1

MSc International Marketing

Session 2009/2010

Semester 2

Globalisation and Corporate Social Responsibility

Class Coordinator: Prof Heiner Evanschitzky

Assignment Title

“Taking four companies, analyse, describe and evaluate their corporate social responsibility strategies, initiatives and actions using a framework for analysing corporate social responsibility strategies and conclude with a judgement on the impact of CSR on each of the four company’s suc-

cess.”

Individual Assignment:

MOHAMMED, Imran Pervaz

Date of submission: 02/03/2010

Contents

Page Numbers

Contents 1

Executive Summary 2

Introduction 3

Methodology 4

Stakeholder theory

Value Chain Analysis

The Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility

Analysis 7

AG Barrs

Britvic

Coca Cola Company

PepsiCo

Linking performance to Corporate Social Responsibility activities 14

Conclusion 14

Recommendations 15

References 16

Appendix 16

Executive Summary

This report outlines the corporate social responsibility strategies adopted by four

companies in the soft drinks industry; AG Barrs, Britvic, the Coca Cola Company and

PepsiCo. The report will first start with a brief introduction, a methodology followed

by the analysis, conclusion then recommendations.

The results of the analysis were as follows:

· Each of the four companies used reactive CSR strategies whereby the re-

acted to legislation or what competitors were doing.

· AG Barrs engaged in local community projects as they are very rooted in their

local communities.

· Britvic seemed to display that they were being very proactive in their CSR

strategy however two aspects of their strategy contradicted one another.

· The Coca Cola Company introduced their “Live Positively” strategy which was

a very good idea however their environmental and workplace practices came un-

der scrutiny which resulted in the University of Michigan boycotting their products.

· PepsiCo were engaging in philanthropic activities which were not aligned with

their business model which could in turn have a detrimental affect upon how soci-

ety perceives the company.

There are several recommendations that could be made in order to enhance the cor-

porate social responsibility strategies. The recommendations are stated below:

· The four companies involved must try to be more proactive in their CSR

strategies.

· AG Barrs must work to publishing an actual CSR report rather than have all

the details on their website.

· Britvic should ensure that aspects of its strategy do not come into conflict with

one another.

· The Coca Cola Company must adhere to its own rules laid down in its

strategy otherwise it will be seen to not be carrying out what it preaches.

· PepsiCo should ensure that its CSR activities have a strategic fit and are in

line with its business model.

Introduction

This report outlines the corporate social responsibility strategies adopted by four

companies in the soft drinks industry; AG Barrs, Britvic, the Coca Cola Company and

PepsiCo. The report will first start with a brief introduction, a methodology followed

by the analysis, conclusion then recommendations.

It is very important to firstly begin with a definition of what is meant by corporate so-

cial responsibility (CSR). Luo and Bhattacharya (2006, p. 2) define CSR as “a com-

pany’s activities and status related to its perceived societal or stakeholder obliga-

tions.” There is however a contrast to this definition by Friedman (1970) who be-

lieved that for companies “there is one and only one social responsibility of busi-

ness–to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits.”

This point of view is very interesting as it contradicts and comes into conflict with the

definition provided by Luo and Bhattacharya (2006). Friedman (1970) believes that

the sole purpose of a company is to act in the best interests of its shareholders and

make profit for them. Whereas Luo and Bhattacharya (2006) believe that companies

have a larger role to play in the world where they must be accountable to the wider

society for their actions. This is why CSR is prevalent in todays business world. It

plays an important role today more than ever. Consumers are looking at companies

activities with a more critical magnifying glass. “When a corporation behaves in a

manner that is perceived as socially responsible, consumers are likely to infer that it

has certain desirable traits that resonate with their sense of self” (Lichtenstein, Drum-

wright and Braig, 2004). This quote further shows how consumers are interested in

companies which are socially responsible. This directly comes into conflict with

Friedman’s (1970) beliefs that only profit making is important but the above quote im-

plies that if companies lose sight of their consumers thoughts and motivations that

they will not make any profit and therefore cease to exist. This highlights CSR’s role

within the world today.

The next section of the report will outline the methodology used to analyse the four

companies.

Methodology

This section of the report will outline the methodology used to analyse the four com-

panies.

In order to be able to fully analyse the four companies, a framework for analysing

their corporate social responsibility strategies had to be developed. This was de-

veloped in class. There are three main strands of theory which were used to do this.

These were: stakeholder theory (Freeman, 1984), value chain analysis (Porter,

1985) and the pyramid of corporate social responsibility (Carroll, 1991).

This section will focus on each of the three theories and justify their inclusion in the

framework which was developed to analyse the four companies corporate social re-

sponsibility strategies. Each theory will be discussed below:

Stakeholder Theory

Stakeholder Theory was developed by Freeman (1984). The theory allows the au-

thor to identify the stakeholders involved in and around a company. This theory iden-

tified that there are different groups of stakeholders which can have an effect upon a

company’s performance. The different stakeholder groups used in the framework

were employees, customers, suppliers, shareholders, environment, community, gov-

ernment and social activist groups. These were highlighted as being the most import-

ant stakeholders to a company and ones that would have the most impact upon a

company’s activities. Therefore their inclusion in the framework is needed as they

would most definitely influence a company’s corporate social responsibility strategy.

Value Chain Analysis

The Value Chain Analysis was first introduced by Porter (1985). The Value Chain

Analysis allows for a company’s activities to be broken down and assessed. This

theory is primarily used for identifying activities in which competitive advantage could

be achieved. A company’s activities can be broken down into primary and support

activities activities. The primary activities are made up of: inbound logistics, opera-

tions, outbound logistics, marketing & sales and services. Support activities are

made up of: firm infrastructure, human resource management, technology and pro-

curement. For this report, the author has twisted the typical way in which this theory

is used. This allowed the author to use the Value Chain Analysis to identify if the four

companies corporate social responsibility strategies impacted upon the activities

highlighted above.

The Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility

This theory was developed by Carroll (1991).. “For CSR to be accepted by a con-

scientious business person, it should be framed in such a way that the entire range

of business responsibilities are embraced.” (Carroll, 1991). From Carroll’s point of

view, in order for CSR activities to be taken seriously it must include multiple busi-

ness responsibilities. The Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility is made up of

four basic levels.Carroll (1991) identified four such responsibilities which were: eco-

nomic responsibilities, legal responsibilities, ethical responsibilities, and philanthropic

responsibilities. Each of the responsibilities will be highlighted below:

· Economic responsibilities

· A company’s economic responsibilities lie in securing the long term future of

the company. This provides a strong base on which to build upon. However,

economic responsibilities are very focussed upon the profitability of the com-

pany as a company which is seen to be profitable will be thought of as being a

successful company.

· Legal responsibilities

· In essence, legal responsibilities relate to how a company obeys the laws set

down by government and the industry within it operates. Companies should

obey these laws to the letter of the law. This responsibility is required if a com-

pany’s CSR activities are to be taken seriously.

· Ethical responsibilities

· A company’s ethical responsibilities are very very important as they usually

have a wider societal impact. Companies must act in accordance with societ-

ies views and norms otherwise they run the risk of a backlash. Companies

must also consider that societies ethical norms are evolving regularly, there-

fore they must take this into consideration.This responsibility is expected if a

company’s CSR activities are to be taken seriously by the wider public.

· Philanthropic responsibilities

· A company’s philanthropic responsibilities lie in securing that society views

them as being good corporate citizens. This is located at the top of the Pyr-

amid of Corporate Social Responsibility. Such acts may include donations to

various charitable causes or by helping out in local communities. These act

are seen as desirable however not all companies are able to take engage in

philanthropic activities due to financial circumstances.

The three theories stated above provide the basis of the framework developed to

analyse the four companies corporate social responsibility strategies. The framework

developed was a spreadsheet which incorporated the three theories highlighted

above along with other informations such as financial information about the four

companies See Appendix 1 for the spreadsheet that was used to assess the four

companies.

The next section of the report will be the analysis of the four companies corporate

social responsibility strategies.

Analysis

This section of the report will analyse the four companies in the soft drinks industry;

AG Barrs, Britvic, the Coca Cola Company and PepsiCo. The analysis of each com-

pany will include certain aspects of their strategies that the author finds noteworthy

and which offers discussion. The first company to be analysed will be AG Barrs and

this will take place below:

AG Barrs

The author believes that it is important to give a brief insight into the activities of AG

Barrs. AG Barrs is a soft drinks company that was created in 1875 by Robert Barr.

Since its creation, the company had grown immensely and is the proud producer to

Irn Bru which is a very popular brand in Scotland. Irn Bru has become synonymous

with Scotland and vice versa. It is that embedded within Scottish culture.

From Appendix 1, there were several interesting aspects which were highlighted dur-

ing this process. One interesting aspect related to AG Barrs CSR activities is the

range of activities that they are associated with. AG Barrs focusses on four main

areas related to their operations. These fours strands are environment, workplace,

community and quality (Corporate Responsibility, 2010). From the authors point of

view, what AG Barrs does regarding the environment is very intriguing. AG Barrs

goals regarding environmental factors come from the the soft drinks industry's sus-

tainability strategy which was released by the British Soft Drinks Association (BDSA)

in 2008. The strategy highlights four main areas which are the focus of the strategy.

The four areas are climate change, waste and packaging, water and transport.

These four areas are what they industry deems as being pertinent and warrant atten-

tion. From AG Barrs reaction to this, they whole heartedly agreed to abide by this

strategy rather than design their own strategy. The author views this as being a re-

active strategy by AG Barrs. What they did here was follow an industry wide initiat-

ive. From the company’s website, there is a no mention of AG Barrs ambition with re-

gards to the its environmental aims, the website only highlights the industry’s ambi-

tion (Environment, 2010). Therefore, the author believes that AG Barrs environ-

mental targets are a reactive strategy and just that. They are doing what is required

of the by law. This is accordance with what Carroll (1991) identified that companies

carry out. However, in a day in age where consumers demand more from their

brands, from their companies, doing the bare minimum may not be the best option

for the future success of the company.

Another interesting aspect was highlighted when evaluating AG Barrs corporate so-

cial responsibility strategy is its involvement within the community. AG Barrs at its

heart is a local business, with deep seated roots in its community. The company

have an extensive community involvement programme. A particular highlight of their

work within the community is their partnership with Lenzie Academy. Even though

AG Barrs monetary philanthropic activities are very low. In 2008-2009, they donated

£205,000 to the community (Community, 2010). With their work with Lenzie

Academy, the employees of AG Barrs are very much involved in the project. They

dedicate their time in order to help pupils at Lenzie Academy develop. Carroll (1991)

believed that philanthropic responsibilities are a desired state. As previously men-

tioned, for smaller companies engaging in philanthropic activities can prove to be dif-

ficult. For AG Barrs however, they found a balance between monetary donations and

giving the community the opportunity to interact with employees of the company

which is far more enriching, especially for the children involved within the project.

The next company to be analysed is Britvic.

Britvic

Britvic is one of the largest suppliers of soft drinks within the UK. The have many

successful brands on their portfolio. Some of their brands include Robinsons, Fruit

Shoot, Tango and J2O. They also have exclusive right to make and sell Pepsi on be-

half of PepsiCo in the UK.

From the analysis of Britvic and its corporate social responsibility strategy, the author

was able to identify through using the Value Chain Analysis (Porter, 1985) that the

firm infrastructure with relation to the governance of the company was quite unique.

Britvic only started its corporate social responsibility strategy in 2006, not long after it

was floated on the stock exchange. Its first CSR report was for 2007/2008. From the

outset, Britvic appointed their Finance Director, John Gibney as the representative of

corporate responsibility within Britvic (Britvic plc, 2008). He was a member of the

Board of Directors within Britvic. The author believes that this shows that Britvic take

corporate social responsibility seriously. This is shown through the fact that corpor-

ate social responsibility matters can be discussed at a board room level. It has been

advocated that if CSR is to be successful and a core to the business of a company, it

must be endorsed at the highest level, that being at the Board of Directors level. For

their report in 2009, John Gibney remained the representative of corporate respons-

ibility within Britvic (Britvic plc, 2009) which further highlights their long term view of

CSR as being critical to the company’s success.

The author was able to find an aspect of Britvic’s corporate social responsibility

strategy which comes into conflict with the above view of them taking CSR seriously.

The author discovered that within Britvic’s strategy of “Increasing the efficiency of our

operations” (Britvic plc, 2009, p. 17), there is information which the author came

across before. With the case of AG Barrs utilising the strategy laid down by the

BDSA, it appears to the author that Britvic have done something very similar as they

have targets to reduce their use of water by “20% by 2020 compared to 2007 levels”

(Britvic plc, 2009, p. 17) which are highlighted in the strategy set out by the BDSA.

This means that the strategy put into place by Britvic is reactive. To the author, this

seems like the action of a company who want to be seen as doing something CSR

related but are not willing to go that step further. This in turn makes the appointment

of John Gibney as the representative of corporate responsibility within Britvic very

questionable as it unclear to the real motivations behind it.

The report will now move onto analyse the Coca Cola Company.

Coca Cola Company

The Coca Cola Company is one of the most famous soft drinks companies in the

world. It operates in 200 countries across the globe and is a major player in the soft

drinks industry. What also makes it unique, is its instantly recognisable product,

Coca Cola which sets itself out from its competition.

From the analysis of the Coca Cola Company, the author highlighted one aspect

which makes the Coca Cola Company unique. The Coca Cola Company’s overall

CSR strategy is called “Live Positively” (The Coca Cola Company, 2009, p. 12). The

name of the strategy is very unique. It gives you hope that the Coca Cola Company

can actually make a contribution to actively make people's lives better. The company

believe that they can make a positive difference in the world and their “Live Posit-

ively” strategy is how they feel they can make that difference in the world. The author

believes that the strategy they have employed has a strategic fit with the company’s

business activities. This therefore means that the public will view the company’s

activities in a positive light as they fit very closely the company's business model.

This also means that the activities undertaken by the Coca Cola Company have a

better chance of succeeding.

In order to add an objective view to all the information, the author used some blogs

to help triangulate the CSR activities of the Coca Cola Company. The author came

across an article which highlighted the Coca Cola Company’s poor treatment regard-

ing two of its key objectives in its “Live Positively” strategy. The two factors which

came under scrutiny were its environmental and workplace practices. Hoffman

(2006) highlighted a case where the University of Michigan suspended the sale of

Coca Cola products on Campus grounds as a boycott towards the Coca Cola Com-

pany’s actions abroad regarding its environmental and workplace practices. The au-

thor believes this directly violates the promise made by the Coca Cola Company to

make a positive difference in the world. Any word of them making a negative impact

upon the world will cause them to risk losing business and in the case of the Univer-

sity of Michigan that happened for a period of time but the Coca Cola Company now

must work on regaining the trust of thousands of people which can be very difficult.

The final company to be analysed is PepsiCo.

PepsiCo

PepsiCo is a very well known food and beverage company. The company works on

a

relatively similar scale to the Coca Cola Company, working in over 200 countries

around the globe. The company brands such as Frito-Lay snacks, Pepsi-Cola bever-

ages, Gatorade sports drinks, Tropicana juices and Quaker foods.

The analysis of PepsiCo highlighted potential problems with PepsiCo’s CSR activit-

ies as outlined in its corporate social responsibility strategy. Within the section re-

lated to Talent Sustainability (PepsiCo, 2008, p. 41), there is an aspect related to

HIV/AIDS and how PepsiCo engages to alleviate this potential problem. The author

dopes not feel that there is a strategic fit by carry out this philanthropic activity. It

does not fit in with the company's business model. If a pharmaceutical company

were to engage in this kind of activity for this specific cause then it may prove fruitful

however seeing as PepsiCo are a food and beverage company, there is no strategic

fit at all. The author believes that whilst the cause is a good one which should be

pursued, the author feels that it is not PepsiCo’s responsibility.

Another factor highlighted from the analysis, is a lack of strict guidelines being set

with regard to human rights within the workplace. Kalan (2010) makes the point that

“absent from this policy was any mention of a concrete international human rights

standard, such as the International Labor Organization’s core labor standards.” This

highlights that even though PepsiCo have laid down a very good programme for its

employees, it has not committed itself to adhering to a specific standard. Reasons

for this may be that it gives the company some flexibility when dealing with employ-

ees however for the general public this would not be a correct, or ethical practice.

The next section of the report will attempt to link a company’s performance to CSR

activities.

Linking performance to Corporate Social Responsibility activities

The author believes that it is difficult to link a company’s performance to CSR activit-

ies. For this, the author believes that tracking the intangible assets of each company

may allow you to gauge if CSR has impacted upon it and also by looking at external

CSR rankings to help evaluate the companies success. This can prove difficult as it

is difficult to identify if CSR activities directly impact upon financial success.

However there are certain external CSR ranking that can be used to identify if a

company’s CSR activities are perceived as being beneficial. The Coca Cola Com-

pany had a ranking of 31 and PepsiCo of 36 in the 50 U.S. Companies Ranked by

Perceived Corporate Social Responsibility (Mattis, 2008). Therefore one can assume

that they are successful companies based on their CSR activities but the report did

highlight some problems for each company so it is difficult to gauge the authenticity

of the ranking.

The next section will highlight the conclusions of the report.

Conclusions

From the report detailed above. There are several key points worth noting.

The conclusions drawn from the report are:

· Each of the four companies used reactive CSR strategies whereby the re-

acted to legislation or what competitors were doing.

· AG Barrs engaged in local community projects as they are very rooted in their

local communities.

· Britvic seemed to display that they were being very proactive in their CSR

strategy however two aspects of their strategy contradicted one another.

· The Coca Cola Company introduced their “Live Positively” strategy which was

a very good idea however their environmental and workplace practices came un-

der scrutiny which resulted in the University of Michigan boycotting their products.

· PepsiCo were engaging in philanthropic activities which were not aligned with

their business model which could in turn have a detrimental affect upon how soci-

ety perceives the company.

Recommendations

There are several recommendations that could be made in order to enhance the cor-

porate social responsibility strategies. The recommendations are stated below:

· The four companies involved must try to be more proactive in their CSR

strategies.

· AG Barrs must work to publishing an actual CSR report rather than have all

the details on their website.

· Britvic should ensure that aspects of its strategy do not come into conflict with

one another.

· The Coca Cola Company must adhere to its own rules laid down in its

strategy otherwise it will be seen to not be carrying out what it preaches.

· PepsiCo should ensure that its CSR activities have a strategic fit and are in

line with its business model.

References

British Brands Group (2010), “Brands and Responsible Business: The contribution of

brands through responsible business and a study of the developing approach to pol-

icy in partnership”, Available at:

http://www.britishbrandsgroup.org.uk/library/download/4b7c311488c63 (Accessed on

27 February 2010).

British Soft Drinks Association (2008), “A sustainable future for soft drinks: Soft

Drinks Industry Sustainability Strategy”, Available at:

http://www.britishsoftdrinks.com/PDF/020608%20BSDA%20sustainability

%20strategy%20_3_.pdf (Accessed on 19 February 2010).

Britvic plc (2008), “Corporate Responsibility Report 2007/8”, Available at:

http://www.britvic.com/PDF/Britvic_CR_Report_2007_8.pdf (Accessed on 19 Febru-

ary 2010).

Britvic plc (2009), “Corporate Responsibility Report 2009”, Available at:

http://www.britvic.com/cms/CRAssets/CR%20REPORT%202009.pdf (Accessed on

19 February 2010).

Carroll, A.B. (1991), “The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: toward the moral

management of organizational stakeholders”, Business Horizons, (Jul-Aug), pp. 39-

48.

Community (2010), Available at:

http://www.agbarr.co.uk/agbarr/newsite/ces_general.nsf/wpg/corporate_responsibilit

y-community (Accessed on 24 February 2010).

Corporate Responsibility (2010), Available at:

http://www.agbarr.co.uk/agbarr/newsite/ces_general.nsf/wpg/corporate_responsibilit

y!OpenDocument (Accessed on 24 February 2010).

Environment (2010), Available at:

http://www.agbarr.co.uk/agbarr/newsite/ces_general.nsf/wpg/corporate_responsibilit

y-environment (Accessed on 25 February 2010).

Freeman, E.R. (1984). Strategic Management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pit-

man.

Friedman, M. (1970), “The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits”,

New York Times Magazine.

Hoffman, A. (2006), “Coca-Cola learns a tough lesson about corporate sustainabil-

ity”, Available at: http://www.grist.org/article/hoffman1/ (Accessed on 22 February

2010).

Kalan, J. (2010), “Beyond the Marketing Campaign: Thinking about Corporate Social

Responsibility for the Long Term”, Available at:

http://www.causeintegration.com/2010/beyond-the-marketing-campaign-thinking-

about-corporate-social-responsibility-for-the-long-term/ (Accessed on 24 February

2010).

Lichtenstein, D.R., Drumwright, M.E. and Braig, B.M. (2004), “The Effect of CSR on

customer Donations to Corporate-Supported Nonprofits”, Journal of Marketing, Vol.

68 (October), pp. 16-32.

Luo, X. and Bhattacharya, C.B. (2007), “CSR, Customer Satisfaction, and Market

Value,” Journal of Marketing, Vol. 70 (October), pp. 1-18.

Mattis, M. (2008), “50 U.S. Companies Ranked by Perceived Corporate Social Re-

sponsibility”, Available at: http://blogs.bnet.com/ethics/?p=248 (Accessed on 24 Feb-

ruary 2010).

PepsiCo, (2008), “2007-2008 PepsiCo Corporate Sustainability Report”, Available

at: http://www.pepsico.com/Download/PEPSICO_2007_Sustainability_Report.pdf

(Accessed on 24 February 2010).

PepsiCo, (2009), “PepsiCo Corporate Citizenship Report 2008”, Available at:

http://www.pepsico.com/Download/PepsiCo_2008_Sustainability_Report.pdf (Ac-

cessed on 24 February 2010).

Porter, M.E. (1985), Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Per-

formance, New York: Free Press.

The Coca Cola Company (2009), “2008/2009 Sustainability Review”, Available at:

http://www.thecoca-colacompany.com/citizenship/pdf 2008-2009_sustainability_re-

view.pdf (Accessed on 24 February 2010).

Appendix

AG Barrs BritvicCoca Cola Com-

pany PepsiCoName of company(rate all item on 5-point scales, 1 being the lowest)Useful Benefit (what is it directed towards) 3 3 4 4Mission Statement 1 3 4 4Stakeholders (Overall Assessment) 3 3 4 4Employees 3 3 3 3Customers 2 3 3 3Suppliers 2 4 3 3Shareholders 4 4 4 4Environment 4 4 4 4Community 4 2 4 4Government 2 2 2 2Social Activist Groups 1 2 2 2Primary Activities (Overall Assessment) 3 3 3 3Transport (Inbound Logistics) 4 4 3 4Materials N/A N/A N/A N/AParts from Suppliers N/A N/A N/A N/AEthical Practice Towards Suppliers 3 4 3 3Energy 3 3 3 3Efficiency 3 3 3 3Waste Management 3 3 3 3Ethical Production Practice N/A N/A N/A N/A

Transport (Outbound Logistics - Distribution) 4 4 4 3Packaging 4 4 4 4PR / Advertising 2 2 4 4Privacy, Confidentiality, Ethics in Market Re-search N/A N/A N/A N/APricing Practice N/A N/A N/A N/AEthical Selling Practice N/A N/A N/A N/AConsumer Information 3 3 3 3Feedback 2 2 2 2Lifecylce Management of Products N/A N/A N/A N/ASupport Activities (Overall Assessment) 3 3 3 3

R&D - Product / Service Innovation (If the product itself as well as the process of making & disposing the product is Eco-friendly) 4 3 3 3External Links (Universities, Research Insti-tutes) 2 2 2 2Ethical Research Practice / Product Testing 2 2 2 2Transparency, Code of Conduct 3 3 3 3Financial Reporting, Accounting Standards 4 4 4 4Lobbying 1 1 1 1Governance 2 4 2 4Employee Welfare & Benefits (e.g. Insurance, Social Benefits, etc.) 4 4 4 4Health & Safety Issues 4 4 4 4Training Opportunities 4 4 4 4Policy towards Lay-Offs N/A N/A N/A N/ADiversity 3 3 3 3Economic Responsibility 4 4 4 4Legal Responsibility 3 3 3 3Ethical & Environmental Responsibility 3 3 3 3Philanthropy 2 2 4 4(1) Proactive … (5) Reactive CSR Strategy 5 5 5 5Time Horizon (1) Short Term … (5) Long Term 5 5 5 5Geographic Focus: (1) Local … (5) Global 1 5 5 5Strategic Fit: 1= perfect fit … 5=total misfit 1 1 1 1

(rate on 10-point scales, 1 being the lowest)Overall Impression of CSR Activities 5 6 7 7

Annual Sales (2008 year) 148.38 (£m) 926.5 (3m) 31,944 ($m)

43,251 ($m)

Annual Sales (2009 year) 169,69 (£m) 978.8 (£m) N/A N/A

EBIT 2008 (=Earnings Before Interest and Tax)

72,309 (£m) 500.4 (£m) 20,570 ($m)

EBIT 200984,736 (£m) 527.9 (£m) N/A N/A

Stock Price (1.1.2009) £12.95 £2.63 $45.90 $55.97Stock Price (1.1.2010) £9.01 £4.08 $54.38 $61.24Stock Price (1.3.2010) £8.46 £4.40 $53.27 $63.13