This document discusses using the Financial Valuation Tool (FV Tool) to estimate the expected net present values of sustainability investments for Newmont Ghana Gold's Ahafo mine project. The tool helps answer questions about determining the right portfolio of sustainability investments and their potential financial returns. It also supports alignment across different business functions. The document provides examples of sustainability scenarios analyzed in the tool and discusses indirect value protection from mitigating project risks. Quotes from Newmont Ghana Gold employees note improvements in cross-functional collaboration and the sustainability team's ability to articulate business cases in financial terms since using the FV Tool.

1. NEWMONT
GHANA
FV TOOL
PROJECT
Witold
Henisz,
Deloi/e
&
Touche
Professor
of
Management,
The
Wharton
School,
University
of
Pennsylvania

2. IntroducAon
to
the
FV
Tool
(www.fvtool.com)
2
§ Es0mates
expected
net
present
values
(NPV)
of
local
investments
§
Answers
two
cri0cal
ques0ons:
§ “what”
is
the
right
porDolio
of
sustainability
investments?
§ “what”
is
the
financial
return
they
will
likely
bring?
§
Supports
alignment
across
finance,
risk,
opera0ons,
social,
HR

3. FV Investment Scenarios
Scenario
B
:
• Health:
expanding
mi+ga+on
for
broader
popula+on
• Water
&
Sanita2on:
expanding
mi+ga+on
for
broader
popula+on
Scenario
A:
• Health:
mi+ga+on
only
for
workers
&
community
• Water
&
Sanita2on:
mi+ga+on
only
for
workers
&
community
Difference
between
Scenario
A
and
B

4. Value
Driver
Examples
§ More
Conciliatory
Land
Acquisi0on
Process:
§ $2.87
per
square
foot
less
than
expected
leading
to
$230,000
savings.
§
Four
months
faster
than
expected
leading
to
$700,000
more
revenue.
§ Malaria
Eradica0on:
§ Reduc0on
from
3,195
cases
of
malaria
to
0
§ 3
days
of
absence
from
work
or
$120
of
lost
produc0vity
§ Savings
of
$30
worth
of
treatment
§ Addi0onal
lost
work
an
produc0vity
for
family
illness
§ Higher
recruitment
and
reten0on
costs
for
most
skilled
workers
§ $850,000,
two-­‐year
program
§ Distributed
bed
nets,
instructed
and
monitored
use
§ Sprayed
insec0cide
&
improved
drainage
to
eliminate
breeding
pools.

5. Indirect Value Protection Based on Six Project Risks!
• Roadblocks that disrupted production which were expected to
occur once every other year, last one week and cost a fixed $3m
plus one week of lost revenue."
• Serious complaints which are expected to occur 12 times per year
with an expected average cost of $50,000. "
• Exploration protests which were expected to occur every other
year, last two weeks and cost $5m plus two weeks of lost revenue."
• Fines and legal judgments which were expected to occur every
third year with an average cost of $3m."
• Water protests which were expected to occur every other year with
an average cost of $200,000"
• The risk of expropriation which was estimated at a 1 in 1,000
probability in any given year."
5

6. FVTOOL,
Value
ProtecAon

7. FVTOOL, Monte Carlo Simulation!
Value
in
Billions
Occurrences
7

8. FVTOOL, NPV of sustainability!
Dashboard
-­‐
Total
Sustainability
Value
Added
For
$2billion
CAPEX
project,
sustainability
investments
returned
as
much
as
$187
million
of
NPV.
8

9. Notable Quotes: Sustainability Team
When
we
first
heard
of
it,
those
of
us
on
the
social
side
were
happy
to
get
something
that
would
help
Finance
understand
us.
We
are
more
confident
in
cos+ng
the
programs
that
we
do.
This
puts
us
in
a
much
be@er
posi+on
with
finance.
In
previous
mee+ngs,
other
departments
had
figures
and
we
had
to
talk
to
explain.
Now
we
are
puDng
figures
to
our
words
just
like
other
departments.
The
change
within
the
ESR
team
is
marked.
What
are
these
risks
that
we
are
trying
to
mi+gate?
Are
their
costs
jus+fied
in
terms
or
risk
mi+ga+on?
Previously
program
owners
were
not
connec+ng
the
dots
to
risk
mi+ga+on
or
value
crea+on.
Now
we
challenge
the
numbers.
Previously,
we
had
no
framework
to
evaluate.
People
are
now
trying
to
highlight
the
value
of
their
ini+a+ves
for
the
business
not
just
for
stakeholders.

10. Notable Quotes: Finance Team
My
biggest
surprise
was
that
it
is
possible
for
the
ESR
team
to
have
a
conversa+on
in
financial
terms.
Every
conversa+on
I
had
with
them
before,
…
they
never
could
ar+culate
their
assump+ons
and
acknowledge
costs
and
benefits.
Now
they
can
and
do.
They
have
their
act
together
and
can
explain
a
business
case
…
Previously,
they
were
not
able
to
see
their
business
case.
…
Finance
and
[Environment
and
Social
Responsibility]
are
now
working
together
much
be@er
than
before.
Just
those
changes
alone
jus+fy
the
effort
put
into
the
pilot.
Ebenezer
Kyere-­‐Buabeng
,
Finance
Newmont
Ghana
Gold
In
the
last
business
planning
mee+ng,
I
saw
a
huge
improvement
in
SR's
presenta+on
of
budget
and
supported
by
data
of
the
business
benefits
of
SR
programs.
The
mee+ng
went
very
smoothly
compared
to
previous
mee+ngs.
Lester
Ampong,
Senior
Business
Planning
Analyst,
Newmont
Ghana
Gold

11. Notable Quotes: Group Executive
Quan+fying
the
net
present
value
of
sustainability
ini+a+ves
at
Newmont’s
Ahafo
mine
in
Ghana
had
finally
allowed
the
company
to
get
“Beyond
NPV.”
Nick
Cocs,
Group
Execu0ve,
ESR

12. Key Findings of FV Ahafo Pilot and
Developments over Last 9 Months!
• Value creation swamped by value protection!
• Estimates of latter mostly qualitative in FVTOOL!
• Need better quantification of stakeholder preferences
within FVTOOL!
• Who wants what how badly?!
• Who has power?!
• Who influences whom?!
• Jan 2013 add-on incorporates stakeholder influence into
risk mitigation consequence but how to sequence
stakeholder mapping & analysis and financial valuation?!
• Cross-functional conversations and collaboration swamped
value of npv calculation!
! 12

13. 4.
STRATEGIC
RECOMMENDATIONS
&
SCENARIO
ANALYSIS
• Ini+a+ves:
Around
which
issues?
• Coali+on-­‐building:
With
which
partners?
• Performance:
How
might
specific
inita0ves
play
out?
3.
STRATEGIC
PRIORITIZATION
OF
STAKEHOLDERS
&
ISSUES
• Power:
Who
influences
whom?
• Salience:
How
much
do
they
care?
• Effec+ve
power
=
Power
×
Salience
2.
OPINION
&
ISSUE
IDENTIFICATION
• Social
License:
Opinion
of
company
and
project?
• Preoccupa+ons:
Key
issues
of
concern?
1.
STAKEHOLDER
CENSUS
• Coverage:
All
local
&
na0onal
stakeholder
organiza0ons
• Method:
Field
interviews
by
trained
local
teams
• Data
collected:
Opinions,
issues
of
concern,
rela0onships
Ø A
“stakeholder”
is
any
external
group
or
organiza0on
that
can
significantly
affect
a
company
or
project’s
opera0ons,
or
that
is
significantly
affected
by
these
opera0ons.
Ø We
begin
an
engagement
by
compiling
data
on
stakeholders’
concerns
and
priori0es,
opinions
toward
the
company
or
project,
and
rela0ons
with
each
other.
Ø A
stakeholder
census—in
which
specially
trained
teams
acempt
to
interview
representa0ves
from
all
of
a
company
or
project’s
stakeholders—provides
the
most
reliable
data.
Ø When
a
census
is
imprac0cal
or
infeasible,
we
employ
secondary
sources
such
as
tradi0onal
news
media,
“social”
media,
expert
assessments,
and
internal
client
data.
Stakeholder Mapping and Analysis:!Workflow!

14. Social License:
*
Adapted
from
Thomson
&
Bou+lier
(2011)
Four Levels!
Ø Psychological
iden2fica2on.
Stakeholders
feel
a
sense
of
“co-­‐
ownership”
and
advocate
on
behalf
of
company
proposals.
Ø Approval.
Stakeholders
perceive
company
proposals
as
credible.
Ø Acceptance.
Stakeholders
evaluate
company
proposals
on
a
case-­‐by-­‐case
basis.
Ø Withheld/withdrawn.
Stakeholders’
nega0ve
percep0ons
result
in
ac0ons
that
compromise
access
to
finance,
legal
license,
material,
labor,
markets,
supply
chain,
etc.
Social
license
to
operate
(SLO):
stakeholder
percep+ons
of
the
acceptability
of
a
company
&
its
local
opera+ons
at
a
point
in
+me.

15. Social
contract
Stakeholders
perceive
the
company
to
respect
their
culture
&
customs,
meet
their
expecta0ons
about
its
role
in
society,
and
act
fairly.
Legi2macy
of
benefits
Stakeholders
perceive
net
economic
benefit
from
project.
Ins2tu2onalized
trust
Stakeholders
perceive
the
company
to
have
an
enduring
regard
for
their
interests,
which
they
reciprocate.
Social
capital
Stakeholders
perceive
the
company
to
listen,
respond,
keep
promises,
engage
in
dialogue,
and
exhibit
reciprocity.
Four Components!Social License:

16. Social
contract
Stakeholders
perceive
the
company
to
respect
their
culture
&
customs,
meet
their
expecta0ons
about
its
role
in
society,
and
act
fairly.
Ins2tu2onalized
trust
Stakeholders
perceive
the
company
to
have
an
enduring
regard
for
their
interests,
which
they
reciprocate.
Social
capital
Stakeholders
perceive
the
company
to
listen,
respond,
keep
promises,
engage
in
dialogue,
and
exhibit
reciprocity.
Legi2macy
of
benefits
Stakeholders
perceive
net
economic
benefit
from
project.
Four Components!Social License:

17. Social
contract
Ø The
company
contributes
to
our
well-­‐being
in
the
long
run.
Ø The
company
treats
everyone
fairly.
Ø The
company
respects
our
ways.
Ø Our
organiza0on
and
the
company
have
a
similar
vision
for
the
future.
Social
capital
Ø The
company
honors
its
word
to
us.
Ø We
are
very
sa0sfied
with
our
rela0ons
with
the
company.
Ø The
presence
of
the
company
is
a
benefit
to
us.
Ø The
company
listens
to
us.
Ins2tu2onalized
trust
Ø The
company
gives
more
support
to
those
it
nega0vely
affects.
Ø The
company
shares
decision-­‐making.
Ø The
company
considers
our
interests.
Ø The
company
openly
shares
relevant
informa0on
with
us.
Legi2macy
of
benefits
Ø We
can
gain
from
a
rela0onship
with
the
company.
Ø We
need
the
company’s
coopera0on
to
meet
our
goals.
Measurement!
We
measure
the
four
components
of
the
social
license
by
asking
interviewees
to
rate
their
level
of
agreement
or
disagreement
with
a
series
of
statements.
Social License:
This
methodology
has
been
validated
in
more
than
1,500
stakeholder
interviews
at
mining
and
construc0on
sites
located
on
four
con0nents.

18. Capital City of Country A
Mine Site A
Mine Site B
Country
A
Capital
City of
Country B
Mine 1 Mine 2 Mine 3
Score
(out
of
5.0)
Stakeholder
Support
for
Two
West
African
Mines
Stakeholder
support
in
capital
ci+es
is
significantly
higher
than
at
mine
sites.
Score
(out
of
5.0)
5
=
strongly
agree
with
3
=
neither
agree
nor
disagree
1
=
strongly
disagree
Country
B

19. 2.
OPINION
&
ISSUE
IDENTIFICATION
• Social
License:
Opinion
of
company
and
project?
• Preoccupa+ons:
Key
issues
of
concern?
Stakeholder Mapping and Analysis:!Workflow!
Ø To
iden0fy
the
issues
contribu0ng
to
the
gran0ng
or
withdrawal
of
the
social
license,
we
ask
interviewees
what
the
most
important
concerns
for
their
community
or
organiza0on
are.
Ø We
parse
interviewees’
responses
to
this
open-­‐ended
ques0on
and
assign
a
numeric
code
to
each
dis0nct
issue
men0oned.
Ø We
group
individual
issues
into
global
categories
such
as
“environment”
and
“health,”
as
well
as
intermediate
categories
within
the
global
categories.

20. CMTY
Country
A
Mine
Site
A
Top
stakeholder
concerns
by
socioeconomic
group
(bubbles
indicate
average
menAons
per
stakeholder)
Ø The
ver0cal
axis
iden0fies
global
issue
categories.
Ø The
horizontal
axis
classifies
stakeholders
by
socioeconomic
group.
Ø The
number
inside
each
bubble
represents
the
average
number
of
0mes
the
corresponding
issue
was
men0oned
per
stakeholder
in
the
relevant
group.
Ø Larger
bubbles
indicate
higher
men0on
frequencies.
Wide
agreement
among
socioeconomic
groups
on
top
three
issue
categories.

21. 4.
STRATEGIC
RECOMMENDATIONS
&
SCENARIO
ANALYSIS
• Ini+a+ves:
Around
which
issues?
• Coali+on-­‐building:
With
which
partners?
• Performance:
How
might
specific
inita0ves
play
out?
3.
STRATEGIC
PRIORITIZATION
OF
STAKEHOLDERS
&
ISSUES
• Power:
Who
influences
whom?
• Salience:
How
much
do
they
care?
• Effec+ve
power
=
Power
×
Salience
Stakeholder Mapping and Analysis:!Workflow!
2.
OPINION
&
ISSUE
IDENTIFICATION
• Social
License:
Opinion
of
company
and
project?
• Preoccupa+ons:
Key
issues
of
concern?
Ø For
purposes
of
developing
a
stakeholder
engagement
strategy,
stakeholders
and
issues
must
be
priori0zed.
Ø Emphasizing
the
issues
of
the
most
nega0vely
disposed
or
loudest
stakeholders
creates
perverse
incen0ves
and
may
be
an
inefficient
use
of
company
resources.
Ø Similarly,
addressing
the
most
commonly-­‐cited
issues
rests
on
the
unwarranted
assump0on
that
all
stakeholders
merit
equal
acen0on.
Ø To
priori0ze
stakeholders
and
issues,
we
use
interview
data
to
assess
each
stakeholder's
power
to
influence
other
stakeholders,
as
well
as
the
extent
to
which
each
stakeholder
regards
company
or
project-­‐
related
issues
as
salient.
Ø We
use
the
measures
of
salience
and
power,
along
with
a
combined
measure
labeled
“effec0ve
power,”
to
apply
a
series
of
weigh0ng
schemes
to
the
raw
data
on
issues
and
priori0es.
1.
STAKEHOLDER
CENSUS
• Coverage:
All
local
&
na0onal
stakeholder
organiza0ons
• Method:
Field
interviews
by
trained
local
teams
• Data
collected:
Opinions,
issues
of
concern,
rela0onships

22. Cmty
Country
A
Mine
Site
A
Top
stakeholder
concerns
by
socioeconomic
group
(bubbles
indicate
average
menAons
per
stakeholder
weighted
by
effec2ve
power)
Rela0vely
more
important
now
No
longer
broadly
important

23. • Supporters must be given real
responsibilities and authority to sway
waverers. "
• Cheerleaders must be managed with care
so as not to damage other relationships."
• Waverers are targets (for both sides)."
• Bystanders are allies with low salience.
Keep them informed so that they feel
consulted."
• Ignore disinterested skeptics.!
• Strategize to defeat interrogators and
challengers, but in a way that allows them
a face-saving way out. " ""
• Not much one can do about unpredictable
opponents—watch them carefully."
Adapted from D’Herbemont & César
(1998), Managing Sensitive Projects
Stakeholder Mapping and Analysis:!Prioritization!
−
−
+
+
Social
License
Salience
In
addi0on
to
priori0zing
specific
issues
of
concern
according
to
different
socioeconomic
groups’
effec0ve
power,
we
also
classify
stakeholders
into
“strategic
groups”
based
on
acributes
such
as
level
of
social
license
and
salience.
We
use
these
groupings
to
differen0ate
approaches
for
engaging
with
specific
stakeholders.

24. strategic
group
weighted
by
effecAve
power)
3.9
3.8
3.6
5.2
4.4
7.2
6.9
5.3
7.0
6.4
7.0
4.6
6.2
4.7
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
7.2
4.5
4.5
7.9
11.7
0.5
1.5
2.5
3.5
4.5
5.5
6.5
7.5
8.5
9.5
10.5
11.5
12.5
13.5
14.5
0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 7.5 8.5 9.5 10.5
sanitation/hygiene
rates
and
payments
education
infrastructure
water
community
infrastructure
negative
health
concerns
Education/skills
training
information
provision
wa-­‐
ver-­‐
ers
(n=30)
cheer
lea-­‐
ders
(n=24)
sup-­‐
por-­‐
ters
(n=22)
disint.
skep-­‐
tic
(n=19)
by-­‐
stan-­‐
ders
(n=18)
inter-­‐
roga-­‐
tors
(n=17)
chal-­‐
len-­‐
gers
(n=6)
oppo-­‐
nents
(n=2)
#N#N/A
#N/A
unemployment
0
0
0
0
transport
infrastructure
land
use
and
waste
Country
A,
Mine
Site
A
Top
stakeholder
concerns
by
(bubbles
indicate
average
menAons
per
stakeholder)
SOCIAL
LICENSE:
SALIENCE:
MED
SOCIAL
LICENSE:
SALIENCE:
HI
SOCIAL
LICENSE:
SALIENCE:
HI
SOCIAL
LICENSE:
SALIENCE:
HI
The
fact
that
“cheerleaders”
and
“supporters”
share
the
same
issues
of
concern
as
“opponents”
represents
an
opportunity.
Members
of
the
first
two
groups,
whose
numbers
are
greater,
could
exert
social
pressure
on
opponents
to
adopt
less
nega+ve
views.
According
to
the
same
logic,
the
fact
that
challengers
and
opponents
share
issues
of
concern
without
being
exposed
to
the
poten+al
modera+ng
influence
of
more
posi+vely
disposed
groups
represents
a
source
of
sociopoli+cal
risk.

25. Nat’l Police
Nat’l Health Service
Site A MuniAsy
Nat’l FireSrv
Site A_ChfNat’lDptUrbRds
Rdo Sta A
Rdo Sta B
Nat’l Health
Asy 3
CEO
Wms Grp
Enterprise A
Rdo Sta C
Rdo Sta D
Investigation
Nat’lMilitary
Youth Grp
Education
Nw_Asy
Nwspr A
QnM
CityHth
Town Asy
LandCom
T&C Plans
CvcEduc
EmplCom
Nat’l Minerals
Most
InfluenAal
Stakeholders,
Mine
Site
A
The
Na+onal
Police
and
the
Na+onal
Health
Service
are
the
two
most
influen+al
stakeholders
in
the
network,
due
to
the
large
number
of
other
stakeholders
to
which
they
are
+ed
as
well
as
the
“brokering”
role
that
each
plays
for
otherwise
unconnected
groups.
In
this
case,
the
level
of
social
license
granted
by
the
Na+onal
Health
Service
is
in
the
“approval”
range.
When
combined
with
the
agency’s
substan+al
influence
in
the
network,
its
posi+ve
orienta+on
suggests
the
poten+al
for
a
partnering
arrangement
that
could
raise
the
company’s
level
of
social
license
among
the
others.
The
interviews
also
provide
informa0on
about
the
“social
capital”
in
the
rela0onships
among
stakeholders.
We
convert
this
informa0on
into
network
graphs.
We
also
calculate
various
measures
of
social
influence
to
gain
insight
into
relevant
influence
dynamics,
and
ul0mately
into
engagement
strategies
that
leverage
these
dynamics.

26. RdoStaA
RdoStaB
Nat’lPolice
MediaSiteA
Nat’l FireSvc
Nat’lHealthSvc
Nat’l EPA RdoStaC
RdoStaD
RdoStaE
WmsGrp
NBSS IndustryChf_A
YouthChair City A Asy
City B Asy
Site A MuniPlans
MiningCo A
NatlDptUrbRds
TownAUnit
TownBUnit
Chf_B
City C Asy
City D Asy
XYZSvcs
Important Media Sector Links, Mine Site A!
Hypothe+cal
issue:
cholera
outbreak
a@ributed
to
mine
Engagement
Strategy
Ø Partner
with
Na+onal
Health
Service
Ø Use
Health
Service’s
influence
over
radio
sta+ons
to
customize
messaging
based
on
the
sta+ons’
divergent
opinions
of
the
company

27. TownGAsy
RdoStaA
NatlPolice
TownGHth
MktWmn
ChfA
ChfB
ChfC
ChfD
ChfE
ChfF
TownBAsy
TownAAsy
TownCUnit
TownCWmn
TownDAsy
TownEUnit
NatlSSNIT
ChfH
TownEAsy
NatlEnvSciTec
TownAFarmers
TownFUnit
TownHYth
TownZAsy
TownDWmn
SiteAMWWives
TownXAsy
TownX_QnM
TownQ_Rgt
CoA_CEO
CoA_T&CPlans
CoAAsy
CoAStoolands
Transport
infrastructure
Land
use
&
waste
Sanita0on/hygiene
infrastructure
Unemployment
Powerful Stakeholders Tied to
Top Issues, Mine Site A
"
Another
type
of
network
analysis
iden+fies
stakeholder-­‐issue
linkages.
In
this
example,
the
+es
indicate
issues
that
were
frequently
co-­‐men+oned
in
the
same
interview.

28. 4.
STRATEGIC
RECOMMENDATIONS
&
SCENARIO
ANALYSIS
• Ini+a+ves:
Around
which
issues?
• Coali+on-­‐building:
With
which
partners?
• Performance:
How
might
specific
inita0ves
play
out?
3.
STRATEGIC
PRIORITIZATION
OF
STAKEHOLDERS
&
ISSUES
• Power:
Who
influences
whom?
• Salience:
How
much
do
they
care?
• Effec+ve
power
=
Power
×
Salience
Stakeholder Mapping and Analysis:!Workflow!
2.
OPINION
&
ISSUE
IDENTIFICATION
• Social
License:
Opinion
of
company
and
project?
• Preoccupa+ons:
Key
issues
of
concern?
1.
STAKEHOLDER
CENSUS
• Coverage:
All
local
&
na0onal
stakeholder
organiza0ons
• Method:
Field
interviews
by
trained
local
teams
• Data
collected:
Opinions,
issues
of
concern,
rela0onships
Ø Using
the
insights
provided
by
the
various
analyses,
we
develop
alterna0ve
sets
of
ac0on-­‐oriented
recommenda0ons,
or
“engagement
scenarios.”
Ø In
a
typical
scenario,
the
company
forms
coali0ons
with
selected
stakeholders
to
address
key
issues
of
concern
and,
ul0mately,
to
improve
its
overall
social
license.
Ø We
simulate
the
likely
socio-­‐poli0cal
dynamics
of
each
scenario
using
a
dynamic
expected
u0lity
model
that
incorporates
social
preferences
and
structure.
The
model
resembles
those
used
by
the
World
Bank,
the
European
Commission,
and
U.S.
intelligence
agencies.
Ø Each
stakeholder
in
the
model
seeks
to
acain
their
preferred
outcome
and
to
maximize
their
chance
of
being
on
the
winning
“team”
by
influencing
other
stakeholders’
opinions
of
the
company
or
project.
Ø The
simula0on
predicts
how
the
company
or
project’s
overall
social
license
is
likely
to
evolve
under
each
engagement
scenario
versus
the
status
quo.

29. Strategic
RecommendaAons
&
Scenario
Analysis
Narrow initiative:
Transportation"
Partners
Municipal Council
Nat’l Health Service
Land Ministry"
Broad initiative:
Unemployment & Skills Training"
Partners
NGOs
National Government
Multi-stakeholder forum"
current:
3.11
Predicted
Social
License
Score
3.77
4.03
Both
scenarios
in
the
example
are
predicted
to
increase
the
company’s
social
license,
but
the
broader
ini+a+ve
focusing
on
unemployment
and
skills
training
is
predicted
to
have
a
larger
impact
than
that
of
the
narrow
ini+a+ve
focusing
on
transporta+on.
The
cumula+ve
impact
on
the
final
social
license
score
in
both
cases
reflects
an
ini+al
shin
of
opinion
among
certain
stakeholders
and
a
subsequent
shin
of
opinion
among
others
resul+ng
from
social
influence
dynamics

30. • Stakeholder
mapping
&
analysis
Due
Diligence
• Integra0ng
stakeholder
data
into
financial
&
opera0onal
performance
Integra0on
• Stakeholder
rela0onships
are
personal
rela0onships
Personal
• Humbly
adap0ng
to
nega0ve
feedback
in
a
necessarily
imperfect
system
Learning
• Strategically
communica0ng
to
reinforce
trust
&
reputa0on
Openness
• Cul0va0ng
an
externally
facing
long-­‐
term
organiza0onal
culture
Mindset