| XLS Download |
|
Spending on social engagement (€ million) | |||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008 |
2009 |
2010 |
2011 |
2012 |
|
Total spending |
5.3 |
6.2 |
6.9 |
7.9 |
11.8 |
For spending on social engagement, we calculate product donations at their fair value, except for the praziquantel donated within our Praziquantel Donation Program, whose value is calculated according to the WHO Guidelines for Medicine Donations.
The increase in spending from 2011 to 2012 is largely attributable to the Erbitux® China Patients Aid Program (ECPAP), in which we work with the Beijing Red Cross Foundation to provide this drug free-of-charge to low-income patients with colorectal cancer. The program has reached 510 patients in 97 hospitals across 35 cities in China.
| XLS Download |
|
Spending on local social engagement, by region (%)* | |||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
|
2008 |
2009 |
2010 |
2011 |
2012 | ||||||
| |||||||||||
|
Europe |
45 |
56 |
29 |
39 |
20 | ||||||
|
North America |
7 |
11 |
17 |
23 |
13 | ||||||
|
Emerging markets |
34 |
28 |
49 |
37 |
66 | ||||||
|
Rest of world |
14 |
5 |
5 |
1 |
1 | ||||||
| XLS Download |
|
Focus of local social engagement (%)* | |||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
|
2008 |
2009 |
2010 |
2011 |
2012 | ||||||
| |||||||||||
|
Health |
– |
– |
– |
28 |
30 | ||||||
|
Support for culture and sports activities near our sites |
20 |
15 |
14 |
18 |
28 | ||||||
|
Education |
23 |
19 |
21 |
22 |
16 | ||||||
|
Environment |
– |
– |
– |
5 |
9 | ||||||
|
Other |
11 |
27 |
27 |
17 |
14 | ||||||
|
Disaster relief |
5 |
6 |
3 |
10 |
3 | ||||||
|
Aid to socially disadvantaged people |
41 |
33 |
35 |
– |
– | ||||||
In 2011, we reviewed the focuses of our social engagement. Many of our projects in the different focal areas support socially disadvantaged people. In order to clearly categorize our activities, we have therefore stopped using “Aid for socially disadvantaged people” as a sub-category. We have added “Health” and “Environment” as focal areas.
| XLS Download |
|
Motivations for our social engagement (%)* | |||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
|
2008 |
2009 |
2010 |
2011 |
2012 | ||||||
| |||||||||||
|
Charitable activities |
57 |
58 |
56 |
52 |
32 | ||||||
|
Community investment |
16 |
19 |
20 |
24 |
52 | ||||||
|
Commercial initiatives in the community |
27 |
23 |
24 |
24 |
16 | ||||||
We assign the motivations for our engagement to categories based on the model of the London Benchmarking Group and the guidelines of the Bertelsmann Foundation for corporate social engagement. Projects that primarily aim to make improvements within the community are classified as “Community investment”. Projects that are predominantly aimed at company-relevant factors such as image or personnel recruitment are classified as “Commercial initiatives in the community”. “Charitable activities” comprises any other projects that benefit a charitable organization, but cannot be assigned to either of the other two motivation categories due to missing data or their narrow scope.
back
