Amid the financial struggles, the executive body of the European Union, the European Commission, recently published a new policy on corporate social responsibility that recognizes the role that CSR or corporate citizenship can play in an economic recovery. In explaining why the commission is presenting a new strategy now, the introduction to the commission’s report reads: “The economic crisis and its social consequences have to some extent damaged consumer confidence and levels of trust in business. They have focused public attention on the social and ethical performance of enterprises. By renewing efforts to promote CSR now, the Commission aims to create conditions favorable to sustainable growth, responsible business behavior and durable employment generation in the medium and long term.”

As part of the strategy, the commission offers a new definition of CSR as “the responsibility of enterprises for their impacts on society.” It contends that complying with legal and regulatory requirements  is a prerequisite for meeting that responsibility and that to do so fully requires companies to “have in place a process to integrate social, environmental, ethical, human rights and consumer concerns into their business operations and core strategy in close collaboration with their stakeholders, with the aim of: maximizing the creation of shared value for their owners/shareholders and for their other stakeholders and society at large; and identifying, preventing and mitigating their possible adverse impacts.”

The commission goes on to present an action agenda for 2011-2014 that covers eight areas:

• Enhancing the visibility of CSR and disseminating good practices
• Improving and tracking levels of trust in business
• Improving self- and co-regulation processes
• Enhancing market reward for CSR
• Improving company disclosure of social and environmental information
• Further integrating CSR into education, training and research
• Emphasizing the importance of national and sub-national CSR policies
• Better aligning European and global approaches to CSR

No doubt Europe’s economic crisis is reverberating in all corners of the globe. It will be interesting to see how a renewed and unified approach on the responsibilities of business in Europe will influence the practice of corporate citizenship in the United States and elsewhere.

What we call the Global Leadership Corps is being designed as a leadership development program that aligns with our People-Service-Profit philosophy. It is also a much-desired outlet for the giving spirit for which FedEx is known throughout the world. By combining business motivations with employee expertise, we can have a greater impact for recipient organizations and communities. After individuals complete three months of pre-work, the Global Leadership Corps (GLC) will send teams from our operating companies on a month-long international assignment to work on business projects for a local entity. The program will give our people an opportunity to work with diverse cultures, experience next-generation ways of doing business, and practice virtual and global teaming. It also will introduce them to how local government and customs can affect business.

The value to FedEx is far-reaching. We engage in projects that develop high potential employees for increased responsibilities in a global workforce, enhancing leadership, technical and personal skills, and strengthen the communities in which we live and work. Engaging employees in this way contributes to an increase in discretionary effort and collaboration and the attraction and retention of key talent. Next year, approximately 20 more employees will participate in an all-FedEx pilot program with the intent of a full-scale, global launch to follow.

For me, there were many “ah-ha” and challenging moments. I can still recall the glamour of it all – ant parades through my room, a lack of air conditioning, stomach bugs that visited for days.   Ahh, and the camaraderie that comes from cramming four North Americans and a driver into a VW-sized car for a month of commuting to and from the client’s site. The climate, the food and routines at home you take for granted are thoroughly disrupted. The experience was rewarding – viscerally, emotionally and intellectually – in the most unexpected ways. Our client was mission- and volunteer-driven. Imagine what type of leader you would be if your greatest asset could decide daily whether work was rewarding enough to show up or not!

For the volunteers who joined me in this experience, it was also enriching.  “As a team member in a company that operates in more than 220 countries and territories, the opportunity to live and work outside the U.S. profoundly impacted my understanding of how the world works.”  That’s Shane O’Connor, my partner in gustatory adventures and long walks around the city, as well as the group’s head cheerleader. Sid Sawhney, our super-easygoing and veteran traveler/photographer noted:  “Start by doing what’s necessary, then do what’s possible, and suddenly you are doing the impossible. This one quote that I read during an office visit in Sao Paulo summarizes why we should continue investing in programs like these.”

At FedEx, we are committed to being a great place to work, a thoughtful steward of the environment and a caring citizen in the communities where we live and work.  We are passionate about sustainably connecting people and places and improving the quality of life around the world.  FedEx just had its sixth annual FedEx Cares week of volunteering, where thousands of team members served in communities around the globe. Enabling team members to take an even greater step in volunteering by moving from a local day of volunteering to a solid chunk of time in a developing country really leveraging their skills is just amazing. I love to see us make real, meaningful impacts through these projects and beyond, as team members bring their personal growth back home to the workplace.

International corporate volunteer experiences like this have a ripple effect, deepening the capacity of not only social mission organizations, but of businesses as well. According to CDC Development Solutions’ 2011 Benchmarking Study on ICV programs, the number of companies sending volunteers abroad tripled in the past five years. In 2006, just 280 employees were sent into four countries, as compared to 2011, when nearly 2,000 have travelled into 58. We see a real value in providing these types of experiences, both from a business perspective and one of social impact.

Tyco and Action Against Hunger are combining their individual strengths to create a more sustainable and effective solution to clean water access that neither could have accomplished individually. “The initiative, the first global corporate partnership for ACF International, employs an innovative model of collaboration designed to enhance our capacity while scaling up the reach and impact of our clean water programs,” said Nan Dale, Action Against Hunger’s CEO. She continues to challenge the corporate sector saying “we hope Tyco International’s visionary commitment to the Clean Water Access Initiative will inspire other corporations to join the NGO sector in tackling hunger and water issues.”

In 2010 Tyco had formed a Water Philanthropy Council which began the process of developing a CSR program that would involve the capabilities of the Tyco Flow Control Business. Little did that council know that these desires would be called into action so quickly when the Haiti earthquake struck. The Tyco Water Philanthropy Council saw this as an immediate priority demanding Tyco’s support and searched for an NGO partner with the resources and expertise to mobilize a quick and effective response.  Action Against Hunger/ACF was already working on the ground in coordinated programs with other major NGOs, and because of their impeccable track record and mission alignment with Tyco, the partnership began.  With funding from Tyco and Tyco Flow Control, ACF established a series of emergency water stations around Port-au-Prince to provide critical access to clean water.

Tyco International has dedicated more than $2 million during this three-year partnership for direct funding for targeted water projects as well as in-kind product and service support. Three core components of this partnership are:

• Action Against Hunger can request Tyco funding in response to natural disasters such as earthquakes and floods. This will enable Action Against Hunger to work quickly and effectively to address humanitarian relief needs by providing clean water and other supplies to people in affected areas.
• Tyco will help directly fund ongoing Action Against Hunger projects that provide access to clean water in different areas of the world. Tyco will begin work in Indonesia’s NTT Province, where low access to clean water is a major contributing factor to poor health and malnutrition.
• Tyco will donate products and expertise in support of Action Against Hunger water programs.

“This partnership will help advance ACF’s mission to help needy communities gain access to sustainable clean water and sanitation,” said Patrick Decker, president of Tyco Flow Control. “In addition to our financial support, we will contribute products and the technical expertise of our people working in the water industry to support ACF teams working around the world.” Currently Tyco water and civil engineers based in Australia are consulting and collaborating with the Action Against Hunger program staff in Indonesia on the first community-based development project. The joint effort is managed by a steering committee representing both organizations.

For more information about the Clean Water Access Initiative visit www.actionagainsthunger.org.

For more information about Tyco International visit www.tycoflowcontrol.com/cleanwater.

“All too often, corporate philanthropy involves dropping a wad of money on organizations that are doing work on an issue that the corporation ‘cares’ about, and then saying goodbye,” wrote Fast Company Assistant Editor Ariel Schwartz. “But sometimes, corporations actually bring their know-how and human capital to bear on a problem, in addition to just giving money. The global pharmaceutical company Abbott is taking the second path, focusing on long-lasting initiatives that can grow local economies in struggling areas. Case in point: Abbott’s work to combat severe malnutrition in Haiti.”

Schwartz goes on to tell the story that began almost two years ago when Abbott sent a team of people to Haiti to check out Partners in Health’s production facility for Nourimanba, a high-protein, high-calorie fortified peanut-based paste. Not long after the trip, however, Haiti was struck by an earthquake and Abbott had to think about building the factory from the ground up. Undaunted, the pharmaceutical company and Partners in Health got to work planning everything from the type of equipment that would be used to a diagnostic process for Nourimanba that tests for local toxins.

Schwartz reported that the Nourimanba facility is about to break ground with construction and operation performed by local workers. The peanuts will come from hundreds of local farmers and eventually the facility could also be sued to sell regular peanut butter to locals with proceeds going back into production, ensuring Partners In Health could continue giving away Nourimanba for free.

“We want to make sure that organizations have the tools to make a real change,” Kathy Pickus, VP of global citizenship and policy at Abbott, told Schwartz. “If only every corporate philanthropy took such care with its projects.”

The NYSE magazine reports on GRI Chief Executive Ernst Ligteringen’s speech before more than 200 sustainability professionals at the NYSE in January at the kickoff of GRI’s Focal Point USA, which aims to encourage more U.S. companies to get on board. And a story in the most recent issue of NACD Directorship magazine headlined “Investors Seek Focus on Non-financial Issues”, cites GRI efforts to expand reporting by U.S. companies as the number of shareholder resolutions on social and environmental issues grows.

The NYSE magazine story “Focal Point USA: Accounting for Responsibility”, includes comments from Curtis Ravenel, director of sustainability initiatives at Center member company, Bloomberg L.P. Ravenel said sustainability data are taking on new importance, noting Bloomberg’s global audience of analysts and investors have been able to access GRI reports directly from their terminals since the summer of 2009. He added that he expects those reports to be viewed more frequently going forward.

Leaders from two other Center members were quoted on how the GRI has helped them measure and track business improvements successfully. Steve Leffin, director of global sustainability at UPS, said that the GRI guidelines have paved the way for his company to discuss internally realities and goals in a structured way. Susan Arnot Heaney, director of corporate responsibility at Avon Products Inc., said that the GRI gives a formal framework that is relevant for financial and reporting colleagues.

The NACD Directorship magazine story cites a recent study by Center member Ernst & Young, which found a 27 percent increase over the past decade in the number of shareholder resolutions on social and environmental issues. The story adds that Ernst & Young estimates that social and environmental resolutions will comprise half of all shareholder proposals in 2011.

This contrasts with data in the story from a 2010 NACD survey in which just 1.9 percent of directors ranked corporate social responsibility as a “highest priority.” While the story points to difficulties some companies face with a “lack of quantitative explanatory metrics,” it also mentions signs of progress thanks to the GRI, with a 300 percent increase in companies using the guidelines since 2005 and a 20 percent increase from 2009 to 2010 in documented GRI users in the United States.

The G4 next generation GRI Guidelines are intended to address requirements for sustainability data, and enable reporters to provide relevant information to various stakeholder groups with strengthened technical definitions and improved clarity, helping reporters, information users and assurance providers. To follow the process, go to the G4 Developments page of the GRI website.

According to CorporateRegister.com there were 1,000 new reporters in 2010. Around 2000 companies used the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) guidelines in 2010 and according to Bloomberg, a total of 4,600 companies referred to the GRI guidelines in their reports. Many countries around the world are beginning to mandate non-financial reporting – examples include France, South Africa, Denmark and Singapore. The recession of 2007-2009 elevated the political reasons behind greater adoption of non-financial reporting – to increase transparency and business responsibility in addressing social, economic and environmental challenges. Experts such as Steve Lydenberg, partner at Domini Social Investing, believe mandatory non-financial reporting is just a question of time. The key issues today are when, what and how to report. Yet, voluntary CSR reporting is not going away, Lydenberg believes.

Two of the most prominent frameworks for CSR management and reporting today are the Global Reporting Initiative and ISO 26000 (an ISO-developed standard for Corporate Social Responsibility). What should companies know about these two frameworks and their future developments?

The GRI was launched in 1998 as a collaboration of companies, NGOs, investors and other stakeholders with the main goal of creating a common framework and indicators for reporting of sustainability performance. Two hundred organizations from 50 countries participated in the process for developing the first guidelines. Today GRI is the gold standard for sustainability/CSR reporting worldwide. Over the years it has been through several revisions, the last one in 2005 when the third generation guidelines (G3) were launched to include sector supplements.

Despite the growing popularity of GRI, the guidelines are still used by a small number of companies as acknowledged by Nelmara Arbex, deputy chief executive, GRI. Some experts argue that government mandates are needed; others believe there is a need for a smaller set of indicators that can be linked to financial reporting. The movement toward “integrated reporting,” or combining financial and non-financial reporting, led to the creation of the International Integrated Reporting Committee (IIRC) in 2010, which is currently working to develop such guidelines. Key challenges facing the GRI today include the issue of harmonization (ensuring companies are reporting comparable information), assurance and validation of reported information and wider use of the data by mainstream financial analysts. The new G4 guidelines to be launched in May 2013 will aim to address these challenges. The open consultation process for obtaining stakeholder feedback has begun and starting in August 2011 there will be a 90-day period when anyone can register and send their suggestions.

Compared to the GRI which is strictly focused on reporting of companies’ non-financial information, the new ISO 26000 launched Nov. 1, 2010 focuses on the process for incorporating CSR criteria in a company’s management system. It does not include any indicators or certification.  One key benefit of ISO 26000 according to Dante Pesce, elected member of Post Publication Organization of ISO 26000, is that it promotes greater internal communication and collaboration (e.g., production managers talking to strategy managers). The work on ISO 26000 began in 2005 when 99 countries established working groups. Business, NGOs, labor groups and government were key participants in the standard development.

The strong international support for launching such a standard was demonstrated by the fact that representatives from 93.5 percent of participating countries voted “yes” on adopting the guidelines in their own country. To everyone’s surprise at the end of the negotiations, the United States representatives voted “no” and China voted “yes,” according to Pesce. Unanimous support of delegation members was required for a “yes” vote and of the six stakeholder groups in the U.S. delegation, only business was against adopting the guidelines.

In the United States, ANSI, the American alternative to ISO, has developed a standard for social responsibility which “mirrors ISO 26000,” Pesce said. It remains to be seen whether the business community will widely adopt the new ISO guidelines for corporate responsibility as these are not easy or simple to implement and will most likely lead to a growing number of ISO26000 consultants. Yet the launch of the standard is one more indication of the increasing importance of non-financial information for business and society.

The movement toward CSR management and non-financial reporting is gaining momentum worldwide. Driven by globalization, web connectivity, government policies, and stakeholder pressures, it is just a matter of time before it becomes the standard practice for any company committed to long-term business success. But critical issues to be addressed remain and these include harmonization of reported information, more guidance on materiality, incentives for greater adoption of assurance and validation of provided information, expanded use by mainstream investors, and development of a smaller number of key performance indicators to serve as a “dashboard” to investors and others interested in long-term company success.

The Global Education Research Network symposium hosted by the Center for Corporate Citizenship opened with a panel titled “Looking at the Big Picture of Non-Financial Reporting.” Moderator Brad Googins, associate professor at the Carroll School, was joined by Steve Lydenberg, partner, Strategic Vision, Domini Social Investing, and Michael Sadowski, vice president, SustainAbility Inc. Googins asked the pair of experts to roll out a crystal ball and give their take on where CSR reporting is headed.

Lydenberg wasted no time sketching his view of the future. “In my view,” he said, “CSR is headed toward mandatory reporting.” But he added that big questions remain about the relationship between mandatory and voluntary reporting.

Sadowski shared a few topics that are on SustainAbility’s mind of late:

1. Driving greater value from reporting for companies and users
2. Broadening the notion of integrated reporting to include targeted communications to specific stakeholder groups (e.g. consumers, employees
3. Engaging mainstream investors and analysts on sustainability issues
4. New models of assurance that focus on how “future-proof” companies are rather than validating past information and efforts.

Googins asked Lydenberg what trends are out there that make him see mandatory reporting on the horizon.

Lydenberg said that while more companies are voluntarily issuing CSR reports and there was an increase in first-time reporters last year, he feels actions by government and market authorities indicate that mandatory reporting is coming to the United States in the next three years. He cited moves by authorities in France, South Africa, Denmark and Singapore toward mandates around reporting and noted political reasons in the United States.

He pointed to the swinging pendulum in the balance of power between government and business in the United States that saw corporations operate with free reign as they came into being late in the 19^th century and in the late 1970s swung back as government controls were at their most extreme. Since then, Lydenberg observed, businesses and the markets have been allowed to reassert control. But with the financial meltdown of 2008-09 and the problems it caused, he said, government is more involved again and may push for CSR mandates as a form of soft law.

Sadowski agreed that momentum is pushing toward mandatory reporting, though he expressed his hope for reporting frameworks to be industry specific. He also remarked that while mainstream investors have shown interest in and a commitment to sustainability, few have started to act on this on a daily basis, including how they allocate their capital.

Who gets value out of reports?

When asked about the value for companies in reporting, Sadowski responded that the fundamental case has not changed since SustainAbility began its work on reporting in the early 1990s: reporting helps companies manage their efforts, drive strategy and build trust with stakeholders. Over time, reporting has well served particular stakeholder groups: socially responsible investors, NGOs and others. We now see leading companies experimenting with new formats and channels to engage new audiences and derive greater value from reporting.

Lydenberg said that a Harvard Business School study of the use of CSR data by market analysts found that companies with good CSR data received more positive findings from analyst. Googins interjected that in a 2008 joint study by McKinsey & Company and the Center for Corporate Citizenship – “How Virtue Creates Value for Business and Society” – analysts told researchers that they saw value in CSR data but didn’t see it communicated very well which made them wonder how much they should be interested.

Reporting methods and approaches

Addressing the issue of third-party assurance of reporting, Sadowski discussed the differences between formal, “accounting-style” assurance and informal, stakeholder-driven assurance (e.g. report review committees). Both have value, but companies must ask who they are trying to influence or convince.  Sadowski added, “It is important that assurance of either kind provides stakeholders with a high degree of comfort that a company is prepared to compete in a future in which they will face significant environmental and social challenges and opportunities.”

Lydenberg commented that reporting is an easy first step that allows investors and other stakeholders to engage with companies. But he added that the reporting process is as important as the actual report and “good reporting is built on good engagement.”

Sadowski touched on the concept of open data reporting, in which raw data on operations is made available for stakeholders to interpret and manipulate. While still nascent, and practiced primarily by government agencies, he said, open data could prove a valuable tool to unlock greater value from reporting.

Lydenberg said that while the range of communication is broad he sees two types: market and public policy. Communications aimed at the market get to the point of purchase with vehicles such as labeling to reach consumers and integrated reports for investors. Most advanced companies, Lydenberg said, report in the more difficult public policy sphere about social outcomes as opposed to company outputs. As an example, he cited Campbell Soup setting a goal to reduce obesity by 50 percent in 10 communities around the country near its operations.

Regarding a move to integrated financial and non-financial reports, Sadowski remarked that integrated reports won’t have the “litany” of content now found in CSR reports but he said they will have core information that people will read. “The more targeted and focused it becomes the better,” he said.

Reporting for the future

Lydenberg and Sadowski agreed that the information being reported by companies must become more relevant. Sadowski said that what is reported by a company may be fine, but what is not reported is even more important and there needs to be an assessment of what is missing.

What a company is going to do in the future is an important second part of reporting, Sadowski said. “How are they positioned for future issues?”

Lydenberg said that much of the dissatisfaction with reporting stems from the fact that reports from individual companies do not offer a view of the larger picture. “What do you want: a sense that a company is headed in the right direction or whether society is headed in the right direction?” He added, “What difference does it make if one company is doing well but overall society is not.”

While the United Nations has officially declared water as one of the basic human rights, we still lack effective policies to protect this valuable resource for both people and companies. We have too many policies and regulations and too little coordination at federal and state levels. As Sally Yozell from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration explained, there are 24 federal agencies and 140 laws regulating the oceans alone in the United States. A major step in the right direction was the establishment of the National Oceans Council and the signing of Executive Order 13547 by President Obama in 2010 to promote national ocean stewardship policy and better coordination among all federal agencies.

In the absence of effective policies on water, why should companies care and what should they do to protect this valuable resource? The pressures for more sustainable water resource management are growing every year – from increasing water-related costs, to water-related business disruptions, to changing expectations of stakeholders (e.g., water disclosure requests under the Climate Disclosure Project

Achieving water sustainability requires collaboration by government, business, NGOs and consumers. Much can be done today, as presented by David Brooks, senior adviser at Friends of Earth (FoE) Canada:

• Make ecological security an absolute criterion.
• Match quality of water to the use (e.g., you don’t need to use tap water on your lawns or to flush toilets).
• Plan backward – from the future to the present. How can 28 billion people live with the same water we have today?

FoE has done extensive analysis and found that Ontario can absorb industry growth for another 20 to 30 years without increasing demand, Nova Scotia can cut water use by 50 percent, urban water use can drop by 45 percent despite 50 percent growth in population, and new pulp and paper mills can cut unit water use by 95 percent.

Reducing water use is just one side of addressing water issues. The other is protecting our freshwater from numerous contaminants – more than 100,000 synthetic chemicals in manufacturing and products, contamination from personal care and cosmetics products, as well as pharmaceuticals and other organic contaminants. This is an area where we still have limited knowledge but adopting precautionary measures is critical to ensuring clean water for future generations and long-term business growth.

Additional resources and steps that companies can take to address emerging water risks include:

• Measuring your company’s water impact (e.g., by using the Corporate Water Gauge tool developed by the Center for Sustainable Innovation.
• Assessing your company’s water-impact risks. The Global Environmental Management Initiative provides resources and tools on water sustainability, and presents “The Business Case for Pursuing Water Sustainability”.
• Reducing water use in manufacturing and operations (e.g., through recirculation, rainwater harvesting, or process modifications to reduce use).
• Educating consumers and empowering them to reduce water use, as Levi Strauss Co. has with its Levi’s WaterLess Jeans and “Care Tag for Our Planet” campaign.
• Educating employees and promoting sustainable water practices at home, similar to Wal-Mart’s Personal Sustainability Project.
• Engaging with government and NGOs to promote effective policies for water protection and conservation, as Coca-Cola did with its Community Water Partnership Program.

Seeking to eliminate the use of toxic chemicals in manufacturing and products in order to prevent the release of contaminants in the environment, including water.

Among these challenges is the decision of fund allocation across global sites. AMD and others companies in the audience such as State Street utilize an application process to allocate funding based on both need and proven performance in the community. Cross cultural differences are also a common challenge. Both Peerman and Janis emphasized the importance of maintaining flexibility with local offices, while adhering to some global standards and a corporate framework. Local community liaisons should be able to identify their own partners and make culturally specific giving decisions.

We also heard a recommendation from the audience to expand the way we think about volunteerism. Tried and true projects that are common in the U.S. (such as community cleanup projects) many not be appealing in other countries. Instead, it may be better to build upon a compelling social need such as a local natural disaster, or providing learning opportunities for local children.

Structurally, many companies echoed the AMD and Alcoa model of utilizing local volunteer liaisons who administer these programs in addition to their regular corporate roles at international sites. In order to make this work it is important to ensure that these employees receive recognition for their contributions from their local managers, as well as training and support from the corporate office, said Peerman.

Community involvement can be a powerful tool for global businesses, in helping to build brand, presence and relationships in unfamiliar markets. This audience undoubtedly took many useful tips back home to help them better achieve these benefits.

Why do you need to know the global stakeholder landscape for corporate citizenship? Your license to operate in foreign markets may depend on it. Keen understanding of where these groups stand can significantly aid in the creation of citizenship programs and partnerships as well.

The Boston College Center has been working with its global partner organizations in the Global Education and Research Network (GERN) to assess where stakeholder groups stand on the spectrum of support for corporate citizenship and influence over corporate action. Because the number and type of stakeholder groups, their respective influence, and their opinions differ from one country to the next, we can expect that the approach to, and nature of, corporate citizenship will differ as well.

Surveys of corporate leaders suggest that they listen to three groups of stakeholders the most when it comes to corporate citizenship: consumers, employees and the government. However, our country stakeholder maps show that consumers and employees in particular are still sitting on the fence when it comes to advocating for corporate citizenship, particularly in developing countries.

Different countries have different “drivers” of corporate citizenship among stakeholder groups. In South Africa and China, for instance, corporate citizenship is largely driven by government policy and legislation, while in Chile and Mexico international organizations such as the Global Compact have great influence. NGOs have taken a strong stand in support of corporate citizenship, but their influence is comparatively low and in several countries legitimacy is an issue.

Some countries also face significant “resistors” to corporate citizenship. Globally, investors can cause the greatest stall in this area. Additionally, labor unions in many countries have taken a skeptical view, worrying that this new agenda may threaten their own objectives.

Where do you think the greatest pressure for corporate citizenship will come from in the future? Could investors change their tune? The socially responsible investment movement (SRI) is gaining ground in the West, but hasn’t yet reached much of the developing world. Will a new generation of ethical consumers and employees move these groups off the fence line?

Look for our latest findings and country-by-country analysis in an upcoming report on the Influence and Impact of Global Stakeholders later this year.