Print this page
Stakeholder Dialogue 2006
Note from Moderator
For several months I have facilitated the social dialogue and subsequent reporting that has been initiated by British American Tobacco with EU stakeholders, including several NGOs, European institutions
and businesses. I understood my role exactly as one of just facilitating the process, making sure that the dialogue and the corresponding report is objective, providing an equal footing, allowing an interactive
environment and avoiding a situation in which the process would be perceived as a PR exercise. My position was entirely independent, thus stipulated in my contract. It needs to be said that not everybody is
used to such a process and therefore it has been also about confidence-building between the partners. Yes, I wanted it to be a process conducted by partners with an objective and tangible result.
The dialogue took place in multilateral formats as well as one on one, and on different levels, junior and senior, technical and political. I find the outcome therefore quite representative. Comments made by the stakeholders were generally well focused, sometimes very detailed. I undertook to make sure, that while the main bulk will only be addressed by BAT in the reaction to the report, BAT would be providing preliminary reactions in the course of the dialogue. This has been the case, though on some issues more than on others. This, in my opinion, should be attributed to the fact that the individual BAT representatives had their own style, and did differ in terms of their readiness to make at least preliminary commitments. On the other hand, it was clear that the representatives of BAT tried to keep an open and frank approach.
The report prepared by Ipsos MORI is summarising the dialogue and the expectations forwarded quite well. It is sufficiently clear and complete, with the intention not being to prioritise the issues. the most important part of the process is yet to come. This will put the company's reputation at stake. One can hardly realistically expect major progress on all issues identified by the report. But the company cannot afford not to address with concrete commitments, the most significant issues, including smoking in public places. Or explain convincingly why it does not intend to do so. There needs to be progress, hopefully with some benchmarking. In fact, maybe BAT would like to think of independent monitoring of implementing the commitments. On the other hand, the stakeholders should take into account that the implementation is to be a process in itself and that changes will be occurring only gradually. I would recommend to put aside some remaining hesitation and continue the dialogue with BAT. I am yet to make the final assessment of the process once we will have BATs reaction and "plan of implementation", but there is reason for some optimism. My assessment will be clear and objective, the process will either succeed or fail.
Finally, I would like to thank the stakeholders for their participation, special thanks to the European Commission. I also appreciate the effort of BAT so far. I cannot but invite those that have not for some reason participated in the dialogue, to do so in the future.
Pavel Telička