European Private Sector Ranking for 2011-2014

Executive Summary | 5 Year Research

Introduction

The European Private Sector Ranking is a five-year project conducted by the Academy for Cultural Diplomacy, which is the academic arm of the Institute for Cultural Diplomacy. The research aims to evaluate the involvement and engagement of European private sector corporations in the field of cultural diplomacy over the course of the last five years.

The purpose of the ranking is to raise awareness of the engagement of corporations in the field of cultural diplomacy and by doing so to inspire further engagement of the private sector corporations in the field.

Research Design

The European private sector ranking outlines corporate involvement in the field of cultural diplomacy as described by the corporations themselves. Corporations are ranked in accordance with the methodology, which is designed to qualitatively assess the corporations’ policies and direct actions in the field of corporate cultural diplomacy. The methodology takes into account a number of activities, projects, and co-operations in order to evaluate how and to what extent the selected corporations are engaged in cultural diplomacy.

Concept definitions

A scoring system has been developed in order to help quantify those qualitative judgments for the purpose of more finely judging whether or not a corporation has improved from year to year.

Cultural Diplomacy is defined by the Institute for Cultural Diplomacy as:

“ Cultural Diplomacy may best be described as a course of actions, which are based on and utilize the exchange of ideas, values, traditions and other aspects of culture or identity, whether to strengthen relationships, enhance socio-cultural cooperation or promote national interests; Cultural diplomacy can be practiced by either the public sector, private sector or civil society.”

Corporate Cultural Diplomacy is defined by the Institute for Cultural Diplomacy as:

“ Corporate Cultural Diplomacy (CCD) activities are privately funded programs that encourage the exchange of cultural practices and values; ultimately promoting inter-cultural dialogue and respect. Corporate Cultural Diplomacy activities cover a wide spectrum of diverse fields and stakeholders. Examples of corporations engaging in CCD activities include intercultural exchange programs and activities in the fields of: education, art, sports, music, film and academic and scientific research.”

Research Design

The European private sector ranking outlines corporate involvement in the field of cultural diplomacy as described by the corporations themselves. Corporations are ranked in accordance with the methodology, which is designed to qualitatively assess the corporations’ policies and direct actions in the field of corporate cultural diplomacy. The methodology takes into account a number of activities, projects, and co-operations in order to evaluate how and to what extent the selected corporations are engaged in cultural diplomacy.

Concept definitions

A scoring system has been developed in order to help quantify those qualitative judgments for the purpose of more finely judging whether or not a corporation has improved from year to year.

Cultural Diplomacy is defined by the Institute for Cultural Diplomacy as:

“ Cultural Diplomacy may best be described as a course of actions, which are based on and utilize the exchange of ideas, values, traditions and other aspects of culture or identity, whether to strengthen relationships, enhance socio-cultural cooperation or promote national interests; Cultural diplomacy can be practiced by either the public sector, private sector or civil society.”

Corporate Cultural Diplomacy is defined by the Institute for Cultural Diplomacy as:

“ Corporate Cultural Diplomacy (CCD) activities are privately funded programs that encourage the exchange of cultural practices and values; ultimately promoting inter-cultural dialogue and respect. Corporate Cultural Diplomacy activities cover a wide spectrum of diverse fields and stakeholders. Examples of corporations engaging in CCD activities include intercultural exchange programs and activities in the fields of: education, art, sports, music, film and academic and scientific research.”

Methodology

The European Private Sector Ranking outlines corporate involvement in the field of cultural diplomacy. The methodology takes into account a number of activities and projects in order to evaluate how and to what extent the selected corporations are engaged in cultural diplomacy. A scoring system has been developed in order to help quantify these activities for the purpose of more finely judging whether or not a corporation has improved from year to year.

For the creation of the Corporate Cultural Diplomacy European Private Sector Ranking, the following stages formed the methodology used for the analysis:

  • Stage One - Corporation Selection Methods

The first stage consisted of defining the 10 biggest sectors within the European private sector. Within these sectors, primary research was conducted to identify the 100 biggest corporations in the European private sector, based on their market value. The 10 biggest corporations from every sector were selected for this research based on the 2013 financial times ranking of the top 500 corporations in Europe based on market value i.

  • Stage Two – Parameter Setting

The second stage consisted of setting parameters for the research to be conducted. The research was conducted by evaluating two areas of interest, a weighting of 30% was given to existing corporation policies and 70% given to corporations’ corporate cultural diplomacy activities. Various sub-categories formed the assessment for each section. Each sub-category used a scoring system in which a corporation was awarded a score of 0, 0.5 or 1 and the sum of these gave a total score for each section. Only the last sub-category used a scoring system of which awarded a score of 0.5 or 1.

  • Stage Three – Research and Parameter Application

In the third stage, data was collected from the official websites of each corporation and the predetermined parameters were applied. The scores from each subsection were accumulated and the scores from both sections were calculated with respect to the 30% / 70% weighting. This provided an overall score for each corporation.

  • Stage Four – Ratio Calculation and Grading

The fourth step involved converting the scores into a ratio and categorizing each corporation score into the United States grading scale system, which ranges from A to F based on each corporation’s calculated ratio. With these scores it was possible to construct a ranking of the top 100 European corporations, per sector, per country and for all the corporations separately.

Each of these stages is described in detail below.

Sector Selection

The sector selection process first required the identification of ten influential European industries. In some cases, sector categories cover a wide range of markets so as not to exclude important areas of commerce. These categories were constructed using the Financial Times ‘Top 500 European Corporations Ranking’ and are as follows:

  • Automobiles and Parts (Including: Automotive Manufacturing, Vehicle Electronics, Equipment, Manufacturing and Service)
  • Banking (Including: Financial and Insurance Services, Investment Banking, Private Equity, Investment and Wealth Management)
  • Electronics and Information Technology (Including: Software and Computer Services, Industrial Engineering, Electronic and Electrical Equipment, Industrial Transportation, and Technology Hardware and Equipment)
  • Energy & Utilities (Including: Electricity and Gas, Water & Multi-utilities)
  • Pharmaceuticals and Chemicals (Including: Diagnostic Imaging, General and Specialty Medicines, Diabetes Care and Plant Biotechnology)
  • Mining (Including: Industrial Metals)
  • Oil and Gas (Including: Petroleum, Natural Gas, Motor fuels, other Petrochemicals and Convenience Stores)
  • Retail (Including: Personal Goods, Food & Drug Retail, and General Retail)
  • Telecommunications (Including: Fixed-line and Mobile)
  • Tobacco, Food Producers and Beverages (Including: Food processing, Consumer Goods and Beverages)

Corporation Selection

For each year the ten largest corporations included in the Financial Times Global 500 ranking were then selected from each of the ten sectors, giving 100 corporations for each year. It is important to note that the Financial Times Global 500 ranking changed each year, therefore the corporations selected for this research also changed – i.e. some corporations appear all five years in the study while others appear in this study only once.

Some of the sectors in this report are a combination of selected industries on the Financial Times list. In the cases where industries were combined from the Financial Times list the top ten corporations were then selected from those combined lists.

Market value was chosen as the indicator of size, and therefore used to determine how large a corporation is. Aside from market value, the corporation also had to be listed on one of the Europe-based stock exchanges

Parameter Setting

In order to assess a corporation’s involvement in cultural diplomacy, a set of defining categories was developed to gauge each individual corporation’s involvement. The research was conducted by evaluating two areas of interest, existing corporation policies and cultural diplomacy activities, weighted 30% and 70% respectively. The 30% weighting was given to corporation policy, as this is only a statement of intent from a corporation, rather than definite action. Therefore, direct corporation involvement was weighted at 70%, as this shows actual engagement in cultural diplomacy

Corporation Policy (30%)

Employee Diversity

One of the fundamentals of cultural diplomacy is bringing those from different backgrounds together; this is the principle behind promoting diversity in the workplace. A diverse workforce acts a melting pot for cultures and ideas. These are the types of environments in which cultural diplomacy can thrive. Secondly, diversity in the work place is a reflection of that corporation’s openness to the idea of cultural diplomacy.

Four questions were asked in order to measure a corporation’s commitment to diversity in the workplace. Representation, recruitment, retention, and diversity training were selected as the four central themes representative of diversity.

  • Can the corporation provide evidence that its employee makeup reflects that of the local area surrounding its headquarters?
  • Are positions in the corporation advertised in such a way to attract a diverse range of applicants?
  • Can the corporation provide data on the retention rate of its employees, particularly in relation to that of employees of minority groups?
  • Does the corporation possess a stated commitment to diversity training?

The measurement of this parameter was based on the amount of importance corporations placed on diversity. If corporations participated in programs that encouraged employee diversity, or if they had a Human Resources department dedicated to diversity at the corporation, they got 1 point. If no such department or commitment was apparent, they were awarded 0 points.

International Internship Program

International internship programs are a useful insight into how much a corporation is interested in encouraging international employment mobility while at the same time allowing people to work in a multinational and multicultural environment. Four questions are posed in order to gauge the quality of a corporation’s internship program by way of its contribution to cultural diplomacy.

  • Does the corporation possess and internship program?
  • To what extent does the corporation make an effort to bring non-natives to their corporation headquarters or other national branches?
  • What efforts does the corporation make or have in place in order to help those living abroad come and intern at their corporation?
  • Can the corporation provide examples of specific programs designed to share the diverse range of cultures represented by their interns?

Corporations received 1 point if they offered international internship programs, and 0 if they did not.

Transnationalism

Transnationalism includes activities that transcend national boundaries. Corporations will be awarded points for operating and producing in countries outside of the country at which they are headquartered. Two elements were used to gauge a corporation’s degree of transnational activity.

  • Does the corporation sell its products abroad?
  • Are any products produced abroad?

Transnationalism is an indirect facilitator of cultural diplomacy due to its inherent ability to put people into contact from with other people from different nations and cultures.

This parameter measured whether or not a corporation has international branches. Corporations gained 1 point if they had branches worldwide, 0.5 if they had several branches within Europe, and 0 if they had none outside the country in which their headquarters are located.

Promoting Human Rights / Civil Rights

Four elements were used to measure a corporation’s engagement with the promotion of human and civil rights.

  • Does the corporation possess a stated commitment to human and civil rights?
  • A stated commitment to fair trade?
  • Any involvement with charities in the realm of human rights?
  • Can specific examples be provided showcasing a commitment to human rights?

This parameter measured how corporation policies encourage or protect human & civil rights. If corporations have programs, charts or codes of conduct that are in favor of these two issues they received 1 point, 0.5 points were awarded if they addressed just one of these areas and 0 if they did not address either of these areas.

Direct Corporation Involvement in Cultural Diplomacy (70%)

In order to assess each corporation’s involvement in cultural diplomacy, a set of defining categories along with their defining elements had to be developed in order to gauge involvement. The categories are detailed below.

These categories were chosen and developed as a means to qualitatively measure a corporation’s involvement in cultural diplomacy for the following reasons:

  • The categories represent a way of directly engaging in cultural diplomacy. For example, the sponsorship of musical events at multicultural venues
  • The categories represent a way of indirectly encouraging intercultural exchange through the bringing together of people from many different cultures
  • The categories represent activities which corporations are either known to engage in or are reasonably capable of engaging in

Research into whether or not corporations satisfied the defining elements of each category was conducted through open source online research as well as direct contact with the corporations through both phone and email.

It is important to note, adjustments were made to the scoring criteria to adapt to changing forces in the corporate private sector. For practical reasons the years are always noted in brackets next to the parameter. The slightly different parameters used affected the layout of the final corporation profiles. Therefore priority was given to the most recent research conducted, from 2104.

Cultural Exchange Programs. 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

Cultural exchange events represent one of the most effective ways corporations can engage in CD; such an event is one of the clearest and most direct examples of CD, it is an act that directly brings the culture of one party to another for the purpose of exchange. Once again taking into account Milton Cummings definition of cultural diplomacy into account,

Cultural diplomacy may therefore best be described as the initiation or facilitation of the exchange of ideas, values, traditions and other aspects of culture or identity, whether they promote national interests, build relationships or enhance socio-cultural understanding.”

It is possible to see how cultural exchange events are ideal platforms for corporations to engage directly in cultural diplomacy.

The benefits for both businesses and society are clear; businesses will find that by bringing their home culture to the areas in which they operate, they build trust and understanding which in turn forms the foundation for long and healthy businesses relations. Further, this cultural transparency leads to a healthier relationship with the public and contributes to the corporation’s positive corporate image.

The elements of the cultural exchange program category are defined by the following questions that place art, language, and traditions at the center of its definition:

  • Does the corporation display a commitment to organizing events that bring art from their home country abroad? E.g. Fiat organizes Italian art exhibitions in their London dealerships
  • Is there a commitment to organizing events that bring their language abroad?
  • Is there a commitment to organizing event that brings their traditions abroad?

Active Engagement with Cultural Events. 2012 (1 point if engaged in cultural events, 0 points if not)

Music, Visual Arts, Film Industry, Sporting Events. 2014, 2013, 2011 (0 points awarded if there was no involvement, 0.5 if a corporation cooperates with another on the project or, 1 if it was the corporation’s own initiative)

In 2012 four separate categories (Music, Visual Arts, Film, Sporting Events) were amalgamated under the broader umbrella of Engagement with Cultural Events. However the definition and reasoning behind this sector stayed the same.

A cultural event is an event that promotes and creates access to one or many cultures. In a similar way to cultural exchange events, cultural events act as a showcase for culture. The principle difference between cultural exchange programs and cultural events is that the purpose of exchange programs is to bring the culture of the corporation’s home country abroad, whereas the focus of cultural events is placed in promoting the sharing of any culture. These types of events provide a platform for cross-cultural exchange, which in turn creates opportunities for cultural diplomacy and strengthens its effectiveness.

The facilitation of exchange is hugely important in building trust and understanding between cultures. The more knowledge that one can learn about a particular culture the less likely they are to subject that culture to prejudices. Businesses benefit from the greater awareness generated by organizing such events, both in terms of profit and a greater awareness of the various cultures which comprise their target market.

The following four questions were asked of corporations and were deemed to holistically represent the category of cultural events.

  • Is the corporation involved with musical events? For example E.On are official sponsors of the Ruhr Piano Festival
  • Is the corporation involved with film events?
  • Is the corporation involved with sports events?
  • Is the corporation involved with art events?

Co-operation with Universities. 2014, 2012, 2011(1 point if invested in academic collaboration, 0 points if not)

An (international) academic partnership is a partnership that creates interaction and dialogue between cultures allowing ideas, perspectives and attitudes to be shared in the realm of academia.

  • Does the corporation collaborate with a University outside of its home country?
  • Does the corporation grant scholarships to international students?

Grants & Scholarships 2014, 2013, 2011 (1 point if provided, 0 if not)

Grants and scholarships are considered as a financial aid for education recipients of academes, which do not have to be paid back. A grants characteristic is, that it is need-based (the individual who receives the grant needs this in order to be able to participate in education) whereas a scholarship as usually merit-based (the individual who receives the scholarship does not necessarily need it but deserve it through outstanding performance).

Humanitarian Aid 2014, 2013, 2011 (0 if there was no involvement in humanitarian aid, 1 point if the corporation has a program focusing on humanitarian aid or attributes funds accordingly)

Humanitarian aid is understood as a response to humanitarian crises, which include natural disaster as well as man-made disasters. Humanitarian Aid is achieved through the providence of material and logistical assistance for people in need. To define humanitarian aid more precisely it needs to be distinguished from development aid. Humanitarian aid covers sudden disasters, whereas development aid supports the development of a constant situation in order to be improved. In the EU humanitarian aid covers among others, areas such as: nutrition, healthcare and sanitation as well as shelter.

Extra activities in the field of corporate cultural diplomacy 2013 (0.5 or 1 point, depending on the amount and importance of the activities.)

This was included to award corporations that put extra effort into their cultural diplomacy projects, outside of the previous parameters. This was only included as a parameter in 2013. There was no 0 score given as to not devaluate a corporation on this value.

Corporate Responsibility & Sustainability Performance 2014

This category was added in 2014 in order to update the assessment criteria, as sustainability has become a much more pressing issue in recent years. Nowadays almost all corporations have corporate social responsibility departments for promote sustainability and corporate social responsibility practices. Corporate Social Responsibility is an essential topic in terms of corporate cultural diplomacy and should not be overlooked. In this sector 0 points were awarded if the corporation does not address corporate responsibility and sustainability, 0.5 points if the corporation reports and addresses its environmental responsibility; for example, an annual CSR report, 1 point if a corporation reports and addresses its environmental responsibility as well as produce products/services with the commitment to reducing its carbon footprint)

Scoring

Corporations scored points by providing evidence that they have fulfilled the defined category criteria, within the aforementioned parameters from the Corporation Policy and Direct Corporation Involvement subdivisions. After calculating the individual score for both Corporation Policy and Direct Corporation Involvement sectors, the scores are multiplied by 0.3 and 0.7 respectively, to give them their correct weighting (As Corporation Policy was worth 30% of the score and Direct Corporation Involvement 70%). These numbers were then added to create the total score. The maximum score was 6.8 in 2011 and 2013, 3.3 in 2012, and 7.5 in 2014. Upon calculating a total score, the corporation score was then compared to the potential maximum score, which gave us a quotient. For every corporation the final quotient was rounded to two decimals. This enabled the comparison of individual corporations.

The following mechanism was employed for calculating this quotient. Upon receiving its total score (named as ‘indicator’), the corporation in question would be subsequently compared with the potential maximum score.

Example:

Corporation’s indicator amounts to 5.5

Maximum indicator for the research amounts to 7.5

5.5 ÷ 7.5 = 0.73333

For every corporation the final score was rounded to 2 decimals to correspond with the score table found below. This example amounts to a quotient of D (0.73), out of a possible 1.

Grade

Score Needed

A+

1.00

A

0.96 - 0.99

B

0.90 - 0.95

C

0.80 - 0.89

D

0.70 - 0.79

E

0.60 - 0.69

F

0.59

Grading

The last step in the assessment process was to allocate a grade to the ratio of each corporation. This is done for the sake of clarity and the ability to more clearly make year-over-year comparisons. According to their ratio, every corporation received a grade showing the extent to which that corporation was involved in cultural diplomacy. As the research included checking relatively basic activities and features of corporations it was assumed that every corporation should achieve a quotient of at least 0.59 - this would translate as a minimum level of involvement, and therefore a grade F. Grade A+ was awarded to corporations that met 100% of the research requirements, which is to say that the corporation received the maximum amount of points on every parameter. The whole grading mechanism is presented in the table in the left.

The grading system may seem demanding; however, by taking into consideration the financial possibilities of the ranked corporations in this research, as well as the relatively basic criteria of the assessment, it shows real efforts of corporations in promoting and investing in cultural diplomacy.

Barriers to Research

This research, although unique in its field, faced challenges from the same kinds of barriers that present themselves in any primary research initiatives. This section acknowledges these issues and tries to explain how they were dealt with and addressed in order to uphold the simplicity, transparency and reliability of data that this research advocates.

The most frequent and extensive barrier that emerged during this research was the potential inconsistency in the analysis of corporations regarding their involvement in cultural diplomacy. As some corporations had very little to report about their cultural engagement on their official websites, it was extremely difficult, from a research perspective, to determine whether this was a reflection of a low level of engagement, poor reporting, or a PR exercise coming from the corporation. However, due to the academic principles of this research project, guaranteeing consistency, comparability and reliability in the data was crucial. The information contained in official websites, Annual Reports, and other official corporate documents was triangulated and complemented, and additional information was available on the web, with independent articles and websites. However, if a corporation failed to adequately report their involvement in cultural diplomacy on their website or official documents, they would not receive points in that category. Similarly, when data was inaccessible due to copyright restrictions, or not published due to a lack of obligation to report within the private sector, the researchers were forced to withhold points.

Another limitation to the research was represented by a lack of in-depth information. Due to the sheer breadth of the research (covering 100 globally renowned corporations based across Europe) and sensitive to the necessity for timeliness and a fair amount of research for each corporation, limiting research to online sources seemed to align closely with the principles of the project. This similarity helped to ensure consistency among the data sourced by the different researchers on the project. Equally, corporations such as Unilever, Porsche, Heineken International or BP all have an important number of recognizable brands and commercial formats within their overall corporation and, as such, these brands were often involved in various initiatives independently. This also proved problematic within the research process, as it was not always immediately obvious when smaller brands were part of an umbrella organization, and consequently, made it more complex to track the Corporate Cultural Diplomacy activity of those brands. These barriers embody the fundamental difficulty in assessing the private sector. Information, figures and details are not as easily accessible nor are they as transparent in the private sector as they are in the public sector and there is no obligation for corporations to publish information over and above financial performance figures. It is for this reason that the indicators used by the researchers to assess individual corporation involvement were both broad and transparent in order to be able to include and award points based on the activities that were reported. The sections within the indicator were wide-ranging and one would expect corporations of such size to address or to be involved in diverse projects regarding cultural diplomacy.

This research’s commitment to clarity and simplicity also yielded difficulties. In awarding points for involvement in sporting events or for the investing in music category, for example, a corporation which sponsors a major sporting event could be awarded as many points as a corporation who donates money to small local initiatives, such as a reduced number of employees running the marathon or carrying out some volunteering activity for the corporation. This is why we introduced the 0, 0.5, or 1 point scoring system, meaning that the researchers could gauge involvement and attribute a 0.5 or 1 accordingly. This method enabled corporations to be treated more equally. If one corporation only invested in a sporting event, it received 0.5; if another corporation only invested in a music festival, it also received 0.5, whereas if a corporation organized and funded a sporting event or a music festival independently, it received 1 point. This way of awarding points not only distinguished their involvement in individual activities, but also affected their overall ranking from A - F. This established a clear distinction between a corporation that used its own initiative to promote cultural diplomacy and a corporation that only helped with the promotion or sponsorship in an auxiliary capacity.

Methodological Modifications

The way in which business sectors and corporations have been selected for research has been kept constant for each year. Each business sector and the corporations that fall under them have been taken from the Financial Times ‘Top 500 European Ranking. However, as this list is constantly changed and updated, some corporations were only researched for one year, while others have been present for all five years.

In 2012 the methodology employed was slightly modified, however it was soon made apparent that the previous methodology provided fuller and less biased research results. Therefore the methodology from 2013 and 2014 was based on the 2011 outline. The changes made to the 2012 methodology are outlined below.



Adjustments in the scoring process were made in 2012’s report. The main change was that four categories from the previous year (Music, Visual Arts, Film and Sporting Events) were amalgamated into one larger general category, Active Engagement With Cultural Events. This meant that there were seven categories, rather than the 13 for each other year. This change was made in an attempt to make the awarding of points more streamlined and more precise in relation to the degree of involvement from the previous research method. However, this change was felt to be too restrictive and led to skewed results, as each category then had a greater overall weighting. This means that the scoring for 2012 is slightly out of line compared to the other years, however it provides a good general overview nonetheless.

A further change was the decision to do away with distinguishing between existing corporation policies and a corporation’s cultural diplomacy actions and awarding points in accordance with that distinction. In 2011, 2013, and 2014 a corporation’s existing policies could earn them a maximum of up to 30% of their total score with a corporation’s cultural diplomacy actions taking the remaining 70%. In 2012 no such distinction was made.

In addition, in 2012 the report excluded corporations located in European countries that were not EU members. However, it was soon realized that this was too obstructive and therefore this criteria was discarded in the other years.

Though there were some changes made during the years, overall the ideas and practices central to the idea of corporate cultural diplomacy and those used to assess a corporation’s involvement in CCD changed little during the course of the research.

Total Corporation Ranking

Table A gives the main overview of all the Corporations, which have been listed in the period of 2011-14. Since not every corporation has been listed in every year, the number of corporations is higher than the initial Top 100 corporations after the Financial Times Ranking. The first column includes the corporation’s name, followed by their sector and the corporation’s average grade. The Average grade consists of the mean of the grades the corporation achieved in the particular years it is listed. Column four to seven shows the grades that each corporation achieved in the particular year



Table A. Total corporation Ranking 2011 - 2014
Company Sector Grade & Average Grade & Average 2014 Grade & Average 2013 Grade & Average 2012 Grade & Average 2011

Deutsche Bank

Banking

A+ (1.00)

Not Listed

Not Listed

A+ (1.00)

A+ (1.00)

Rio Tinto Group

Mining

A (0.96)

A+ (1.00)

B (0.95)

C (0.89)

A+ (1.00)

Intesa Sanpaulo

Banking

B (0.95)

Not Listed

Not Listed

B (0.95)

Not Listed

Peugeot

Automobiles

B (0.93)

Not Listed

Not Listed

B (0.91)

B (0.94)

Xstrata

Mining

B (0.93)

Not Listed

A+ (1.00)

Not Listed

C (0.85)

Telenor

Telecommunications

B (0.92)

B (0.91)

B (0.90)

Not Listed

B (0.95)

BP plc

Oil and Gas

B (0.91)

C (0.83)

B (0.90)

B (0.91)

A+ (1.00)

Gazprom

Oil and Gas

B (0.91)

A (0.96)

C (0.89)

Not Listed

C (0.88)

Belgacom

Telecommunications

B (0.91)

Not Listed

Not Listed

B (0.91)

Not Listed

Bayer

Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals

B (0.91)

B (0.91)

B (0.90)

A+ (1.00)

B (0.90)

Repsol

Oil and Gas

B (0.90)

C (0.83)

Not Listed

A (0.97)

Not Listed

BMW AG

Automobiles

B (0.90)

B (0.95)

B (0.90)

C (0.89)

C (0.85)

Glencore International

Mining

C (0.89)

Not Listed

Not Listed

C (0.89)

Not Listed

Adidas

Retail

C (0.89)

Not Listed

Not Listed

C (0.89)

Not Listed

AB Volvo

Electronics & I.T.

C (0.88)

E (0. 68)

B (0.95)

A+ (1.00)

B (0.90)

Mal Magyar

Oil and Gas

C (0.88)

Not Listed

Not Listed

C (0.88)

Not Listed

Glencore Xstrata

Mining

C (0.88)

C (0.81)

B (0.95)

Not Listed

Not Listed

Vodafone Group

Telecommunications

C (0.88)

C (0.86)

C (0.85)

C (0.89)

B (0.90)

NESTLE

Tobacco, Food & Drinks

C (0.87)

B (0.95)

D (0.79)

Not Listed

C (0.88)

ArcelorMittal

Mining

C (0.87)

C (0.81)

Not Listed

C (0.89)

B (0.90)

Volkswagen

Automobiles

C (0.86)

C (0.86)

C (0.85)

C (0.89)

C (0.85)

Telefonica Group

Telecommunications

C (0.86)

B (0.91)

B (0.90)

D (0.79)

C (0.85)

Porsche

Automobiles

C (0.86)

C (0.86)

C (0.82)

C (0.89)

C (0.86)

GlaxoSmithKline

Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals

C (0.85)

C (0.81)

E (0. 69)

D (0.79)

C (0.89)

Daimler

Automobiles

C (0.85)

C (0.86)

C (0.85)

D (0.79)

B (0.90)

KGHM Polska Miedź S.A.

Mining

C (0.85)

Not Listed

Not Listed

C (0.85)

Not Listed

Orange

Telecommunications

C (0.85)

C (0.86)

D (0.79)

C (0.89)

C (0.85)

RWE

Energy & Utilities

C (0.84)

D (0.77)

D (0.74)

B (0.91)

B (0.95)

Royal Dutch Shell

Oil and Gas

C (0.84)

C (0.87)

C (0.85)

C (0.88)

D (0.74)

Deutsche Telecom

Telecommunications

C (0.84)

C (0.86)

B (0.90)

C (0.89)

E (0. 69)

Telecom Italia

Telecommunications

C (0.83)

C (0.81)

Not Listed

C (0.88)

D (0.79)

FIAT S.p.A.

Automobiles

C (0.83)

C (0.81)

D (0.74)

C (0.89)

C (0.86)

HSBC Holdings

Banking

C (0.82)

D (0.72)

E (0. 64)

A+ (1.00)

B (0.93)

Eni S.p.A.

Oil and Gas

C (0.81)

A (0.96)

A+ (1.00)

D (0.70)

F (0.59)

Renault S.A.

Automobiles

C (0.81)

C (0.81)

D (0.79)

D (0.79)

C (0.85)

Total

Oil and Gas

C (0.81)

D (0.77)

C (0.89)

C (0.82)

D (0.75)

Deutsche Post

Electronics & I.T.

C (0.81)

C (0.86)

E (0. 69)

C (0.89)

D (0.79)

Swisscom

Telecommunications

C (0.81)

C (0.81)

C (0.84)

Not Listed

D (0.77)

Standard Chartered

Banking

D (0.79)

Not Listed

D (0.79)

D (0.79)

D (0.79)

Tele 2

Telecommunications

D (0.79)

Not Listed

Not Listed

D (0.79)

Not Listed

Philips Electronics

Electronics & I.T.

D (0.79)

Not Listed

D (0.79)

Not Listed

Not Listed

Metro

Retail

D (0.79)

Not Listed

Not Listed

Not Listed

D (0.79)

Allianz

Banking

D (0.78)

E (0. 68)

B (0.90)

Not Listed

D (0.77)

Nokia

Electronics & I.T.

D (0.77)

F (0.53)

Not Listed

A+ (1.00)

D (0.79)

Anglo American

Mining

D (0.77)

D (0.77)

E (0. 69)

C (0.89)

D (0.74)

BHP Billiton

Mining

D (0.77)

C (0.81)

E (0. 69)

C (0.89)

D (0.70)

Roche

Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals

D (0.77)

D (0.77)

E (0. 64)

Not Listed

D (0.77)

Gas Natural

Energy & Utilities

D (0.77)

D (0.77)

Not Listed

Not Listed

Not Listed

LVMH

Retail

D (0.77)

F (0.59)

F (0.59)

A+ (1.00)

B (0.90)

Lukoil

Oil and Gas

D (0.76)

C (0.81)

E (0.69)

Not Listed

D (0.79)

L’OREAL

Retail

D (0.76)

D (0.77)

F (0.58)

B (0.90)

D (0.79)

BNP Paribas

Banking

D (0.76)

E (0. 67)

D (0.79)

C (0.89)

E (0. 67)

Santander

Banking

D (0.75)

D (0.72)

D (0.74)

D (0.74)

C (0.80)

IBERDROLA

Energy & Utilities

D (0.74)

E (0. 68)

C (0.85)

D (0.70)

D (0.72)

BBVA

Banking

D (0.73)

C (0.86)

D (0.79)

D (0.79)

F (0.49)

Tenaris

Mining

D (0.73)

E (0. 61)

Not Listed

C (0.85)

Not Listed

Basf

Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals

D (0.73)

D (0.77)

E (0. 69)

D (0.79)

E (0.69)

AstraZeneca

Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals

D (0.73)

C (0.86)

D (0.74)

C (0.89)

F (0.59)

EDF

Energy & Utilities

D (0.73)

E (0.67)

E (0.69)

D (0.79)

D (0.75)

Michelin

Automobiles

D (0.72)

D (0.72)

E (0.69)

D (0.79)

E (0.69)

Statoil

Oil and Gas

D (0.72)

D (0.76)

D (0.75)

Not Listed

E (0.65)

Linde

Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals

D (0.72)

D (0.72)

Not Listed

E (0. 64)

Not Listed

INDITEX Group

Retail

D (0.72)

E (0.68)

E (0.65)

D (0.79)

D (0.74)

BG Group plc

Oil and Gas

D (0.72)

E (0. 63)

E (0.69)

D (0.74)

C (0.80)

UBS

Banking

D (0.71)

C (0.82)

E (0.68)

Not Listed

E (0. 62)

Sanofi

Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals

D (0.70)

C (0.81)

E (0.69)

C (0.89)

F (0.59)

UNILEVER

Tobacco, Food & Drinks

D (0.70)

D (0.72)

E (0.69)

E (0.68)

D (0.70)

Barclays

Banking

E (0.69)

E (0. 63)

F (0.59)

C (0.85)

Not Listed

PPR

Retail

E (0.68)

Not Listed

Not Listed

E (0.68)

Not Listed

Nordea Bank

Banking

E (0.68)

F (0.57)

Not Listed

D (0.79)

Not Listed

EON

Energy & Utilities

E (0.68)

F (0.37)

F (0.41)

B (0.95)

A (0.98)

Tullow Oil

Oil and Gas

E (0.67)

Not Listed

Not Listed

E (0.67)

Not Listed

Telia Sonera

Telecommunications

E (0.67)

E (0.67)

F (0.48)

C (0.89)

E (0.64)

HEINEKEN

Tobacco, Food & Drinks

E (0.67)

D (0.72)

D (0.79)

F (0.58)

F (0.59)

BT Group

Telecommunications

E (0.66)

F (0.58)

F (0.54)

E (0. 68)

C (0.84)

Fresnillo plc

Mining

E (0.66)

F (0.56)

F (0.57)

C (0.85)

Not Listed

Syngenta

Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals

E (0.66)

Not Listed

E (0.64)

Not Listed

E (0. 66)

Hermès International

Retail

E (0.66)

Not Listed

F (0.54)

D (0.74)

D (0.70)

Lloyds Banking Group

Banking

E (0.65)

F (0.49)

F (0.59)

D (0.79)

D (0.74)

Luxottica

Retail

E (0.64)

F (0.49)

E (0.65)

D (0.79)

Not Listed

ENEL

Energy & Utilities

E (0.64)

E (0.67)

D (0.74)

D (0.79)

F (0.37)

Sberbank of Russia

Banking

E (0.64)

Not Listed

F (0.43)

Not Listed

C (0.85)

DANONE

Tobacco, Food & Drinks

E (0.64)

E (0.67)

F (0.51)

E (0. 68)

E (0.69)

GKN

Automobiles

E (0.64)

E (0.63)

E (0.64)

Not Listed

Not Listed

Ericsson

Electronics & I.T.

E (0.64)

E (0.67)

F (0.54)

D (0.79)

F (0.54)

Rosneft

Oil and Gas

E (0.63)

D (0.73)

D (0.71)

Not Listed

F (0.46)

FORTUM

Energy & Utilities

E (0.63)

Not Listed

F (0.54)

F (0.59)

D (0.77)

Valeo S.A.

Automobiles

E (0.63)

E (0. 63)

Not Listed

Not Listed

Not Listed

GDF SUEZ

Energy & Utilities

E (0.63)

F (0.58)

E (0.64)

D (0.79)

F (0.49)

SAP AG

Electronics & I.T.

E (0.62)

Not Listed

E (0.62)

D (0.74)

F (0.51)

TESCO

Tobacco, Food & Drinks

E (0.62)

D (0.70)

F (0.54)

Not Listed

Not Listed

Nokian RenKaat

Automobiles

E (0.62)

Not Listed

E (0.63)

C (0.82)

F (0.40)

Beiersdorf AG

Retail

E (0.61)

Not Listed

F (0.43)

D (0.79)

Not Listed

Schneider Electric SA

Electronics & I.T.

E (0.61)

E (0. 63)

E (0.69)

E (0. 68)

F (0.43)

Asml Holding

Electronics & I.T.

E (0.61)

E (0. 63)

Not Listed

F (0.58)

Not Listed

Atlas Copco

Electronics & I.T.

E (0.60)

F (0. 49)

F (0.43)

C (0.89)

F (0.59)

Continental AG

Automobiles

E (0.60)

F (0.58)

F (0.54)

E (0. 68)

F (0.59)

Novo Nordisk

Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals

F (0.59)

D (0.75)

E (0.67)

D (0.79)

F (0.43)

Sandvik AB

Electronics & I.T.

F (0.59)

Not Listed

Not Listed

Not Listed

F (0.59)

Siemens

Electronics & I.T.

F (0.59)

Not Listed

F (0.59)

Not Listed

Not Listed

Air Liquide

Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals

F (0.58)

E (0. 67)

E (0. 64)

D (0.78)

F (0. 49)

Richemont

Retail

F (0.58)

E (0. 67)

F (0.53)

Not Listed

F (0.54)

Galp Energia

Oil and Gas

F (0.58)

Not Listed

Not Listed

F (0.58)

Not Listed

Akzo Nobel

Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals

F (0.58)

Not Listed

Not Listed

F (0.58)

Not Listed

SAB Miller

Tobacco, Food & Drinks

F (0.58)

F (0.51)

F (0.41)

D (0.74)

E (0.64)

Severstal

Mining

F (0.57)

Not Listed

Not Listed

Not Listed

F (0.57)

ABB

Electronics & I.T.

F (0.57)

F (0.53)

F (0.59)

Not Listed

F (0.59)

BRITISH AMERICAN TOBBACO

Tobacco, Food & Drinks

F (0.56)

F (0.51)

F (0.28)

D (0.79)

E (0.64)

Megafon

Telecommunications

F (0.55)

Not Listed

F (0.55)

Not Listed

Not Listed

Eurasian NR

Mining

F (0.55)

Not Listed

Not Listed

D (0.70)

F (0.40)

Hennes & Mauritz

Retail

F (0.55)

F (0.45)

E (0.60)

D (0.79)

F (0.35)

Novolipetsk Steel

Mining

F (0.54)

Not Listed

Not Listed

Not Listed

F (0.54)

A.P. Moller

Electronics & I.T.

F (0.54)

F (0.49)

F (0. 49)

D (0.79)

F (0.38)

Tesco

Retail

F (0.54)

F (0.49)

Not Listed

F (0.58)

F (0.54)

Carrefour

Retail

F (0.54)

E (0.63)

Not Listed

Not Listed

F (0.44)

Shire

Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals

F (0.53)

Not Listed

Not Listed

F (0.53)

Not Listed

DIAGEO

Tobacco, Food & Drinks

F (0.52)

F (0.48)

F (0.38)

D (0.79)

F (0.41)

Kering

Retail

F (0.51)

Not Listed

F (0.51)

Not Listed

Not Listed

Antofagasta plc

Mining

F (0.51)

F (0.49)

E (0.65)

F (0.53)

F (0.36)

Novartis

Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals

F (0.51)

E (0.67)

F (0.53)

Not Listed

F (0.34)

Imperial Tobacco

Tobacco, Food & Drinks

F (0.51)

E (0. 63)

F (0.54)

F (0.42)

F (0.43)

Anheuser Busch Inbev

Tobacco, Food & Drinks

F (0.49)

F (0.51)

F (0.38)

D (0.74)

F (0.34)

Scania AB

Electronics & I.T.

F (0.49)

F (0.49)

Not Listed

Not Listed

Not Listed

CEZ

Energy & Utilities

F (0.49)

Not Listed

Not Listed

F (0.52)

F (0.45)

Turk Telekomuikasyom

Telecommunications

F (0.48)

Not Listed

F (0. 48)

Not Listed

Not Listed

Swatch Group

Retail

F (0.48)

F (0.55)

F (0.41)

Not Listed

F (0. 48)

AXA

Banking

F (0.47)

F (0.47)

Not Listed

Not Listed

Not Listed

Norsk Hydro ASA

Mining

F (0.47)

F (0.47)

Not Listed

Not Listed

Not Listed

Pernod Richard

Tobacco, Food & Drinks

F (0.46)

Not Listed

Not Listed

F (0.42)

F (0.49)

Alrosa Group

Mining

F (0.45)

Not Listed

F (0.45)

Not Listed

Not Listed

Man

Electronics & I.T.

F (0.45)

Not Listed

Not Listed

F (0.45)

Not Listed

Randgold Resources

Mining

F (0.44)

Not Listed

F (0.44)

Not Listed

Not Listed

MMC Norilsk Nickel

Mining

F (0.43)

F (0.55)

F (0.42)

Not Listed

F (0.32)

Scottish & Southern Energy

Energy & Utilities

F (0.43)

F (0.51)

F (0.34)

Not Listed

Not Listed

Centrica

Energy & Utilities

F (0.43)

F (0.44)

F (0.54)

F (0.38)

F (0.34)

NATIONAL GRID

Energy & Utilities

F (0.39)

F (0.44)

F (0.28)

F (0.36)

F (0. 49)

Surgutneftegas

Oil and Gas

F (0.39)

Not Listed

F (0.46)

Not Listed

F (0.31)

Associated British Foods

Tobacco, Food & Drinks

F (0.38)

Not Listed

Not Listed

F (0.38)

Not Listed

KPN

Telecommunications

F (0.37)

F (0.43)

Not Listed

F (0.35)

F (0.34)

OMV

Oil and Gas

F (0.36)

Not Listed

Not Listed

F (0.36)

Not Listed

Christian Dior

Retail

F (0.11)

F (0.11)

Not Listed

Not Listed

Not Listed

Corporation Ranking 2014

2014 was overall the weakest year for corporations getting a B (0.90) or above grade, with only 8 making the cut. Similarly, o nly one corporation achieved a perfect score of A (1.00), the Rio Tinto Group, from the Mining sector. Telecommunications and Oil and Gas were the strongest sectors in 2014 with two companies from each being graded above B (0.90 ). 2014 saw a marked decrease in the variety of the top leve ls of corporate cultural diplomacy, with no corporations from the Retail or Tobacco Food and Drink sectors getting at least a C (0.80) grade.

Corporation Ranking for 2014 Sector Grade

Rio Tinto Group

Mining

A+ (1.00)

Gazprom

Oil and Gas

A (0.96)

Eni S.p.A.

Oil and Gas

A (0.96)

BMW AG

Automobiles

B (0.95)

NESTLE

Tobacco, Food & Drinks

B (0.95)

Telenor

Telecommunications

B (0.91)

Bayer

Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals

B (0.91)

Telefonica Group

Telecommunications

B (0.91)

Royal Dutch Shell

Oil and Gas

C (0.87)

Vodafone Group

Telecommunications

C (0.86)

Volkswagen

Automobiles

C (0.86)

Porsche

Automobiles

C (0.86)

Daimler

Automobiles

C (0.86)

Orange

Telecommunications

C (0.86)

Deutsche Telecom

Telecommunications

C (0.86)

Deutsche Post

Electronics & I.T.

C (0.86)

BBVA

Banking

C (0.86)

AstraZeneca

Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals

C (0.86)

BP plc

Oil and Gas

C (0.83)

Repsol

Oil and Gas

C (0.83)

UBS

Banking

C (0.82)

Glencore Xstrata

Mining

C (0.81)

ArcelorMittal

Mining

C (0.81)

GlaxoSmithKline

Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals

C (0.81)

Telecom Italia

Telecommunications

C (0.81)

FIAT S.p.A.

Automobiles

C (0.81)

Renault S.A.

Automobiles

C (0.81)

Swisscom

Telecommunications

C (0.81)

BHP Billiton

Mining

C (0.81)

Lukoil

Oil and Gas

C (0.81)

Sanofi

Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals

C (0.81)

RWE

Energy & Utilities

D (0.77)

Total

Oil and Gas

D (0.77)

Anglo American

Mining

D (0.77)

Roche

Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals

D (0.77)

Gas Natural

Energy & Utilities

D (0.77)

L’OREAL

Retail

D (0.77)

Basf

Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals

D (0.77)

Statoil

Oil and Gas

D (0.76)

Novo Nordisk

Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals

D (0.75)

Rosneft

Oil and Gas

D (0.73)

HSBC Holdings

Banking

D (0.72)

Santander

Banking

D (0.72)

Michelin

Automobiles

D (0.72)

Linde

Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals

D (0.72)

UNILEVER

Tobacco, Food & Drinks

D (0.72)

HEINEKEN

Tobacco, Food & Drinks

D (0.72)

TESCO

Tobacco, Food & Drinks

D (0.70)

AB Volvo

Electronics & I.T.

E (0.68)

Allianz

Banking

E (0.68)

IBERDROLA

Energy & Utilities

E (0.68)

INDITEX Group

Retail

E (0.68)

BNP Paribas

Banking

E (0.67)

EDF

Energy & Utilities

E (0.67)

Telia Sonera

Telecommunications

E (0.67)

ENEL

Energy & Utilities

E (0.67)

DANONE

Tobacco, Food & Drinks

E (0.67)

Ericsson

Electronics & I.T.

E (0.67)

Air Liquide

Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals

E (0.67)

Richemont

Retail

E (0.67)

Novartis

Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals

E (0.67)

BG Group plc

Oil and Gas

E (0.63)

Barclays

Banking

E (0.63)

GKN

Automobiles

E (0.63)

Valeo S.A.

Automobiles

E (0.63)

Schneider Electric SA

Electronics & I.T.

E (0.63)

Asml Holding

Electronics & I.T.

E (0.63)

Carrefour

Retail

E (0.63)

Imperial Tobacco

Tobacco, Food & Drinks

E (0.63)

Tenaris

Mining

E (0.61)

LVMH

Retail

F (0.59)

BT Group

Telecommunications

F (0.58)

GDF SUEZ

Energy & Utilities

F (0.58)

Continental AG

Automobiles

F (0.58)

Nordea Bank

Banking

F (0.57)

Fresnillo plc

Mining

F (0.56)

Swatch Group

Retail

F (0.55)

MMC Norilsk Nickel

Mining

F (0.55)

Nokia

Electronics & I.T.

F (0.53)

ABB

Electronics & I.T.

F (0.53)

SAB Miller

Tobacco, Food & Drinks

F (0.51)

BRITISH AMERICAN TOBBACO

Tobacco, Food & Drinks

F (0.51)

Anheuser Busch Inbev

Tobacco, Food & Drinks

F (0.51)

Scottish & Southern Energy

Energy & Utilities

F (0.51)

Lloyds Banking Group

Banking

F (0.49)

Luxottica

Retail

F (0.49)

Atlas Copco

Electronics & I.T.

F (0.49)

A.P. Moller

Electronics & I.T.

F (0.49)

Tesco

Retail

F (0.49)

Antofagasta plc

Mining

F (0.49)

Scania AB

Electronics & I.T.

F (0.49)

DIAGEO

Tobacco, Food & Drinks

F (0.48)

AXA

Banking

F (0.47)

Norsk Hydro ASA

Mining

F (0.47)

Hennes & Mauritz

Retail

F (0.45)

Centrica

Energy & Utilities

F (0.44)

NATIONAL GRID

Energy & Utilities

F (0.44)

KPN

Telecommunications

F (0.43)

EON

Energy & Utilities

F (0.37)

Christian Dior

Retail

F (0.11)

Corporate Ranking 2013

2013 had the second lowest number of B or above grades, with on ly 12 corporations making the cut. As in the other years, the h ighest grades include corporations from the Banking, Mining, Au tomobiles, and Telecommunications sectors. Mining and Telecommunications fare particular well, with three corporations from each sector achie ving a B or above grade. Two companies achieved a perfect score , from the Mining and Oil and Gas sectors respectively.

Corporation Ranking for 2013 Sector Grade

Xstrata

Mining

A+ (1.00)

Eni S.p.A.

Oil and Gas

A+ (1.00)

Rio Tinto Group

Mining

B (0.95)

AB Volvo

Electronics & I.T.

B (0.95)

Glencore Xstrata

Mining

B (0.95)

Telenor

Telecommunications

B (0.9)

BP plc

Oil and Gas

B (0.9)

Bayer

Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals

B (0.9)

BMW AG

Automobiles

B (0.9)

Telefonica Group

Telecommunications

B (0.9)

Deutsche Telecom

Telecommunications

B (0.9)

Allianz

Banking

B (0.90)

Gazprom

Oil and Gas

C (0.89)

Total

Oil and Gas

C (0.89)

Vodafone Group

Telecommunications

C (0.85)

Volkswagen

Automobiles

C (0.85)

Daimler

Automobiles

C (0.85)

Royal Dutch Shell

Oil and Gas

C (0.85)

IBERDROLA

Energy & Utilities

C (0.85)

Swisscom

Telecommunications

C (0.84)

Porsche

Automobiles

C (0.82)

NESTLE

Tobacco, Food & Drinks

D (0.79)

Orange

Telecommunications

D (0.79)

Renault S.A.

Automobiles

D (0.79)

Standard Chartered

Banking

D (0.79)

Philips Electronics

Electronics & I.T.

D (0.79)

BNP Paribas

Banking

D (0.79)

BBVA

Banking

D (0.79)

HEINEKEN

Tobacco, Food & Drinks

D (0.79)

Statoil

Oil and Gas

D (0.75)

RWE

Energy & Utilities

D (0.74)

FIAT S.p.A.

Automobiles

D (0.74)

Santander

Banking

D (0.74)

AstraZeneca

Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals

D (0.74)

ENEL

Energy & Utilities

D (0.74)

Rosneft

Oil and Gas

D (0.71)

GlaxoSmithKline

Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals

E (0.69)

Deutsche Post

Electronics & I.T.

E (0.69)

Anglo American

Mining

E (0.69)

BHP Billiton

Mining

E (0.69)

Lukoil

Oil and Gas

E (0.69)

Basf

Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals

E (0.69)

EDF

Energy & Utilities

E (0.69)

Michelin

Automobiles

E (0.69)

BG Group plc

Oil and Gas

E (0.69)

Sanofi

Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals

E (0.69)

UNILEVER

Tobacco, Food & Drinks

E (0.69)

Schneider Electric SA

Electronics & I.T.

E (0.69)

UBS

Banking

E (0.68)

Novo Nordisk

Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals

E (0.67)

INDITEX Group

Retail

E (0.65)

Luxottica

Retail

E (0.65)

Antofagasta plc

Mining

E (0.65)

HSBC Holdings

Banking

E (0.64)

Roche

Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals

E (0.64)

Syngenta

Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals

E (0.64)

GKN

Automobiles

E (0.64)

GDF SUEZ

Energy & Utilities

E (0.64)

Air Liquide

Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals

E (0.64)

Nokian RenKaat

Automobiles

E (0.63)

SAP AG

Electronics & I.T.

E (0.62)

Hennes & Mauritz

Retail

E (0.60)

LVMH

Retail

F (0.59)

Barclays

Banking

F (0.59)

Lloyds Banking Group

Banking

F (0.59)

Siemens

Electronics & I.T.

F (0.59)

ABB

Electronics & I.T.

F (0.59)

L’OREAL

Retail

F (0.58)

Fresnillo plc

Mining

F (0.57)

Megafon

Telecommunications

F (0.55)

BT Group

Telecommunications

F (0.54)

Hermès International

Retail

F (0.54)

Ericsson

Electronics & I.T.

F (0.54)

FORTUM

Energy & Utilities

F (0.54)

TESCO

Tobacco, Food & Drinks

F (0.54)

Continental AG

Automobiles

F (0.54)

Imperial Tobacco

Tobacco, Food & Drinks

F (0.54)

Centrica

Energy & Utilities

F (0.54)

Richemont

Retail

F (0.53)

Novartis

Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals

F (0.53)

DANONE

Tobacco, Food & Drinks

F (0.51)

Kering

Retail

F (0.51)

A.P. Moller

Electronics & I.T.

F (0.49)

Telia Sonera

Telecommunications

F (0.48)

Turk Telekomuikasyom

Telecommunications

F (0.48)

Surgutneftegas

Oil and Gas

F (0.46)

Alrosa Group

Mining

F (0.45)

Randgold Resources

Mining

F (0.44)

Sberbank of Russia

Banking

F (0.43)

Beiersdorf AG

Retail

F (0.43)

Atlas Copco

Electronics & I.T.

F (0.43)

MMC Norilsk Nickel

Mining

F (0.42)

EON

Energy & Utilities

F (0.41)

SAB Miller

Tobacco, Food & Drinks

F (0.41)

Swatch Group

Retail

F (0.41)

DIAGEO

Tobacco, Food & Drinks

F (0.38)

Anheuser Busch Inbev

Tobacco, Food & Drinks

F (0.38)

Scottish & Southern Energy

Energy & Utilities

F (0.34)

BRITISH AMERICAN TOBBACO

Tobacco, Food & Drinks

F (0.28)

NATIONAL GRID

Energy & Utilities

F (0.28)

Corporate Ranking 2012

2012 saw an increase in the amount of corporations achieving a B (0.90) grade or above, with 14 corporations achieving this. However, the type of corporations stayed largely the same with the powerhouses of the Energy & Utilities, Banking, Mining, Automobiles, and Telecommunication s sectors dominating again. This year also saw the inclusion of two companies from the Retail sector (LVMH and L’Oreal), the o nly year with such an occurrence. 2012 also had the largest number of corporations gaining a perf ect score, with five in total getting a grade A+ (1.00). Howeve r this may be partially explained by the slightly different sco ring system employed in this year, rather than an overall marked increase in corporate cultural diplomac y efforts

Corporation Ranking for 2012 Sector Grade

Deutsche Bank

Banking

A+ (1.00)

Bayer

Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals

A+ (1.00)

AB Volvo

Electronics & I.T.

A+ (1.00)

HSBC Holdings

Banking

A+ (1.00)

Nokia

Electronics & I.T.

A+ (1.00)

LVMH

Retail

A+ (1.00)

Repsol

Oil and Gas

A (0.97)

Intesa Sanpaulo

Banking

B (0.95)

EON

Energy & Utilities

B (0.95)

Peugeot

Automobiles

B (0.91)

BP plc

Oil and Gas

B (0.91)

Belgacom

Telecommunications

B (0.91)

RWE

Energy & Utilities

B (0.91)

L’OREAL

Retail

B (0.90)

Rio Tinto Group

Mining

C (0.89)

BMW AG

Automobiles

C (0.89)

Glencore International

Mining

C (0.89)

Adidas

Retail

C (0.89)

Vodafone Group

Telecommunications

C (0.89)

ArcelorMittal

Mining

C (0.89)

Volkswagen

Automobiles

C (0.89)

Porsche

Automobiles

C (0.89)

Orange

Telecommunications

C (0.89)

Deutsche Telecom

Telecommunications

C (0.89)

FIAT S.p.A.

Automobiles

C (0.89)

Deutsche Post

Electronics & I.T.

C (0.89)

Anglo American

Mining

C (0.89)

BHP Billiton

Mining

C (0.89)

BNP Paribas

Banking

C (0.89

AstraZeneca

Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals

C (0.89)

Sanofi

Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals

C (0.89)

Telia Sonera

Telecommunications

C (0.89)

Atlas Copco

Electronics & I.T.

C (0.89)

Mal Magyar

Oil and Gas

C (0.88)

Royal Dutch Shell

Oil and Gas

C (0.88)

Telecom Italia

Telecommunications

C (0.88)

KGHM Polska Miedź S.A.

Mining

C (0.85)

Tenaris

Mining

C (0.85)

Barclays

Banking

C (0.85)

Fresnillo plc

Mining

C (0.85)

Total

Oil and Gas

C (0.82)

Nokian RenKaat

Automobiles

C (0.82)

Telefonica Group

Telecommunications

D (0.79)

GlaxoSmithKline

Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals

D (0.79)

Daimler

Automobiles

D (0.79)

Renault S.A.

Automobiles

D (0.79)

Standard Chartered

Banking

D (0.79)

Tele 2

Telecommunications

D (0.79)

BBVA

Banking

D (0.79)

Basf

Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals

D (0.79)

EDF

Energy & Utilities

D (0.79)

Michelin

Automobiles

D (0.79)

INDITEX Group

Retail

D (0.79)

Nordea Bank

Banking

D (0.79)

Lloyds Banking Group

Banking

D (0.79)

Luxottica

Retail

D (0.79)

ENEL

Energy & Utilities

D (0.79)

Ericsson

Electronics & I.T.

D (0.79)

GDF SUEZ

Energy & Utilities

D (0.79)

Beiersdorf AG

Retail

D (0.79)

Novo Nordisk

Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals

D (0.79)

BRITISH AMERICAN TOBBACO

Tobacco, Food & Drinks

D (0.79)

Hennes & Mauritz

Retail

D (0.79)

A.P. Moller

Electronics & I.T.

D (0.79)

DIAGEO

Tobacco, Food & Drinks

D (0.79)

Air Liquide

Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals

D (0.78)

Santander

Banking

D (0.74)

BG Group plc

Oil and Gas

D (0.74)

Hermès International

Retail

D (0.74)

SAP AG

Electronics & I.T.

D (0.74)

SAB Miller

Tobacco, Food & Drinks

D (0.74)

Anheuser Busch Inbev

Tobacco, Food & Drinks

D (0.74)

Eni S.p.A.

Oil and Gas

D (0.7)

IBERDROLA

Energy & Utilities

D (0.7)

Eurasian NR

Mining

D (0.7)

UNILEVER

Tobacco, Food & Drinks

E (0.68)

PPR

Retail

E (0.68)

BT Group

Telecommunications

E (0.68)

DANONE

Tobacco, Food & Drinks

E (0.68)

Schneider Electric SA

Electronics & I.T.

E (0.68)

Continental AG

Automobiles

E (0.68)

Tullow Oil

Oil and Gas

E (0.67)

Linde

Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals

E (0.64)

FORTUM

Energy & Utilities

F (0.59)

HEINEKEN

Tobacco, Food & Drinks

F (0.58)

Asml Holding

Electronics & I.T.

F (0.58)

Galp Energia

Oil and Gas

F (0.58)

Akzo Nobel

Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals

F (0.58)

Tesco

Retail

F (0.58)

Shire

Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals

F (0.53)

Antofagasta plc

Mining

F (0.53)

CEZ

Energy & Utilities

F (0.52)

Man

Electronics & I.T.

F (0.45)

Imperial Tobacco

Tobacco, Food & Drinks

F (0.42)

Pernod Richard

Tobacco, Food & Drinks

F (0.42)

Centrica

Energy & Utilities

F (0.38)

Associated British Foods

Tobacco, Food & Drinks

F (0.38)

NATIONAL GRID

Energy & Utilities

F (0.36)

OMV

Oil and Gas

F (0.36)

KPN

Telecommunications

F (0.35)

Corporate Ranking 2011

2011 was the first year the rankings were established. In 2011 t here was a real mix of corporations achieving a B (0.90) grade or above. The Energy & Utilities, Banking, Mining, Automobiles, and Telecommunications sectors each had a strong showing, with two corporations each scoring a B or above. Impressively three companies (Deutsche Bank, Rio T into Group and BP Plc), all achieved a perfect score of 1.00. T hirteen companies overall had a score of B (0.9) or above in 2011.

Corporation Ranking for 2011 Sector Grade

Deutsche Bank

Banking

A+ (1.00)

Rio Tinto Group

Mining

A+ (1.00)

BP plc

Oil and Gas

A+ (1.00)

EON

Energy & Utilities

A (0.98)

Telenor

Telecommunications

B (0.95)

RWE

Energy & Utilities

B (0.95)

Peugeot

Automobiles

B (0.94)

HSBC Holdings

Banking

B (0.93)

Bayer

Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals

B (0.9)

AB Volvo

Electronics & I.T.

B (0.9)

Vodafone Group

Telecommunications

B (0.9)

ArcelorMittal

Mining

B (0.9)

Daimler

Automobiles

B (0.9)

LVMH

Retail

B (0.9)

GlaxoSmithKline

Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals

C (0.89)

Gazprom

Oil and Gas

C (0.88)

NESTLE

Tobacco, Food & Drinks

C (0.88)

Porsche

Automobiles

C (0.86)

FIAT S.p.A.

Automobiles

C (0.86)

Xstrata

Mining

C (0.85)

BMW AG

Automobiles

C (0.85)

Volkswagen

Automobiles

C (0.85)

Telefonica Group

Telecommunications

C (0.85)

Orange

Telecommunications

C (0.85)

Renault S.A.

Automobiles

C (0.85)

Sberbank of Russia

Banking

C (0.85)

BT Group

Telecommunications

C (0.84)

Santander

Banking

C (0.8)

BG Group plc

Oil and Gas

C (0.80)

Telecom Italia

Telecommunications

D (0.79)

Deutsche Post

Electronics & I.T.

D (0.79)

Standard Chartered

Banking

D (0.79)

Metro

Retail

D (0.79)

Nokia

Electronics & I.T.

D (0.79)

Lukoil

Oil and Gas

D (0.79)

L’OREAL

Retail

D (0.79)

Swisscom

Telecommunications

D (0.77)

Allianz

Banking

D (0.77)

Roche

Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals

D (0.77)

FORTUM

Energy & Utilities

D (0.77)

Total

Oil and Gas

D (0.75)

EDF

Energy & Utilities

D (0.75)

Royal Dutch Shell

Oil and Gas

D (0.74)

Anglo American

Mining

D (0.74)

INDITEX Group

Retail

D (0.74)

Lloyds Banking Group

Banking

D (0.74)

IBERDROLA

Energy & Utilities

D (0.72)

BHP Billiton

Mining

D (0.7)

UNILEVER

Tobacco, Food & Drinks

D (0.7)

Hermès International

Retail

D (0.70)

Deutsche Telecom

Telecommunications

E (0.69)

Basf

Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals

E (0.69)

Michelin

Automobiles

E (0.69)

DANONE

Tobacco, Food & Drinks

E (0.69)

BNP Paribas

Banking

E (0.67)

Syngenta

Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals

E (0.66)

Statoil

Oil and Gas

E (0.65)

Telia Sonera

Telecommunications

E (0.64)

SAB Miller

Tobacco, Food & Drinks

E (0.64)

BRITISH AMERICAN TOBBACO

Tobacco, Food & Drinks

E (0.64)

UBS

Banking

E (0.62)

Eni S.p.A.

Oil and Gas

F (0.59)

AstraZeneca

Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals

F (0.59)

Sanofi

Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals

F (0.59)

HEINEKEN

Tobacco, Food & Drinks

F (0.59)

Atlas Copco

Electronics & I.T.

F (0.59)

Continental AG

Automobiles

F (0.59)

Sandvik AB

Electronics & I.T.

F (0.59)

ABB

Electronics & I.T.

F (0.59)

Severstal

Mining

F (0.57)

Ericsson

Electronics & I.T.

F (0.54)

Richemont

Retail

F (0.54)

Novolipetsk Steel

Mining

F (0.54)

Tesco

Retail

F (0.54)

SAP AG

Electronics & I.T.

F (0.51)

BBVA

Banking

F (0.49)

GDF SUEZ

Energy & Utilities

F (0.49)

Air Liquide

Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals

F (0.49)

Pernod Richard

Tobacco, Food & Drinks

F (0.49)

NATIONAL GRID

Energy & Utilities

F (0.49)

Swatch Group

Retail

F (0.48)

Rosneft

Oil and Gas

F (0.46)

CEZ

Energy & Utilities

F (0.45)

Carrefour

Retail

F (0.44)

Schneider Electric SA

Electronics & I.T.

F (0.43)

Novo Nordisk

Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals

F (0.43)

Imperial Tobacco

Tobacco, Food & Drinks

F (0.43)

DIAGEO

Tobacco, Food & Drinks

F (0.41)

Nokian RenKaat

Automobiles

F (0.4)

Eurasian NR

Mining

F (0.4)

A.P. Moller

Electronics & I.T.

F (0.38)

ENEL

Energy & Utilities

F (0.37)

Antofagasta plc

Mining

F (0.36)

Hennes & Mauritz

Retail

F (0.35)

Novartis

Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals

F (0.34)

Anheuser Busch Inbev

Tobacco, Food & Drinks

F (0.34)

Centrica

Energy & Utilities

F (0.34)

KPN

Telecommunications

F (0.34)

MMC Norilsk Nickel

Mining

F (0.32)

Surgutneftegas

Oil and Gas

F (0.31)

Sector Ranking by Corporation

The Sector Ranking by Corporation gives an overview of how the corporations within one sector performed. This helps to have a better overview of the particular sector and its performance in terms of engagement in cultural diplomacy and Corporate Cultural Diplomacy. The title shows which sector is represented in the specific table. The first column consists of the corporations’ name, while the second column includes the average grade as in Table A. Column three to six shows the certain grade in the years 2011-14. The Total Average shown in the last row represents the average of the sector in each year (column three to six) and of all the years combined (column two).



Automobiles
Company Company avg 2014 2013 2012 2011

Peugeot

B (0.93)

Not Listed

Not Listed

B (0.91)

B (0.94)

BMW AG

B (0.90)

B (0.95)

B (0.90)

C (0.89)

C (0.85)

Volkswagen

C (0.87)

C (0.86)

C (0.85)

C (0.89)

C (0.89)

Porsche

C (0.87)

C (0.89)

C (0.82)

C (0.89)

C (0.86)

Daimler

C (0.85)

C (0.86)

C (0.85)

D (0.79)

B (0.90)

FIAT S.p.A.

C (0.83)

C (0.81)

D (0.74)

C (0.89)

C (0.86)

Renault S.A.

C (0.81)

C (0.81)

D (0.79)

D (0.79)

C (0.85)

Michelin

D (0.72)

D (0.72)

E (0. 69)

D (0.79)

E (0. 69)

Valeo S.A.

E (0. 63)

E (0. 63)

Not Listed

Not Listed

Not Listed

Continental AG

E (0. 62)

F (0.58)

F (0.54)

E (0. 68)

E (0. 69)

Nokian RenKaat

E (0. 62)

Not Listed

E (0. 63)

C (0.82)

F (0.40)

GKN

E (0. 64)

E (0. 63)

E (0. 64)

Not Listed

Not Listed

TOTAL average

D (0.79)

D (0.77)

D (0.75)

C (0.83)

D (0.79)

Oil and Gas
Company Company avg 2014 2013 2012 2011

BP plc

B (0.91)

C (0.83)

B (0.90)

B (0.91)

A+ (1.00)

Gazprom

B (0.91)

A (0.96)

C (0.89)

Not Listed

C (0.88)

Repsol

B (0.90)

C (0.83)

Not Listed

A (0.97)

Not Listed

Mal Magyar

C (0.88)

Not Listed

Not Listed

C (0.88)

Not Listed

Lukoil

C (0.85)

C (0.81)

A (0.96)

Not Listed

D (0.79)

Royal Dutch Shell

C (0.82)

C (0.87)

C (0.85)

C (0.82)

D (0.74)

Eni S.p.A.

C (0.81)

A (0.96)

A+ (1.00)

D (0.70)

F (0.59)

Total

C (0.81)

D (0.77)

C (0.89)

C (0.82)

D (0.75)

Statoil

D (0.72)

D (0.76)

D (0.75)

Not Listed

E (0. 65)

BG Group plc

D (0.72)

E (0. 63)

E (0. 69)

D (0.74)

B (0.80)

Tullow Oil

E (0. 67)

Not Listed

Not Listed

E (0. 67)

Not Listed

Rosneft

E (0. 63)

D (0.73)

D (0.71)

Not Listed

F (0.46)

Galp Energia

F (0.58)

Not Listed

Not Listed

F (0.58)

Not Listed

Surgutneftegas

F (0.39)

Not Listed

F (0.46)

Not Listed

F (0.31)

OMV

F (0.36)

Not Listed

Not Listed

F (0.36)

Not Listed

TOTAL average

D (0.77)

C (0.82)

C (0.81)

D (0.75)

D (0.70)

Banking
Company Company avg 2014 2013 2012 2011

Deutsche Bank

A+ (1.00)

Not Listed

Not Listed

A+ (1.00)

A+ (1.00)

Intesa Sanpaulo

B (0.95)

Not Listed

Not Listed

B (0.95)

Not Listed

BBVA

B (0.91)

C (0.86)

D (0.79)

A+ (1.00)

A+ (1.00)

HSBC Holdings

C (0.82)

D (0.72)

E (0. 64)

A+ (1.00)

B (0.93)

Allianz

D (0.78)

E (0. 68)

A (0.90)

Not Listed

D (0.77)

Standard Chartered

D (0.76)

Not Listed

E (0. 69)

D (0.79)

D (0.79)

BNP Paribas

D (0.76)

E (0. 67)

D (0.79)

C (0.89)

E (0. 67)

Santander

D (0.75)

D (0.72)

D (0.74)

D (0.74)

C (0.80)

UBS

D (0.71)

C (0.82)

E (0. 68)

Not Listed

E (0. 62)

Barclays

E (0. 69)

E (0. 63)

F (0.59)

C (0.85)

Not Listed

Nordea Bank

E (0. 68)

F (0.57)

Not Listed

D (0.79)

Not Listed

Lloyds Banking Group

E (0. 65)

F (0. 49)

F (0.59)

D (0.79)

D (0.74)

Sberbank of Russia

E (0. 64)

Not Listed

F (0.43)

Not Listed

C (0.85)

AXA

F (0.47)

F (0.47)

Not Listed

Not Listed

Not Listed

TOTAL average

D (0.76)

E (0. 66)

E (0. 68)

C (0.88)

C (0.82)

Telecommunications
Company Company avg 2014 2013 2012 2011

Telenor

B (0.92)

B (0.91)

B (0.90)

Not Listed

B (0.95)

Belgacon

B (0.91)

Not Listed

Not Listed

B (0.91)

Not Listed

Vodafone Group

C (0.88)

C (0.86)

C (0.85)

C (0.89)

B (0.90)

Telefonica Group

C (0.86)

B (0.91)

B (0.90)

D (0.79)

C (0.85)

Orange

C (0.85)

C (0.86)

D (0.79)

C (0.89)

C (0.85)

Deutsche Telecom

C (0.84)

C (0.86)

B (0.90)

C (0.89)

E (0. 69)

Telecom Italia

C (0.83)

C (0.81)

Not Listed

C (0.88)

D (0.79)

Swisscom

C (0.81)

C (0.81)

C (0.84)

Not Listed

D (0.77)

Tele 2

D (0.79)

Not Listed

Not Listed

D (0.79)

Not Listed

Telia Sonera

E (0. 67)

E (0. 67)

F (0. 48)

C (0.89)

E (0. 64)

BT Group

E (0. 66)

F (0.58)

F (0.54)

E (0. 68)

C (0.84)

Megafon

F (0.55)

Not Listed

F (0.55)

Not Listed

Not Listed

Turk Telekomuikasyom

F (0. 48)

Not Listed

F (0. 48)

Not Listed

Not Listed

KPN

F (0.37)

F (0.43)

Not Listed

F (0.35)

F (0.34)

TOTAL average

D (0.76)

D (0.77)

D (0.72)

C (0.80)

D (0.76)

Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals
Company Company avg 2014 2013 2012 2011

Bayer

B (0.90)

B (0.90)

B (0.90)

A+ (1.00)

B (0.90)

GlaxoSmithKline

C (0.85)

C (0.81)

E (0. 69)

D (0.79)

C (0.89)

Basf

C (0.83)

D (0.77)

E (0. 69)

D (0.79)

C (0.89)

Roche

D (0.77)

D (0.77)

E (0. 64)

Not Listed

D (0.77)

AstraZeneca

D (0.73)

C (0.86)

D (0.74)

C (0.89)

F (0.59)

Linde

D (0.72)

D (0.72)

Not Listed

E (0. 64)

Not Listed

Sanofi

D (0.70)

C (0.81)

E (0. 69)

C (0.89)

F (0.59)

Syngenta

E (0. 66)

Not Listed

E (0. 64)

Not Listed

E (0. 66)

Novo Nordisk

F (0.59)

D (0.75)

E (0. 67)

D (0.79)

F (0.43)

Air Liquide

F (0.58)

E (0. 67)

E (0. 64)

D (0.78)

F (0. 49)

Akzo Nobel

F (0.58)

Not Listed

Not Listed

F (0.58)

Not Listed

Shire

F (0.53)

Not Listed

Not Listed

F (0.53)

Not Listed

Novartis

F (0.51)

E (0. 67)

F (0.53)

Not Listed

F (0.34)

TOTAL average

D (0.72)

D (0.77)

E (0. 68)

D (0.77)

E (0. 66)

Mining
Company Company avg 2014 2013 2012 2011

Rio Tinto Group

A (0.96)

A+ (1.00)

B (0.95)

C (0.89)

A+ (1.00)

Xstrata

B (0.93)

Not Listed

A+ (1.00)

Not Listed

C (0.85)

Glencore International

C (0.89)

Not Listed

Not Listed

C (0.89)

Not Listed

Glencore Xstrata

C (0.88)

C (0.81)

B (0.95)

Not Listed

Not Listed

ArcelorMittal

C (0.87)

C (0.81)

Not Listed

C (0.89)

B (0.90)

KGHM Polska Miedź S.A.

C (0.85)

Not Listed

Not Listed

C (0.85)

Not Listed

Anglo American

D (0.77)

D (0.77)

E (0. 69)

C (0.89)

D (0.74)

BHP Billiton

D (0.77)

C (0.81)

E (0. 69)

C (0.89)

D (0.70)

Tenaris

D (0.73)

E (0. 61)

Not Listed

C (0.85)

Not Listed

Fresnillo plc

E (0. 66)

F (0.56)

F (0.57)

C (0.85)

Not Listed

Severstal

F (0.57)

Not Listed

Not Listed

Not Listed

F (0.57)

Eurasian NR

F (0.55)

Not Listed

Not Listed

D (0.70)

F (0.40)

Novolipetsk Steel

F (0.54)

Not Listed

Not Listed

Not Listed

F (0.54)

Antofagasta plc

F (0.51)

F (0. 49)

E (0. 65)

F (0.53)

F (0.36)

Norsk Hydro ASA

F (0.47)

F (0.47)

Not Listed

Not Listed

Not Listed

Alrosa Group

F (0.45)

Not Listed

F (0.45)

Not Listed

Not Listed

Randgold Resources

F (0.44)

Not Listed

F (0.44)

Not Listed

Not Listed

MMC Norilsk Nickel

F (0.43)

F (0.55)

F (0.42)

Not Listed

F (0.32)

TOTAL average

D (0.71)

E (0. 69)

E (0. 68)

C (0.82)

E (0. 64)

Electronics & I.T.
Company Company avg 2014 2013 2012 2011

Electronics & I.T.

Company average

2014

2013

2012

2011

AB Volvo

C (0.88)

E (0. 68)

B (0.95)

A+ (1.00)

B (0.90)

Deutsche Post

C (0.85)

C (0.86)

E (0. 69)

C (0.89)

B (0.95)

Philips Electronics

D (0.79)

Not Listed

D (0.79)

Not Listed

Not Listed

Nokia

D (0.77)

F (0.53)

Not Listed

A+ (1.00)

D (0.79)

Ericsson

E (0. 64)

E (0. 67)

F (0.54)

D (0.79)

F (0.54)

SAP AG

E (0. 62)

Not Listed

E (0. 62)

D (0.74)

F (0.51)

Schneider Electric SA

E (0. 61)

E (0. 63)

E (0. 69)

E (0. 68)

F (0.43)

Asml Holding

E (0. 61)

E (0. 63)

Not Listed

F (0.58)

Not Listed

Atlas Copco

E (0.51)

F (0. 49)

F (0.43)

C (0.89)

F (0.59)

Sandvik AB

F (0.59)

Not Listed

Not Listed

Not Listed

F (0.59)

Siemens

F (0.59)

Not Listed

F (0.59)

Not Listed

Not Listed

ABB

F (0.57)

F (0.53)

F (0.59)

Not Listed

F (0.59)

A.P. Moller

F (0.54)

F (0. 49)

F (0. 49)

D (0.79)

F (0.38)

Scania AB

F (0. 49)

F (0. 49)

Not Listed

Not Listed

Not Listed

Man

F (0.45)

Not Listed

Not Listed

F (0.45)

Not Listed

TOTAL average

E (0. 66)

E (0.51)

E (0. 64)

D (0.78)

E (0. 63)

Energy & Utilities
Company Company avg 2014 2013 2012 2011

RWE

C (0.84)

D (0.77)

D (0.74)

B (0.91)

B (0.95)

Gas Natural

D (0.77)

D (0.77)

Not Listed

Not Listed

Not Listed

IBERDROLA

D (0.76)

D (0.77)

C (0.85)

D (0.70)

D (0.72)

EDF

D (0.73)

E (0. 67)

E (0. 69)

D (0.79)

D (0.75)

EON

E (0. 68)

F (0.37)

F (0.41)

B (0.95)

A (0.98)

ENEL

E (0. 64)

E (0. 67)

D (0.74)

D (0.79)

F (0.37)

FORTUM

E (0. 63)

Not Listed

F (0.54)

F (0.59)

D (0.77)

GDF SUEZ

E (0. 63)

F (0.58)

E (0. 64)

D (0.79)

F (0. 49)

CEZ

F (0.51)

Not Listed

Not Listed

F (0.56)

F (0.45)

Centrica

F (0.44)

F (0.44)

F (0.54)

F (0.38)

F (0.40)

Scottish & Southern Energy

F (0.43)

F (0.51)

F (0.34)

Not Listed

Not Listed

NATIONAL GRID

F (0.39)

F (0.44)

F (0.28)

F (0.36)

F (0. 49)

TOTAL average

E (0. 62)

E (0.51)

F (0.58)

E (0. 68)

E (0. 64)

´
Retail
Company Company avg 2014 2013 2012 2011

Adidas

C (0.89)

Not Listed

Not Listed

C (0.89)

Not Listed

Metro

D (0.79)

Not Listed

Not Listed

Not Listed

D (0.79)

LVMH

D (0.77)

F (0.59)

F (0.59)

A+ (1.00)

B (0.90)

L’OREAL

D (0.76)

D (0.77)

F (0.58)

B (0.90)

D (0.79)

INDITEX Group

D (0.72)

E (0. 68)

E (0. 68)

D (0.79)

D (0.74)

PPR

E (0. 68)

Not Listed

Not Listed

E (0. 68)

Not Listed

Hermès International

E (0. 66)

Not Listed

F (0.54)

D (0.74)

D (0.70)

Luxottica

E (0. 64)

F (0. 49)

E (0. 65)

D (0.79)

Not Listed

Beiersdorf AG

E (0. 61)

Not Listed

F (0.43)

D (0.79)

Not Listed

Richemont

F (0.58)

E (0. 67)

F (0.53)

Not Listed

F (0.54)

Hennes & Mauritz

F (0.55)

F (0.45)

E (0.51)

D (0.79)

F (0.35)

Tesco

F (0.54)

F (0. 49)

Not Listed

F (0.58)

F (0.54)

Carrefour

F (0.54)

E (0. 63)

Not Listed

Not Listed

F (0.44)

Kering

F (0.51)

Not Listed

F (0.51)

Not Listed

Not Listed

Swatch Group

F (0. 48)

F (0.55)

F (0.41)

Not Listed

F (0. 48)

Christian Dior

F (0.11)

F (0.11)

Not Listed

Not Listed

Not Listed

TOTAL average

E (0. 63)

F (0.54)

F (0.55)

C (0.80)

E (0. 63)

Tobacco, Food & Drinks
Company Company avg 2014 2013 2012 2011

NESTLE

C (0.87)

B (0.95)

D (0.79)

Not Listed

C (0.88)

UNILEVER

D (0.70)

D (0.72)

E (0. 69)

E (0. 68)

D (0.70)

HEINEKEN

E (0. 67)

D (0.72)

D (0.79)

F (0.58)

F (0.59)

DANONE

E (0. 64)

E (0. 67)

F (0.51)

E (0. 68)

E (0. 69)

TESCO

E (0. 62)

D (0.70)

F (0.54)

Not Listed

Not Listed

SAB Miller

F (0.58)

F (0.51)

F (0.41)

D (0.74)

E (0. 64)

BRITISH AMERICAN TOBBACO

F (0.56)

F (0.51)

F (0.28)

D (0.79)

E (0. 64)

Anheuser-Busch Inbev

F (0.52)

F (0.51)

F (0. 49)

D (0.74)

F (0.34)

DIAGEO

F (0.52)

F (0. 48)

F (0.38)

D (0.79)

F (0.41)

Imperial Tobacco

F (0.51)

E (0. 63)

F (0.54)

F (0.42)

F (0.43)

Pernod Richard

F (0.46)

Not Listed

Not Listed

F (0.42)

F (0.49)

Associated British Foods

F (0.38)

Not Listed

Not Listed

F (0.38)

Not Listed

TOTAL average

E (0.51)

E (0. 64)

F (0.54)

E (0. 62)

F (0.58)

Overall Sector Ranking


Table C represent the rankings outcome of the sectors in the different years and as a summary of 2011-14. The first column shows the sector, the second column shows the sectors average (average of all the corporations of the certain sector in the particular year) and the third column shows the grade.



Average 2014-2011
Sector Grade & Average 2014-2011

Automobiles

D (0.79)

Oil and Gas

D (0.77)

Telecomunications

D (0.76)

Banking

D (0.76)

Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals

D (0.72)

Mining

D (0.71)

Electronics & I.T.

E (0. 66)

Retail

E (0. 63)

Energy & Utilities

E (0. 62)

Tobacco, Food & Drinks

E (0.51)

2014
Sector 2014

Oil and Gas

C (0.82)

Automobiles

D (0.77)

Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals

D (0.77)

Telecommunications

D (0.77)

Mining

E (0.69)

Banking

E (0.66)

Tobacco, Food & Drinks

E (0.64)

Electronics & I.T.

E (0.60)

Energy & Utilities

E (0.60)

Retail

F (0.54)

2013
Sector 2013

Automobiles

D (0.75)

Banking

E (0.68)

Electronics & I.T.

C (0.81)

Energy & Utilities

D (0.72)

Mining

E (0.68)

Oil and Gas

E (0.68)

Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals

E (0.64)

Retail

F (0.58)

Telecommunications

F (0.55)

Tobacco, Food & Drinks

F (0.54)

Conclusions

General Conclusions

The Cultural Diplomacy Private Sector Ranking is pioneering work in the field of Corporate Cultural Diplomacy. The private sector offers great potential in the field of cultural diplomacy. This five-year study aims to raise awareness of the private sector’s potential and involvement in the field of cultural diplomacy, as well as build a theoretical and methodological framework for measuring Corporate Cultural Diplomacy.

While this shows recognition of basic areas of Cultural Diplomacy (such as policies regarding diversity and human rights), it also could be applied to European legislation, national policies, and expected standards to which Western corporations of this size are expected to adhere. The fact that these corporations are headquartered in Europe means that they already operate under certain legislation regarding employee diversity and civil- and human rights. Furthermore, their sheer size means that transnationalism is almost inevitable. However, the corporations scoring above average, and particularly those reaching the A grade, have shown true leadership in engaging the private sector in the field of Cultural Diplomacy. According to our research it is evident that some sectors are more involved and invested in the field of Cultural Diplomacy than others. This report hopes to encourage the corporations which were graded A+, A or B to maintain their current level, whilst also compelling their less successful counterparts not only to recognize their responsibilities and capacity to support Cultural Diplomacy initiatives, but also to see the associated benefits of such involvement.

Results

Based on our research, there is no clear causal relation between market value and Cultural Diplomacy involvement. While there are examples of corporations with high market values scoring average and above average, there are also examples of corporations with low market values scoring just as well. Nevertheless it is clear, that there is a relation between the different sectors and the corporations’ involvement in Cultural Diplomacy. Even though Deutsche Bank got the highest score but is part of the banking sector, it is clear, that the automobiles sector is much more involved in CCD than the other sectors The sector with the least engagement in Cultural Diplomacy is the Tobacco, Food and Drinks Sector. However, as noted this is due to the advertising and sponsor shop ban for tobacco corporations. This outcome differs from year to year, but generally it can be said that Automobile, Banking and Oil&Gas corporations perform much better than Retail, Tobacco, Food and Drinks as well as Energy & Utilities corporations

This report has achieved its aim of investigating the commitment of the top 100 European corporations (based on market value) to Cultural Diplomacy. Through extensive research, this project has developed a transparent and simple prototype grading system by which corporations can be assessed.

Automobiles

The Automobile industry is the leading sector in corporate engagement in cultural diplomacy, with an overall sector average ranking of D (0.79) Over the last four years the largest multinational companies within the sector have been actively engaged in numerous and diverse activities throughout the world related to cultural exchange, the cultural and creative industries and corporate social responsibility. Four of the five ranked automobile corporations all originate from Germany, reflecting the market share of German manufacturers, as well as the particularly high engagement in cultural diplomacy of German corporations across the sectors analyzed within this report.

Oil & Gas

Oil & Gas, has an overall sector ranking of D (0.77) for its engagement in cultural diplomacy over the last four years. British Petroleum (BP) and the Russian-owned Gazprom are the highest performers, with both companies achieving a ranking of B (0.91), and similarly Repsol, Mal Magyar, Lukoil, Royal Dutch Shell, Eni S.p.A and Total all achieve a score of above C (0.80) The overall sector average ranking is only let down by the significantly low scores of the bottom two companies - Surgutneftegas and OMV, who achieve a mere (F (0.39) and F (0.36) respectively.

Banking

With an overall sector average ranking of D (D (0.76)), the banking industry represents the joint third most active sector in engagement in cultural diplomacy. Corporations within the banking industry have been active in a variety of arenas, and have implemented projects throughout the world, within the fields of sport, music, art and sustainable development among others. Particularly significant has been the contribution of Deutsche Bank, which at a rating of 1 is the highest ranked corporation not only within the banking industry, but across all sectors.

Telecommunications

The Telecommunications sector has seen consistently high scores over the last four years, achieving an overall average sector ranking of D (0.76) Large multinationals such as the two highest-ranked: Telenor B (0.92) and Vodafone C (0.88) continue to be actively engaged in a wide and diverse number of projects in several fields, and across the globe. Employee experience and diversity are areas in which telecommunications companies generally excel, and many of the top performers have also shown high levels of participation in community projects in the regions in which they operate.

Mining

The mining industry has a respectable overall score of D (0.71) Rio Tinto Group has been a consistently outstanding performer since 2010, achieving a ranking of 1 in 2011 and 2014, and an overall average of A (0.96) over the last four years. Most of the corporations within the sector place sustainability and reducing environmental impact at the core of their values, which is reflected in the high scores of the top performers. Unfortunately the overall average score of the sector is dramatically reduced by the two lowest performers: Randgold Resources and MMC Norilisk Nickel who both fail to reach an average of F (0.45) for the last four years.

Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals

Pharmaceutical and Chemicals received an overall score of D (0.72). The score of B (0.9) achieved by German pharmaceutical manufacture Bayer is instrumental to the average sector ranking of D (0.72) attributed to the Pharmaceutical and Chemicals industry. Three companies in total gained scores of above C (0.80), though almost twice as many had scores on or below the passing threshold of F (0.59). Nonetheless, companies within the sector have displayed a sound level of engagement with cultural diplomacy initiatives, particularly in terms of human rights, internships and grants and scholarships.

Electronics, Logistics & Information Technologies

The Electronics, logistics and information technologies industries receive a respectable overall sector average ranking of E (0. 66). Although the Swedish company AB Volvo has been a consistent performer, reflected by its highest overall ranking of C (0.88) many companies have failed to engage in cultural diplomacy for each of the last four years. This lack of consistency has lowered the overall sector average score, however there has been a marked improvement within the sector as a whole during 2014.

Energy and Utilities

The Energy and Utilities industry alongside Retail is one of the lowest ranked sectors in its engagement with cultural diplomacy, and over the last four years has only managed to achieve a relatively low overall sector average score of E (0. 62). The German corporation RWE has the highest overall ranking within the sector at C (0.84), but over half of the large multinational companies listed fail to achieve an average of above E (0. 65) for the last four years.

Retail

This sector received an overall score of E (0. 63). It is a lack of consistency across all four years, which accounts for the low score of companies within the retail industry. The German sportswear manufacturer Adidas for example, achieves a high score of C (0.89) but this is achieved only through its engagement with cultural diplomacy during 2012 alone. The overall sector average ranking is also reduced significantly by the extremely poor performance of the Paris-based fashion brand Christian Dior whose score of just F (0.11) presents the lowest score of any company over the last four years.

Tobacco, Food & Beverages

Of all sectors observed over the last four years, the Tobacco, Food & Beverage industry has displayed the lowest overall levels of engagement in cultural diplomacy with an average sector ranking of just E (0. 60) The overall figure however is impacted heavily by restrictions on sponsorship and a lack of will on the part of the public and creative and cultural industries to engage with the Tobacco industry. Nonetheless, although many companies promote diversity and human rights standards within the workplace, there is genuinely low participation in the communities in which these companies operate.

Outlook

Looking to the future, this project hopes to have paved the way for subsequent reports of a similar nature. While this study provides a framework for the involvement of the private sector in Corporate Cultural Diplomacy, improvements can be made to the methodology to provide better and more accurate results. For example, consistency in parameter criteria would allow for more continuity in the research and results. Nevertheless it is essential to change the different categories if this is required for the current circumstances as for example the category “Corporate Responsibility & Sustainability Performance” in 2014 since Sustainable services, products and business performances recently became more and more important for the private sector.

Furthermore, this work envisions an expansion of geographical regions to cover not only European corporations, but also those in North America, South America, Asia and Africa, leading, eventually to a global assessment of private sector involvement in Cultural Diplomacy. Eliminating barriers into a corporation’s activities and therefore being capable of providing wholly accurate accounts of a corporation’s activities in cultural diplomacy requires the cultivation of one-on-one relationships with corporations. This requires the ICD to take a more active stance by educating all sectors of society about cultural diplomacy, and in particular the private sector on the benefits of CCD. Corporate cultural diplomacy is still in need of greater research. Research into the field will contribute to the awareness and adoption of its practices as well as provide the academic and theoretical bedrock for generating viable research.

Eliminating barriers into a corporation’s activities and therefore being capable of providing wholly accurate accounts of a corporation’s activities in cultural diplomacy requires the cultivation of one-on-one relationships with corporations. This requires the ICD to take a more active stance by educating all sectors of society about cultural diplomacy, and in particular the private sector on the benefits of CCD. Corporate cultural diplomacy is still in need of greater research. Research into the field will contribute to the awareness and adoption of its practices as well as provide the academic and theoretical bedrock for generating viable research.