The prior questions all help you to define the corporate contribution that your company can make that will lead to a tangible difference. By developing a thorough understanding of the current efforts currently underway in the focal area, they can be augmented, rather than undermined. Negotiating the partnering objective and developing a partner agreement will help you clarify how your corporate contribution best complements the resources and capabilities of your partners.
It is important to think expansively about what resources and capabilities your business can bring to the table. There may be a temptation for your partners to foreground your financial contributions as the primary, or even the only, contribution from your business. This could represent a missed opportunity because there are often other important resources that a business can provide, such as knowledge or networks (as illustrated in the examples below).
It is also important to consider whether your contribution might replace or pre-empt the statutory responsibilities of government. This may be a problem if it erodes the accountability of the relevant department or agency. A business contribution is likely more effective and legitimate if it complements rather than replaces government responsibilities. In our case studies, companies either worked in conjunction with the government in achieving shared objectives (e.g., Santam) or provided complementary resources that served to make the government more effective (e.g., Woolworths). The outcomes of these conversations will depend on the local context and the company in question. Corporate contributions to partnerships for community resilience may vary widely. Our case studies suggest that in some partnerships, the corporate partner provides a very specific input, and this is often funding to support another intermediary actor (see the Woolworths and Nedbank examples below). This is the more likely approach when the key required resources or capabilities exist outside the company.
Alternatively, the company may become more involved in a "hands-on" way, offering a broader array of inputs to the partnership, such as knowledge and management skills (as in the examples of Santam and AngloGold Ashanti). This is more likely the case when the company has rare and valuable resources or capabilities that are important in addressing a gap in existing efforts.
Santam initially focused on providing the Eden District DRM agency funding to build its capacity to manage disaster risks. For instance, this included the provision of equipment and training to local firefighting departments. It also included support for "catalytic projects," such as providing the funds to pilot an automatic message board along one of the main roads in the area to help demonstrate its benefits in order to justify its inclusion in the municipal budget. As the partnership progressed, a broader spectrum of corporate contributions emerged, with a focus on knowledge and networks. The partnership realised that the company had a rare and valuable resource that could help the DRM agency: risk assessment data, including digital elevation and flood models. This data could strengthen not just the DRM agency's disaster response, but could also help reduce risks by influencing the municipality's land use plans. Santam also contributed by connecting the DRM agency personnel with national meetings and programs on effective disaster risk management.
AngloGold Ashanti also developed a more "hands-on" approach to supporting agricultural development in the eMalangeni district. Over and above providing funding for crucial infrastructure, such as fencing, it took responsibility for project management and for ensuring that key role-players, such as AB InBev, stayed on board. This project management function made good use of expertise situated within the company and also helped address a key gap in previous efforts to foster agricultural development in the area, especially because of the diversity of local role-players, whose ongoing support and cooperation was required to achieve the desired outcome.
Woolworths demonstrated a different approach in its partnership to address water risks in the Breede catchment. Working with WWF-SA and its local partners, Woolworths managers recognised that a lack of coordination and trust between local actors was hampering alien vegetation clearing efforts. To overcome this, the company funded a four-year position dedicated to pooling resources from diverse sources and to improving coordination and trust between key role-players, including between farmers and government agencies. The company's involvement is thus largely limited to providing this funding, with WWF-SA and its local partners playing a more active role in supporting the local coordinator on a day-to-day basis.
Like Woolworths, Nedbank opted for a more indirect role, based on the recognition that the community development organisation Ranyaka had the knowledge, experience, and networks that would help galvanise local initiatives to enhance local economic development in Magaliesburg. Its main contribution has thus been to support Ranyaka in implementing a structured process, in which local role-players are supported to develop context-relevant social and economic development initiatives. Nedbank managers do participate in some of the local workshops that are organised as part of this process, but they do not play a prominent facilitating role.