked 5th, working

effectively to get things done ranked 7th, and the ease of retrieving information ranked 10th.

In the range of “Slightly Less Important” to “Slightly More Important,” respondents

placed “The partner provides us with access to government contacts” (lowest) and “Supporting

the partner delivers business results to our company.” UNICEF did not receive any ratings

below average, the lowest being “Above Average” in providing access to government contacts.

Respondents were also asked to rate UNICEF’s performance based on the same 14

attributes, compared to their experiences working with other non-profit partners, on a scale of

UNICEF “Performs Much Worse” to UNICEF “Performs Much Better.” In the event that a

respondent felt that they did not have a comparable partner against which to measure UNICEF’s

performance in these areas, each question offered the option of selecting “I Don’t Know.”15

There were four categories on which over 65 % of respondents indicated UNICEF “Performs

Better” or “Much Better” than other non-profit partners:

• UNICEF’s brand reinforces our image (74%);

• UNICEF’s global network of offices and alliances helps to extend the reach and impact

of their work (70%);

• UNICEF's technical expertise is world class (69%);

• UNICEF's mission and priorities align with our corporate social responsibility (CSR)

goals (67%).

On the other end of the spectrum, there were four categories which over 10% of respondents

identified as areas in which UNICEF performs worse or much worse than other non-profit

partners:

• UNICEF provides us with access to government contacts (16%);

• UNICEF’s administrative structure, rules, and systems allow for win-win results (14%);

• We can easily get the information we need from UNICEF (12%);

• UNICEF has a presence in the communities in which we work (12%)16.

Looking at performance versus importance data by region further confirms that the ability

to access information when needed is globally recognized as highly important and among

15 Forty percent of phone interview respondents stated that they did not have comparable partners to UNICEF. 16 It should be noted that 58% of respondents said that UNICEF performed better or much better in this category.

13

UNICEF’s weakest attributes.17 Regionally, North America and the Middle East/North Africa’s

indicated UNICEF needed to strengthen its performance around the attribute “The partners

administrative structure, rules, and systems allow for win-win results”; East and Southern Africa

indicated UNICEF needed to strengthen its performance around the rating of “The partner works

effectively and gets things done.”

Current and Future Partnerships

When asked to select statements which best described the way the respondent’s company

currently collaborates with UNICEF, four categories received an over-40 % response rate:

• Gives targeted funds for specific UNICEF programs that meet my company’s objectives

(60%);

• Partners with UNICEF to motivate consumers and other stakeholders (48%);

• Works with UNICEF to integrate our CSR strategies into our marketing and

communications strategies (42%);

• Includes UNICEF in our strategic planning as a long-term partner (42%).

The fewest number of respondents selected “Works with UNICEF to develop child-friendly

workplace policies” (9%) and “Supports UNICEF in building institutional capacity in areas of

research and knowledge management” (7%) to describe their current collaboration with

UNICEF.

Looking forward, when asked to select statements which best describe the way

respondents would like to collaborate with UNICEF in the future, targeted funds and consumer

motivation (both with 47%) were again selected with the greatest frequency. However, this

decrease from 60% to 47% in the number of partners interested in giving targeted funds

represents the greatest percentage point drop between current and future modes of partnership.

One possible conclusion to be drawn from this finding is that while the greatest number of

partners prefer to continue targeted fund contributions to UNICEF, many partners would like to

expand their relationship to include other methods of partnership.

Five areas stood out as having both a significant percentage point increase between

current and future, as well as a significant interest overall:

17 Five of the nine regions noted this, including Latin America and the Caribbean, North America, Western Europe, West and Central Africa, and East Asia and the Pacific.

14

• Partner with UNICEF to motivate company employees (33% to 44%);

• Co-develop joint programs with third-party partners and UNICEF (21% to 34%);

• Work with UNICEF to develop community outreach programs (16% to 27%);

• Work with UNICEF to integrate child health and protection strategies into supply chain

management (10% to 20%);

• Work with UNICEF to develop child-friendly workplace policies (9% to 21%).

With assistance from the Private Fundraising and Partnerships Division, methods of

partnership were grouped into seven categories for summation purposes.18 Of the seven

categories, two showed significant increases in current to future interest: Influencing the

behaviour and practice of the corporate sector (19% to 28%) and Co-developed strategic

partnerships & collaboration for solutions (27% to 34%).

Open-ended Feedback19

Question #1: The best thing for our company about working with UNICEF as a partner is:

Strong Mission and Reputation 41% Synergy/Mutual Benefit 37% CSR Leadership/Expertise 23% Global Reach 15% Collaborative Approach 14%

General Observations: While the question asks respondents to single out the one thing

they like best about working with UNICEF, many respondents took this opportunity to cite

several things. The categories above have been chosen to highlight five positive themes that, in

the aggregate, were clearly articulated by the partners.

Strong Mission and Reputation (41%): Answers in this column express genuine solidarity

with UNICEF’s mission and trust in the organization’s reputation for professionalism and

transparency. UNICEF’s global credibility and historical presence are very important to many

partners, as is its consistency and clarity of purpose. The following quotes highlight affirmations

around this theme: “The most reliable and professional organization worldwide;” “UNICEF is

the best NGO in the world for the rights of children;” “UNICEF has a reputation as a good

18 See Appendix B for breakdown of partnership categories. 19 It should be noted that each comment may have been counted in more than one category depending on the complexity/multidimensionality of the sentiment. See Appendix C for full data set.

15

investment;” “UNICEF’s high credibility reassures us that our partnership will be effective;”

“We can trust that the funds and products we donate are used wisely and reach those in need;”

Synergy/Mutual Benefit (37%): Answers in this category show appreciation for

UNICEF’s awareness that the partnership must deliver real benefit to the corporation. The

win/win ideal is operative here with many companies subscribing to the advantage inherent in

“doing good while doing business.” Many respondents cited the association with UNICEF’s

highly visible brand as an automatic enhancement to their business’s brand and that the

“reflected glory” inherent in the partnership provides impetus to CSR efforts. The following

quotes highlight affirmations around this theme: “[UNICEF enables us] to contribute what we do

best: our core competencies. The partnership gives us the potential to integrate employees from

all business divisions;” “The partnership increases respect for our company by our employees,

our customers and other businesses;” “Association with UNICEF’s strong brand is good for

business and our CSR goals;” “Our brand’s communication power blends well with UNICEF’s

credibility to influence people in both Japan and Africa;” “The strength of the UNICEF brand

helps our brand to gain strength.”

CSR Leadership/Expertise (23%): Many partners recognized UNICEF’s unique expertise

in helping companies to develop and implement CSR strategies. Answers in this category reflect

confidence in UNICEF’s professionalism and experience as mentor. Several respondents noted

UNICEF’s considerable power in convening influential third parties and government agencies to

assist in realizing CSR goals. The following quotes highlight affirmations around this theme:

“[We value] their expertise and experience working for children’s education (and) their network

of both local and international partners;” “[UNICEF has] the ability to open doors – convening

power;” “[UNICEF has] the capacity and expertise to deliver programmes which align to our

CSR strategy (plus) government and key stakeholder contacts;” “UNICEF provides great

expertise … in early childhood development to our joint programs;” “UNICEF’s influence and

knowledge of Ecuador’s social context supports our CSR objectives.”

Global Reach (15%): Several partners were particularly appreciative of UNICEF’s global

reach. The synergy of the partnership can be extended into every market, offering optimal

opportunity for business and CSR expansion. The following quotes highlight affirmations

around this theme: “We can support projects in areas where we have no outreach;”

“(UNICEF helps us to) build the CSR image of our company in line with our global priorities;”

16

“UNICEF’s global reach enables us to support all the communities in which we work;” “We are

committed to the MDG’s … UNICEF’s world presence aligns with our capacity for global

support.”

Collaborative Approach (14%): Several respondents named a truly collaborative spirit as

the best aspect of working with UNICEF. Those who did often mentioned the organization’s

flexibility and willingness to work objectively and creatively within the partner’s individual

culture and business goals. These answers provide a general sense that partners want to see their

core competencies respected and creatively deployed; they appreciate being

recognized/understood as unique and full of potential for the partnership as opposed to simply a

source of funding. The following quotes highlight affirmations around this theme: “UNICEF

recognizes our potential as a long term partner. We feel that our partnership is valued;” “Mutual

cooperation and full understanding and support;” “Historically, it has felt more like a partnership

than a donor relationship. (We appreciate not being regarded) as a fundraising machine.”

Question #2: The worst thing for our company about working with UNICEF as a partner is:

Bureaucratic Structure 28% Failure to Maximize Partner Assets 22% Communication Issues 20% Inadequate Resources and Capacity 7% Inadequate Marketing Platform 4% *Responses stating that there were no negative aspects: 29%

General Observations: Perhaps the most significant conclusion to be drawn from this

data is that approximately one third of respondents stated that there were no negative aspects to

working with UNICEF. Also significant however, is the apparent contradiction around certain

aspects of the partnership which were praised by some partners, and criticized by others e.g.

“made to feel like a true partner and not just a donor” vs. “made to feel important only as a

donor.” This trend potentially suggests a lack of administrative uniformity across UNICEF as an

organization.

Bureaucratic Structure (28%): Close to one third of respondents expressed frustration

with the “hierarchical,” “inflexible,” “unresponsive” and “bureaucratic” structure within which

UNICEF operates. Many stated that opportunity and time is lost on both sides because UNICEF

staff are not trained or permitted to respond to partners’ needs in agile, constructive and

17

individualized ways. Too often restrictive protocols are relied upon to manage the relationship

rather than open and creative communication, causing the collaboration to suffer as a result:

“The organization tends to be very rigid about certain things. It would be helpful if they could

think outside the box to develop concepts that are more innovative and unique.” Also cited were

financial distribution systems which represent an administrative maze that in turn prevents timely

financial reporting: “The administrative layers we have to go through to get answers – especially

when relating to the use of our funds.” Respondents expressed frustration with the structure of

the regional office network, specifically the lack of coordination among them: “The development

of a global agreement with one regional office carries no guarantee that other regional offices

will actively support the program;” as well as communications challenges between the Nat Coms

and Headquarters: “National Committees and HQ are not really aligned… no authority from HQ

side … with each Nat Com following its own agenda.” Finally, an interesting observation with

regard to UNICEF’s structure indicated that the pace of doing business with UNICEF is

significantly slower than the pace of regular commerce. In other words, several partners have

felt the need to switch gears/downshift when dealing with UNICEF: “UNICEF is a complex

organization that can prove challenging, given the normal business pace of activity we are used

to.”

Failure to Maximize Partner Assets (22%): In general, these answers express regret and

frustration that the opportunities being made available to UNICEF via the partnership are not

taken advantage of to the extent that they should/could be. The disappointment and frustration

expressed in these comments could also be interpreted positively in that they convey genuine

allegiance to the UNICEF mission and impatience with wasted opportunities in the pursuit

thereof. Many of these partners express a desire to do more but at the same time require more

individualized, responsive, and efficient management of the partnership by UNICEF: “We feel

that UNICEF is too tentative and not present enough with our partnership. They prefer to be in

the background.” There is also some sense of wounded corporate pride that UNICEF is not

always quick to appreciate and deploy the various assets the company is willing to make

available: “The worst thing is not being able to give more and participate more closely in

projects;” “UNICEF does not fully appreciate the work we do with other charitable

organizations.” On the most negative end of the spectrum, there were those who blamed

UNICEF for what they deemed has been a failed partnership overall: “They did not keep up their

18

end of the bargain. They did nothing to help market and promote the work we tried to do

together and as a result, the project failed to build any awareness.”

Communication Issues (20%): Comments in this category reflected an overall need for

more effective and consistent communication between UNICEF and the partner. Response time

for information requests as well as progress and financial reports were frequently cited as

inadequate and/or delayed: “The worst thing is having to chase up for information, especially

project progress reports (although their submission was agreed to in our contract) and the

inadequate reporting on fundraising figures;” “[There is] a general expectation that donated

funds need not be accounted for in detail.” Responses counted in Communication Issues may

also have been reflected in the previous two categories to the extent that a bureaucratic structure

impedes smooth, efficient communication lines, and better communication may be viewed as a

way of involving partner employees (assets) more actively and positively.

Inadequate Resources and Capacity (7%): Resource and Capacity deficits are often the

primary constraint felt by NGOs. Thus the low percentage of respondents who noted this gap

indicates a relatively minor concern that UNICEF is stretched too thin because field projects are

too ambitious: “UNICEF in Indonesia, especially in South Sulawesi, has limited resources and

their area of work is too vast;” “We need more manpower on this project so we can expand every

year.”

Inadequate Marketing Platform (4%): This sentiment is mentioned often enough to

suggest that, while for the vast majority it may not represent “the worst thing” about working

with UNICEF, it is likely an area of dissatisfaction for many. Examples include: “Little

counterpart support in terms of marketing;” “Not enough initiative in publicizing the

partnership;” “Many don’t know exactly what UNICEF does around the world. It is still seen as

an organization that sends kids around with orange change boxes at Halloween;” “They have no

real marketing material.”

Question #3: The one thing our company would like to see UNICEF start doing is:

Maximize Partner Assets 31% Improve Communication and Transparency 24% Improve Programs 21% More Agility, Less Bureaucracy 17% Improve Marketing 15% *Responses stating that they did not have a response to this question: 5%

19

General Observations: Thirty-two percent of respondents focused on some aspect of

maximizing their own assets in thinking about the most important improvement UNICEF could

make. This is particularly noteworthy given that only 23% listed this type of complaint as being

“the worst thing about working with UNICEF.” Reflected in these comments is a genuine desire

to improve the relationship, which suggests a true allegiance to the UNICEF mission and a

willingness and patience to work through problems. That said, several respondents to this as

well as the other open-ended feedback questions mentioned UNICEF’s inadequate capacity to

deliver quality financial and/or programmatic reports in a timely manner. Whether attributed to

UNICEF’s compartmentalized structure or general lack of transparency, it is apparent that the

capacity of Nat Coms and country offices to deliver on-time, quality reports to corporate partners

deserves further attention.

Maximize Partner Assets (31%): Here it was restated that UNICEF needs to be more

proactive and creative about leveraging partner expertise and core competencies: “We would like

UNICEF to be more proactive in advising us on how we can leverage our business expertise

more effectively;” “Be more open-minded with regard to utilizing the qualities of our company;”

“Align donations with each partner’s core competencies so that the value-added through the

partnership is as big as possible.” Of note is the number of partners requesting that UNICEF

suggest more advanced methods of partnership, particularly those which utilize the company’s

strengths: “Allow partners to share more actively in research activities;” “We would like to take

our partnership beyond holding one charity event;” “We would like UNICEF to propose new

areas/topics for future cooperation.”

Improve Communication and Transparency (24%): Several of the comments which

appear in this category come from the desire to engage with UNICEF as a long-term partner:

“Work with us on a long term plan with a three to five year horizon;” “Share future work plans

in advance so that both partners can decide in time what donations are needed most.” Other

themes revisited were the timeliness of project reports and improved transparency in financial

reporting: “More interaction and communication in project set-up, realization, interim reporting

and results communication amongst field crews, Nat Coms and donating company;” “Improve

intermediate progress reporting on specific projects and communication with field offices;” “Be

extremely open about financing. Please explain in detail the way our corporate donations are

20

allocated; what percentage is used for what activity, including Global HQ, Nat. Com. and field

office expenditures.” Finally, there were those who requested improved communication around

evaluation and results: “UNICEF should identify goals jointly with the partner and define clearly

what they will do to meet those goals and put in place measurements to better determine success

or failure.”

Improve Programs (21%): This category speaks to resource and capacity issues: “Need

funds for projects that benefit Fiji’s children;” “Resources needed in order to ensure

sustainability of the program;” as well as suggestions for improvements to existing programs:

“New style of management is needed in order to improve the value of the program for mothers

and babies.” Some recommendations were also made for the initiation of new programs:

“Develop more programs within the UK;” “Develop programs for brilliant children;”

“Implement a school milk program in Yemen;” “Need assistance in developing web and

computer education programs for East Africa.”

More Agility, Less Bureaucracy (17%) This category includes requests for the de-

balkanization of Nat Coms and regional offices and a new focus on increasing communication

and coordination among them through a more globalized entity managed by Headquarters:

“Interface as a single global entity;” “Encourage greater partnership among regional offices so

that global agreements are met with the same level of commitment throughout the system as in

the regional market in which the agreement was developed.” Several requests were made for

UNICEF to do more to facilitate partner access to local government agencies/officials and to

other third parties: “We need help lobbying the government to participate in the implementation

of education projects on a national basis;” “Need to develop a more powerful lobby to local

authorities to involve them in projects.”

Improve Marketing (15%): Responses in this category noted that more consideration

should be given to the ways UNICEF can assist partners in marketing their products, such as

allowing the UNICEF logo to appear on product packaging: “Allow us to communicate on our

packaging that we support UNICEF.” Respondents also noted the need for stronger marketing of

UNICEF itself to build local awareness of the organization and its programs, including more

active outreach and visits by UNICEF personnel to local companies: “Market the UNICEF

image aggressively in developing countries, particularly in Morocco;” “Nigerians are aware of

UNICEF but associate it more with the rural areas. We want to see more publicity aimed at the

21

plight of homeless children in the cities. The public needs more awareness to donate;” “Locally

developed and targeted communications which speak to the local market about UNICEF.”

Question #4: Please indicate any final comments you may have on your current or future with

UNICEF:

Overall Satisfaction with Partnership 72% Re-emphasis of Failure to Maximize Partner Assets

14%

Re-emphasis of Communication & Flexibility Deficits

8%

Need Assistance Interfacing with Government Agencies & Other Partners

6%

Clear Dissatisfaction with Partnership 6% Need Increase in Partner-to-Partner and HQ-Regional-Local Communication

5%

* Re-emphasis of Resource and Capacity Deficits – 2% ** No Additional Comments – 2%

General Observations: It is important to note that significantly fewer respondents

answered question #4. Of the roughly 63% of respondents to the online survey who chose to

answer this question, 72% used this opportunity to express overall satisfaction with the

partnership. For those who chose to offer more critical feedback, their contributions were largely

those which had been previously disclosed. Hence, it should be noted which areas respondents

felt were particularly important to reiterate. Perhaps most striking once again, are the apparent

mixed messages embedded in these comments e.g. “Both country offices and regional office

have been a pleasure to work with.” vs “We expect stronger coordination between

HQ/Regional/Local offices responsible for the project. There are communication gaps.” This

underscores the question of whether alliances are managed with any level of uniformity that can

be gauged from a global perspective. Several of these comments also suggest that though the

relationship is satisfactory to excellent, it has taken time and effort from the partner to build

cooperation.

Overall Satisfaction with the Partnership (72%): As indicated, these responses reflect

satisfaction with various aspects of the partnership: “A very good partnership. We would like to

develop it further;” “The company is committed to continuing the relationship and building on

22

past successes;” “Though our partnership with UNICEF is still in its infancy we are thrilled

about the world of possibilities that awaits us.”

Re-emphasis of Failure to Maximize Partner Assets (14%): An important theme

revisited: “There is great potential for UNICEF in terms of bringing in donations and services

through our company’s distribution capacity. Therefore good but unrealized potential;” “We

would like a closer relationship with UNICEF and would welcome more help with CSR and

more collaborative projects;” “We hope that we will be able to broaden the scope of our

relationship beyond fundraising toward a more synergistic collaboration.”

Re-emphasis of Communication and Flexibility Deficits (8%): “…poor communication,

lack of detailed reporting and transparency;” “We’d like to see a more proactive approach to

providing us with information on the projects we support;” “…time pressures in our industry

should be accommodated…”

Re-emphasis of Need for Assistance Interfacing with Government Agencies and Other

Partners (6%): “UNICEF is a global organization with strong relationships with high level

government officers. It should be able to leverage this strength more effectively to get better

support for local projects from lower levels of government in the provinces and small districts.”

Clear Dissatisfaction with the Partnership (6%): There were only five respondents who

took this opportunity to express their disappointment in the partnership. Still, these are poignant,

harsh commentaries and significant enough in number to be worth noting. “During the setting up

of a project in the first two years, it has been long and difficult: poor communication, lack of

detailed reporting and transparency. UNICEF did not appear to consider us as a competent

development partner.” “I am thoroughly disappointed with the level of cooperation and support

from the regional (Swiss) office that we have received this year, following the departure of our

original contact person. My colleagues in various countries have had similar problems.” “We

entered this project with great hope and promise. It ended with both sides feeling the other let

them down. For our part, we DID deliver on all the technology and CASH payments we had

promised. We are still hopeful the partnership might work...” “We have been disappointed over

the past couple of years to see the collaboration and the excitement taken from the relationship

by a major emphasis on fundraising. We appreciate that fundraising is critical but we really

would prefer a true partnership to a donor relationship.”

23

Re-emphasis of Need to Increase Partner-to-Partner and HQ-Regional-Local

Communication (5%): “I would expect stronger coordination between HQ/regional/local offices

responsible for both the operation and for corporate donors like us.” “National Committees and

HQ need to work together – otherwise it is too difficult to align 27 markets in support of the

same project...”

When provided the opportunity to speak freely about UNICEF, partners praised the

organization and demonstrated a commitment to continuing their partnership into the future.

While no new major criticisms were brought to the surface, a significant number of partners

expressed frustration with UNICEF’s inability to maximize the assets and resources they have to

offer. In light of a changing global economy, corporations will continue to search for ways to

offer assets beyond financial contributions, further enhancing the significance of this feedback.

Feedback from Phone Interviews

As specified by the Terms of Reference, twenty phone interviews were conducted in an

effort to provide greater depth to the feedback provided in the online survey, as well as to create

an opportunity to solicit additional advice or criticism from key partners. The companies

selected to participate in the phone interviews were selected by the PFP Division, whose

objective was to provide geographic and sector diversity, as well as a distribution of key and

emerging partner perspectives. Outreach was once again conducted with regional contacts and

key Nat Coms asking them to consider companies that have made a serious and long-term

commitment to working with UNICEF or have expressed interest in becoming long-term

partners (in financial or non financial terms).

In light of the foreseen challenges to scheduling these interviews, PFP provided a list of

38 contacts, in order of priority, with the following geographic profile:

• Six global partners, all based in Western Europe;

• Eleven partners provided by Nat Com offices in Spain, Italy, the U.S., Japan, the U.K,

and France;

• Twenty-one partners from regional contacts in Latin America and the Caribbean (6), East

and South Asia (4), West and Southern Africa (2), the Middle East and North Africa (7)

and Central Europe (2).

24

Corporate contacts were invited to participate in the interview component of the review by their

local UNICEF contact, after which a follow-up e-mail was sent by an OTF Group consultant to

schedule the interview. The time line for this exercise was condensed, therefore those who were

out of the office for extended periods of time, or failed to respond within three weeks of initial

contact, were replaced by others on the list.20

Interview questions were drafted by the consultants and reviewed and approved by

members of PFP and the Evaluation Division.21 In light of the fact that a significant number of

interviewees had either not received or chosen not to answer the online survey, many interviews

began with four basic profile questions highlighting the length of their partnership with UNICEF,

the size of their financial contribution, the scope of the partnership (local, regional, global), and

their personal function within the relationship. For those who completed the online survey, this

information was obtained directly from the respondent database.

Length of relationship:

0-3 years 4-6 years 7-10 years 10+ years

35% 40% 15% 10%

Size of financial contribution in USD:

1,000-25,000

25,001-100,000

100,001-500,000

500,001- 1 million

1 million- 5 million

5 million- 10 million

10 million +

10% 20% 20% 15% 30% 0% 5%

Scale of Partnership: partners were asked if their partnership with UNICEF was based in

their country or if it was a regional or global partnership. Approximately 75% of respondents

self-identified as having a locally-based partnership, headquartered out of their office. The

remaining respondents identified themselves as global partners, some of whom liaise directly

with UNICEF’s Headquarters office, and others who liaise with a Nat Com office but implement

their fundraising strategy in each one of their offices worldwide. Interestingly, Danone Water

and Volvic, both interviewed and both a member of the larger Danone umbrella, identified as

20 Appendix D provides a geographic and industry profile of those who were interviewed. 21 See appendix E for full list of interview questions.

25

having locally-based programs meaning that they did not consider themselves global partners. In

looking back to the 628 non-duplicative companies who received the online survey, this

feedback further indicates the extent to which partners within the same company consider

themselves unique partners, hence minimizing the need to tag duplicate corporations within the

overall corporate contact dataset.

Regarding the level or type of responsibility held by interviewees in their partnership

with UNICEF, the majority (65%) indicated that they oversee all aspects of the partnership or are

the chief member in charge. Other functions included marketing oversight, strategy work, and

CSR oversight.

The first question was intended to be fairly open-ended to solicit a broad range of

responses: “Why have you chosen to work with UNICEF? What does this partnership mean to

your company?” From the responses provided, five major themes emerged which corresponded

to those brought forth by the survey data.

Mission Alignment/Shared Values

75% "We’re innovative and forward looking. The Red Cross is more reactive, UNICEF is more proactive and that’s similar to our goals of being proactive – prevent rather than cure."

Global Brand/Reach 65% "We were looking for an organization who works in developing countries. We make sure these programs take place in places where we don’t have business opportunities, and UNICEF has those connections locally."

Employee Motivation 45% "It gives to our employees a broader idea about humanitarian issues and that we are minimizing the negative effects of the technology that we are working with."

Credibility/Trusted Reputation

40% "In Japan, UNICEF has the best credibility as an organization to contribute to. The reputation for cause-related marketing is not great in Japan so we knew that if we wanted to do it, we needed to choose a very trusted organization."

Transparency 10% "NEXTEL is a public company and is very interested in ensuring that all the numbers and finances are taken care of wisely and transparently. We know that with UNICEF we have that advantage.”

26

Given the open nature of this question, one must assume that there are many reasons why

companies choose to partner with UNICEF, not all of which were identified above. Perhaps

most striking however, was the number of partners who view their relationship with UNICEF as

a confluence of values. Whether these values are a function of the products they manufacture

(Proctor & Gamble) or their largest markets (Manchester United), partners felt that because of

their company’s commitment to supporting the rights and well-being of children, UNICEF was

the obvious choice. One partner from Danone Waters in Japan stated: "We have shared values

with UNICEF – specifically sustainability when it comes to support. UNICEF does not only

come in and dig a well in a local poor community but they teach people how to maintain it."22 A

partner from Proctor and Gamble noted that “As a brand, what we stand for is sustainable,

healthy development for children; we regard the UNICEF partnership as a very strong public

statement to our customers, our consumers, and to our employees…of our commitment to

development.”23

The second question was intended as a direct follow-up to the online survey where

respondents were asked to rate UNICEF’s performance compared with other non-profit partners:

“Overall, how does UNICEF compare with your other non-profit partners? What additional

feedback might you have to what you stated in the survey?” More than half the respondents

explicitly stated that they did not have any alliances of similar scale to which they could compare

UNICEF’s performance. Several went on to mention that despite the multitude of non-profits to

whom they donate funds, these relationships primarily revolve around an annual donation while

their relationship with UNICEF represents much more. One partner in Croatia spoke their

relationship with UNICEF differed from other partners in that it represented a true collaboration.

To the extent that other non-profits received a one-time check, UNICEF symbolized a

“continuous effort.” Other variations included several respondents identifying comparable

alliances with the Red Cross or Save the Children, while some worked with locally-based NGOs

on a scale they deemed equivalent to their relationship with UNICEF. As such, the criteria used

to determine the level of comparability partner firms used to make this assessment cannot be

independently identified. For those who felt capable of making the comparison, noteworthy

points were the room for creativity UNICEF offered in allowing partners (with financial

22 Naohiro Yoshizawa Interview 23 Austin Lally Interview

27

capacity) to design their own programs24, the ability to bring programs to the developing world

through local knowledge and expertise, and UNICEF’s overall transparency and responsiveness.

The third question, along with its follow-up, was intended to explore in greater depth how

UNICEF compares to other non-profit partners specifically in areas beyond the scope of a

traditional fundraising relationship: “Do you have any partnerships with other non-profit

organizations which go beyond traditional fundraising activities and utilize more of your

company’s expertise (such as research and development or technical expertise)? Alternatively,

do you have any partnerships that utilize the non-profit partner’s expertise (advisory services on

child-labor strategy, for example)?” The motivation behind this question stemmed from

UNICEF’s awareness that several of its larger partners seek advisory services from other child-

focused NGOs such as Save the Children. IKEA noted it’s partnership with Save the Children in

response to this question, citing that UNICEF seems “too tied up” as a UN agency to provide

these services, and that NGOs are typically freer politically and capacity-wise: “If we want to

make a survey to see how things are in supply chain, we go to Save the Children...UNICEF is too

bureaucratic and there are certain things they shouldn’t do.” The contact from IKEA then

qualified this comment by stating: “We work to create a better environment for children and it’s

no trick to see who gives more or anything, why should everyone play on the same playground.”

Other partners discussed the desire to keep their partnership with UNICEF “clean” of issues

which are more politicized, meaning that the difficulty associated with these types of

relationships was not within the culture of their existing relationship with UNICEF:

We don’t finance arms manufacturers because we don’t want to but we get that advice on funding priorities and child labor strategy from other NGOs than UNICEF. We don’t discuss CSR with UNICEF yet. Maybe for the better. It’s already so difficult to move in the right direction that we don’t want to hamper the progress with difficult discussions. - ING Slightly fewer than half of respondents indicated that in fact they did not have any

alliances which went beyond traditional fundraising activities. Those who did mentioned such

projects as designing retail items linked to specific humanitarian or environmental campaigns,

technical training around public health issues (specifically HIV/AIDS), and research and

development around educational tools to be used in schools. When asked if they had found ways

24 "What we like about UNICEF – we bring a lot of money to the table and we can build our own programs with UNICEF – all money will go to our program." – Arnaud Cohen Stuart, ING

28

to utilize their non-profit partner’s expertise, respondents predominantly cited the enhancement

of local knowledge, such as expertise offered by field agents on the ground, or in-depth

information concerning particular humanitarian issues, which they did not have capacity nor time

to investigate.

Fourth, interviewees were asked to reflect upon whether their partnership with UNICEF

has in any way changed (expanded/focused) their company’s social responsibility commitments

or understanding of humanitarian issues. Responses to this question were fairly split, with

slightly more respondents indicating that their partnership with UNICEF could in fact be linked

to a greater commitment to CSR, or more widespread knowledge of humanitarian issues within

the company. One partner from IKEA stated that as a result of their partnership with UNICEF:

"we have learned a lot about how to work together to make a difference for children – how to

bring everyone together to make an impact." A respondent from T-Croatian Telekom shared that

"It’s had an effect from UNICEF on our company because it has contributed to this more modern

understanding of what should be a contribution to society and what kind of beneficials it can

have back on the company." And finally, with regard to how this partnership has directly

changed the way CSR is approached within the company, a respondent from Proctor and

Gamble’s Pampers division stated: “the most tangible impact is that it has moved CSR from

being the prophecy of the CSR department to something that every employee is involved in."

Those who did not believe that their giving practices or orientation toward humanitarian

issues had been affected by their partnership with UNICEF noted this as a reflection of their pre-

existing, solid CSR commitment: "No, we had a code of conduct for a long time before UNICEF.

It might have helped spread knowledge, but has not really changed our projects." Others felt that

while it may make a difference for the volunteers who have a chance to visit the projects, the

company on a whole has not been affected, or at least not yet.

As in the online survey, interviewees were asked to indicate if there were any ways that

they wished to partner with UNICEF which were not currently being explored. Forty percent of

interviewees responded that they were not interested in exploring new or expanded areas for

partnership, one citing a need to reach the initially-stated goal which the partnership was

designed to achieve – to end Tetanus by 2012. Those interested in thinking beyond the current

partnership structure expressed the desire to expand opportunities for employee engagement:

“we need to find a UNICEF project where our employees can be quite helpful;” expand

29

opportunities for marketing: “We want to be more public about our partnership with UNICEF

and engage our customers as we have engaged our employees;” and expand global reach: “We’re

a part of UniCredit Group which operates in 22 countries. I would suggest that as UNICEF is

present in all of those countries, it would be nice to have one big project that would be organized

and promoted through all the banks which are a part of UniCredit Group.” Others were more

specific about potential commitments for the future e.g. building child-friendly schools,

educating women about the importance of breastfeeding or helping to develop new merchandise.

Only one partner mentioned the state of the global economy in thinking about this question, her

response implying that advanced partnerships could mean the development of activities that

involved fewer financial contributions: “We’ve got a big CSR strategic review and one of the

key areas is volunteering. Part of that is reducing the amount of money we give and giving our

people instead – we want to do more volunteering and provide our skills.”

As a follow-up question, interviewees were asked if: “Based on your knowledge and

working relationship with UNICEF, does the capacity exist within UNICEF to explore these

additional methods of partnership?” Those who previously responded that they were not

interested in exploring new methods of partnership were asked to reflect on whether they felt that

the capacity existed based on past experience. With minor exceptions, all partners felt that

UNICEF possessed the capacity to engage in expanded forms of partnership. Many however,

nuanced the question slightly, by saying things such as “They have the capacity but may not be

willing to allocate the resources;” or “I don't know if they have the staffing, but they have the

knowledge.” Most notable were the number of respondents who mentioned structural or

communication deficits with regards to capacity, which to them represented a greater obstacle to

partnership expansion: “It’s difficult to know sometimes who are we supposed to talk these

issues through with. We talk about expanding the project with the Japan Nat Com but really it

might not be where the UNICEF NY office is trying to head. Better communication would help

to think about the future.” A partner based in Western Europe reflected that, “On the ground, we

asked for a study in India, the report is one year late, but it seems that the organization in India

was not able to cope. Not sure if it’s capacity but maybe it’s coordination.” Finally, one partner

reiterated the aforementioned theme of UNICEF’s inadequate use of partner resources by stating:

“There’s a lot of capacity on our end but we need the tools that UNICEF uses to raise funds.

Give us the same tools to raise funds so we can do it for you.”

30

In conclusion, respondents were asked to offer any additional advice regarding their

partnership with UNICEF which may not have been reflected in their previous answers.

Responses to this question spanned a fairly wide range, with requests for greater access to

UNICEF Ambassadors for corporate events, to a recommendation for UNICEF to be more

selective when choosing its corporate partners to ensure that only those with a true commitment

to humanitarian issues, as opposed to a commercialized one, are given access to UNICEF’s

resources. Issues relating to UNICEF’s “bureaucratic” or balkanized structure re-emerged, with

one of UNICEF’s premier global partners essentially requesting a partnership which reflected

their company’s profile - a global non-profit + a global company = a truly global partnership:

“Their advantage versus other non-profits is a global mission, a global purpose and every

country in the world will probably have a local office, but a Proctor & Gamble will want a global

partner because we’re a global brand.” Another noted that though they would like to creatively

address multiple issues affecting children, it was difficult for them to combine programs that

addressed both water and education because in UNICEF those programs fall into different

brackets.

Across several responses to this concluding question, one piece of advice emerged as a

common thread: minimize the focus on funds and maximize the focus on ways to strengthen the

partnership through expanded means of giving. Corporate contacts expressed a desire to feel that

UNICEF valued its relationship beyond the funds it symbolized, and was willing to engage in

initiatives that demonstrate this commitment: “Nowadays, the relationship with UNICEF and the

private sector is mainly based on fundraising so they need to go beyond that.” Global partners

specifically expressed a desire to share the wealth of partnering with UNICEF with all of their

smaller sites, or global network, in light of having previously been told that unless each of these

efforts can promise the same rate of return guaranteed by Headquarters, fundraising can not be

brought down to scale: “For us, it’s not our head office so what they wanted to do was a

fundraising activity that would not amount to a corporate level donation. But it would still be

motivational for our staff and a great for customers but UNICEF doesn’t want to do things on

that level, even on the country office level.” One partner positioned her advice in a discussion of

competitive advantage, an important concern in light of shrinking financial resources: “I’m

looking at how we create a global volunteer program and we’re just starting that journey.

31

UNICEF needs to realize that that [non-monetary opportunities for giving] makes themselves

more competitive.”

Consistent with the prevalent theme which emerged from the open-ended feedback,

corporations are looking to expand their alliances in ways that maximize their assets and in the

past have felt disappointed when UNICEF failed to offer sufficient opportunities to do so.

Several highlighted specific examples of expertise they would like to contribute to their alliance

if given the opportunity. One partner spoke of the logistical expertise which they supply to other

UN agency partners engaged in disaster relief, another of the training support they provide to

organizations engaged in public health activities. A partner from Danone in Japan emphasized

the desire for UNICEF to take advantage of resources they have already developed: “We

understand that UNICEF has other needs and we want to find a way to help them – particularly

in the field of education. We have lots of good materials related to water in Mali that UNICEF

could use to develop its own educational tools.” A partner from Proctor and Gamble’s Pampers

division referenced their superior marketing skills as an underutilized asset which he believes

could exponentially enhance global awareness of UNICEF’s primary focus areas: “We are the

world’s preeminent marketing company, we’ve tried to use our expertise in that area to build

awareness and bring interested partners together around disease elimination.” Corporate partners

overwhelmingly would like to see expanded opportunities for employee engagement, an

endeavour which ultimately calls for greater management capacity and in some instances, may

not be possible. The assets referred to above however, reflect skills and resources which would

enhance UNICEF’s overall capacity as well as the level of commitment demonstrated by its

corporate partners. UNICEF’s goal of moving toward comprehensive forms of partnership

which address all aspects of a company’s operation is thus affirmed as both timely and

accurate.25 The challenge lies in how to personalize this approach while ensuring maximized

results.

25 Based on survey findings, there was not a significant increase (current to future) in the number of partners interested in donating their expertise (17% to 19%). Thus, either interviewees represented a unique sample, or respondents reflected this desire in other categories, such as the co-development of joint programs, community outreach programs, or advocacy.

32

Situating UNICEF’s goals in a larger framework

Across the spectrum of feedback and recommendations offered by corporate partners in

this study, several key messages have risen to the surface: corporations want their CSR

contributions to be both focused and holistic, sometimes to the point of transcending issue-area

distinctions made by the NGO community.26 Corporations want their CSR contributions to

better utilize their core business functions while also enabling their expansion into untapped

markets. And corporations want to work with non-profit organizations which function at the

pace and capacity-level of the private sector while also providing unique field-level knowledge

and access to the developing world. Overall, corporations want to do more, and they want to

work with non-profit partners who are capable of adopting the structural hybridity necessary to

deliver results to both their corporation and, in UNICEF’s case, the children in need.

These findings beg the question of whether UNICEF’s goals and efforts fit into global

CSR trends. To the extent that the Millennium Development Goals represent a guiding light for

corporations seeking to make a contribution to global development, the UN, UNDP and UNICEF

specifically, are seen as points of access for opportunities to do good. The World Business and

Development Awards, designed to honor private sector companies that have innovatively

committed their core business practices to achieving the MDGs, represent key models for other

corporations looking to contribute to humanitarian causes while simultaneously enhancing their

commercial success.

Beyond the UN, corporations across industries are working in this direction, both on their

own through multi-million dollar initiatives (General Electric) and through coalitions, as with the

Corporate Alliance on Malaria in Africa (CAMA). CAMA, a coalition of private sector

companies across industries which have come together around a single issue, works to

significantly reducing the rate of malaria infections across the continent of Africa. The goal

however, is both cause-related and purpose-driven. These companies seek to create a framework

for how to “best implement the current and best practices in the field and create a forum where

companies can come together to interface and cooperate at the corporate level” while creating a

more seamless collaboration mechanism between themselves, government entities and the non-

26 One example is an issue raised by a partner from Volvic regarding their desire to create a program involving water bottles for school children only to learn that this was not possible given that water and education were two different issue categories for UNICEF.

33

profit sectors.27 Independently, General Electric has committed $10 million worth of products,

infrastructure and training plans to improve healthcare delivery services in Africa in 2008 alone.

GE has taken a total-asset approach, applying its full range of expertise through its existing

market in socially responsible ways, “The 130-year-old company has been in Africa since 1898

and is focusing on its strongest link within the region - supplying various hi-tech infrastructure

products, services and training.”28 Other industries, such as the software industry, are in the

process of developing an effective transmission mechanism for their core business functions to

support humanitarian and development issues in the same way that apparel has focused on

supply chain, labor and environmental standards.

These snapshots illustrate that while the MDG’s may provide a guide to social

responsibility, industries are not solely relying on partnerships with the UN or non-profit

organizations to tell them how and where they can contribute their resources. Some companies

have taken the “doing more” objective into their own hands, and for companies like those in the

software industry, for whom current models and methodologies are not a perfect fit, it’s only a

matter of time before they carve out their own niche. Jane Nelson, Founding Director of the

Corporate Social Responsibility Initiative at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of

Government, and Director of the International Business Leaders Forum writes:

One of the most interesting developments in recent years has been the emergence of what can be described as ‘hybrid approaches’. These are business models or partnerships that combine the company’s core competencies and commercial acumen, with social investment, philanthropy and/or public finance. Such approaches are being used to support projects that may not immediately meet commercial hurdle rates, but have the potential of becoming economically viable over the longer term, while explicitly addressing a development or social need.29

Based on the findings from this review, a majority of UNICEF’s partners have embraced the

“hybrid approach” through their partnership with UNICEF, and to this extent UNICEF’s model

is right on track. The challenge lies in UNICEF’s capacity to be a hybrid partner. It appears that

companies who want a focused and holistic program with private sector pace and ground-level

access need a clear and consistent picture of where UNICEF falls across this spectrum of assets.

27 Audio quote found at: http://www.gbcimpact.org/live/involved/cama/ 28 http://www.ge.com/mea/ourCompany/news/africa/pr_09152008_b.html 29 “Strengthening Efforts to Eradicate Poverty and Hunger: Dialogues at the Economic and Social Council,” 2007: http://www.un.org/ecosoc/docs/pdfs/07-49285-ECOSOC-Book-2007.pdf

34

At the same time UNICEF must be competitive in a market where other NGOs are also offering

opportunities for core competency or a “hybrid approach”, and where corporations are taking

social responsibility into their own hands. A majority of phone interview respondents indicated

that UNICEF’s greatest contribution to their corporate social responsibility program was the

knowledge and perspective they gained from having access to people in the field. While

invaluable for some companies, others may decide to develop their own bridges into the

communities they wish to serve if it will allow them to more effectively utilize their assets.

Additionally, the issue of transparency, specifically the quality and timeliness of financial and

programmatic reports, becomes particularly important when corporations are considering how to

make the most efficient use of their funds. A greater number of corporate partners may choose

to “do it themselves” if there is any question of how their funds are being spent. Nonetheless,

phone interviewees as well as online survey respondents indicated that overall, UNICEF is a

model partner, one that is uniquely qualified to facilitate their CSR mobilization, and one that

allows them to contribute in ways they themselves did not think possible.