Paul French, Ethical Corporation's China editor and author of the excellent book "Midnight in Peking" asked me to pass this on to you all.
Apologies to those readers not in London. For those that are, consider coming along to the below event if you can. It should be an interesting evening:
Invitation to Zed Books' China Reception
Chinese Publishing is the special focus of London Book Fair 2012.
Zed Books would like to invite you to a reception to celebrate the full range of Chinese voices and viewpoints whether they be from arts, academic or business backgrounds.
To supplement the London Book Fair which is an official occasion for promoting Chinese literature and long-lasting business partnerships with China, come to this informal event, which will encourage broad discussion. You will meet others who are also well-informed about China and its recent development.
You will also have the opportunity to browse and discuss Zed’s new Asian Arguments series, which is sponsoring the event.
For more information, please contact Ruvani de Silva, Publicity Manager at Zed Books at ruvani.de_silva@zedbooks.net.
Where and when:
Tuesday 17th April 7pm – 9pm at Probsthains Book Shop 41 Great Russell Street, London WC1B 3PE
Friday, March 30, 2012
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Sustainability trends from 2012 award entries
If reading 260 five hundred word plus entries for Ethical Corporation's 2012 awards can provide some representative slices of current progress, then here's a flavour of them, as I saw them, mixed in with a few general and random thoughts as usual.
A) Supplier engagement is starting to move beyond mere audits and very basic data collection in a handful of progressive companies.
B) Energy efficiency is heading to stages two three and four for some companies. By that I mean beyond the initial quick wins and into subsidiaries, retrofits and other areas beyond HQ.
C) Water is the 'new' (ish!) carbon: measurement and usage efforts are improving, firms are grasping that collaboration is vital for scale, yet perhaps more complex to manage than they might have thought.
D) Partnerships are much more impact and commercially / market entry focused than they were a few years ago.
E) Carbon offsetting, except where firmly linked to development benefits, or as a last resort, is not discussed like it used to be. Thankfully. Reducing operational and supply chain GHG impact is rightfully much higher up the agenda.
F) Sustainability reporting is stuck in a bit of a time warp and is not moving on much beyond websites and PDFs.
G) Consumer communications efforts are very campaign focused. Perhaps because:
H) Those focusing on products are struggling with complexity of the communications challenge and holistic meaningful data and impact studies.
I) Most companies misunderstand what integrated reporting means in practice.
J) Big brand CEOs now understand just how much work is involved in integrating sustainability into business practice. They react in four ways: 1) Minimally. 2) Incrementally. 3) Ambitiously. 4) By understanding that sustainability means business transformation in the long term.
K) Micro finance and Bottom of the Pyramid schemes are maturing and appearing at scale in emerging markets. Models are also spreading back into mainstream institutions in some developed markets, for example Australia.
A) Supplier engagement is starting to move beyond mere audits and very basic data collection in a handful of progressive companies.
B) Energy efficiency is heading to stages two three and four for some companies. By that I mean beyond the initial quick wins and into subsidiaries, retrofits and other areas beyond HQ.
C) Water is the 'new' (ish!) carbon: measurement and usage efforts are improving, firms are grasping that collaboration is vital for scale, yet perhaps more complex to manage than they might have thought.
D) Partnerships are much more impact and commercially / market entry focused than they were a few years ago.
E) Carbon offsetting, except where firmly linked to development benefits, or as a last resort, is not discussed like it used to be. Thankfully. Reducing operational and supply chain GHG impact is rightfully much higher up the agenda.
F) Sustainability reporting is stuck in a bit of a time warp and is not moving on much beyond websites and PDFs.
G) Consumer communications efforts are very campaign focused. Perhaps because:
H) Those focusing on products are struggling with complexity of the communications challenge and holistic meaningful data and impact studies.
I) Most companies misunderstand what integrated reporting means in practice.
J) Big brand CEOs now understand just how much work is involved in integrating sustainability into business practice. They react in four ways: 1) Minimally. 2) Incrementally. 3) Ambitiously. 4) By understanding that sustainability means business transformation in the long term.
K) Micro finance and Bottom of the Pyramid schemes are maturing and appearing at scale in emerging markets. Models are also spreading back into mainstream institutions in some developed markets, for example Australia.
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Ten very obvious tips on sustainability communications
Having now spent several days with various Ethical Corporation writers, editors and contributing editors on the 2012 Ethical Corporation awards shortlisting, here's some simple tips for corporate sustainability communicators.
For experienced practitioners, I should say "look away now" so I don't annoy you with truisms.
But having just spent quite a few hours, to understate things, looking over 260 award entry forms with colleagues, we came up with a few tips based on what we've just been reading for the last few days.
1) Remember that simple language is incredibly important when you communicate.
2) If you do it in a rush, it's obvious.
3) Write it like you would say it, just without the "ums" and "ers" and digressions.
4) Avoid nonsense jargon and abbreviations, at all times.
5) CSR communications should be about core business, not activities clearly attached to core business.
6) Write to length, don't just shrink the font!
7) Get someone to proof your work, at least twice, ideally three times, and not on a screen.
8) Endorsements from genuinely independent/critical friends matter most for credibility.
9) The value of your management system is not as obvious to others as it is to you.
10) Provide context for your story: Talk about what's been achieved, and focus less on bigger aspirations than on slightly smaller achievements.
As I said, all fairly obvious stuff.
For experienced practitioners, I should say "look away now" so I don't annoy you with truisms.
But having just spent quite a few hours, to understate things, looking over 260 award entry forms with colleagues, we came up with a few tips based on what we've just been reading for the last few days.
1) Remember that simple language is incredibly important when you communicate.
2) If you do it in a rush, it's obvious.
3) Write it like you would say it, just without the "ums" and "ers" and digressions.
4) Avoid nonsense jargon and abbreviations, at all times.
5) CSR communications should be about core business, not activities clearly attached to core business.
6) Write to length, don't just shrink the font!
7) Get someone to proof your work, at least twice, ideally three times, and not on a screen.
8) Endorsements from genuinely independent/critical friends matter most for credibility.
9) The value of your management system is not as obvious to others as it is to you.
10) Provide context for your story: Talk about what's been achieved, and focus less on bigger aspirations than on slightly smaller achievements.
As I said, all fairly obvious stuff.
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Six lessons/predictions for oil, gas and mining sustainability
Having just spent a couple of days chairing discussions and listening in on others at Ethical Corporation's extractive conference this week, here are my 'takeaways':
1) Transparency is taking hold.
I blogged on this, from the conference, here. The short version is this: EU and US disclosures rules will change the game forever for extractive firms in 2012/13. Project by project financial disclosures may well soon become the norm.
2) 'Community balance sheet' thinking is on the boardroom table.
CEOs of companies such as AngloGoldAshanti now talk freely about the importance of sustainable communities and livelihoods. Whether that's long-standing community acceptance or long term solutions for the problem of migrant artisanal miners, it's on the agenda for CEOs in a way it wasn't five years ago.
3) Traditional industry associations are more the problem than the solution.
There's not much more to add than this: Associations mired in traditional thinking are often the last group to understand the importance of sustainability. Nowhere is this more evident than in the extractive industries.
4) New alliances of progressive companies will soon emerge.
The leading companies are beginning to understand why they should share lessons. Either via tools catalysed by the likes of the IFC, or bilaterally, pre-competitive areas where knowledge and management processes must be shared are becoming more widely recognised.
5) The value of CSR in resource access is increasingly recognised.
Mining firms, in particular, have never sounded so worried about licenses to operate being removed at the drop of a hat than they are today. The value of effective practices related to sustainability: land reclamation, neighbour relations, reputation, human rights and grievance management, are all firmly viewed as essential.
6) Biodiversity offsetting is not being seriously considered, yet.
Few projects are cancelled due to environmental concerns, but thinking may one day shift from mitigation of impacts to say, offsetting habitat impact to a value of say, more than a multiple of fifty, at some point.
A recent article from the March edition of Ethical Corporation on some of these issues is here.
1) Transparency is taking hold.
I blogged on this, from the conference, here. The short version is this: EU and US disclosures rules will change the game forever for extractive firms in 2012/13. Project by project financial disclosures may well soon become the norm.
2) 'Community balance sheet' thinking is on the boardroom table.
CEOs of companies such as AngloGoldAshanti now talk freely about the importance of sustainable communities and livelihoods. Whether that's long-standing community acceptance or long term solutions for the problem of migrant artisanal miners, it's on the agenda for CEOs in a way it wasn't five years ago.
3) Traditional industry associations are more the problem than the solution.
There's not much more to add than this: Associations mired in traditional thinking are often the last group to understand the importance of sustainability. Nowhere is this more evident than in the extractive industries.
4) New alliances of progressive companies will soon emerge.
The leading companies are beginning to understand why they should share lessons. Either via tools catalysed by the likes of the IFC, or bilaterally, pre-competitive areas where knowledge and management processes must be shared are becoming more widely recognised.
5) The value of CSR in resource access is increasingly recognised.
Mining firms, in particular, have never sounded so worried about licenses to operate being removed at the drop of a hat than they are today. The value of effective practices related to sustainability: land reclamation, neighbour relations, reputation, human rights and grievance management, are all firmly viewed as essential.
6) Biodiversity offsetting is not being seriously considered, yet.
Few projects are cancelled due to environmental concerns, but thinking may one day shift from mitigation of impacts to say, offsetting habitat impact to a value of say, more than a multiple of fifty, at some point.
A recent article from the March edition of Ethical Corporation on some of these issues is here.
2012: A seminal year for extractive industry transparency
Global Witness, at Ethical Corporation's extractive industry sustainability conference today in London, says very significant new rules on transparency for extractive companies are coming in during 2012 in both the EU and USA.
Disclosure of payments to governments by extractive companies will be mandated in annual reports very soon.
Some extractive companies say in response they are concerned about the breaking of local laws on disclosure.
However studies by companies and academics, say Global Witness, which looked at laws in over 100 countries, says no such laws exist.
If exemptions are made, they argue, that will simply encourage governments to pass laws outlawing transparency efforts by companies.
Project level reporting is apparently key. Data on where money is going within countries is seriously lacking, says Global Witness.
For example: not a single state in the DRC has collected their full due amounts as yet because of a lack of clarity.
This has led to tensions and even ad hoc tax collecting.
Global Witness therefore argues that project based reporting is in the interests of companies.
There's been lots of debate on these kinds of points, says Global Witness.
The arguments used to slow down the debate have been answered in full, they say, noting that the Financial Times agrees there will be no commercial disadvantage to firms.
The American Petroleum Institute is doing its best to slow down or gut the transparency aspects of the Frank-Dodd act.
GW says the perceived foot dragging by companies and their associations is damaging the image of the extractive sector overall.
Their view is that openness demands are going global and so holding back the tide is going to be impossible in the long term.
The challenge ahead for the industry is to take the lead on transparency for the sake of their own legitimacy.
The stage now seems set for serious change in 2012 as the EU Transparency Directive and elements of Frank-Dodd Act take hold.
How leading oil, gas, mining and other natural resource firms react may be hugely significant for a variety of reasons.
Reputation, political stability, global governance changes and economic development are all in play here.
For interested readers, a Google search alert on "revenue transparency" or "Extractive Industry Transparency Initiative" might be a useful way to keep track as events unfold.
Disclosure of payments to governments by extractive companies will be mandated in annual reports very soon.
Some extractive companies say in response they are concerned about the breaking of local laws on disclosure.
However studies by companies and academics, say Global Witness, which looked at laws in over 100 countries, says no such laws exist.
If exemptions are made, they argue, that will simply encourage governments to pass laws outlawing transparency efforts by companies.
Project level reporting is apparently key. Data on where money is going within countries is seriously lacking, says Global Witness.
For example: not a single state in the DRC has collected their full due amounts as yet because of a lack of clarity.
This has led to tensions and even ad hoc tax collecting.
Global Witness therefore argues that project based reporting is in the interests of companies.
There's been lots of debate on these kinds of points, says Global Witness.
The arguments used to slow down the debate have been answered in full, they say, noting that the Financial Times agrees there will be no commercial disadvantage to firms.
The American Petroleum Institute is doing its best to slow down or gut the transparency aspects of the Frank-Dodd act.
GW says the perceived foot dragging by companies and their associations is damaging the image of the extractive sector overall.
Their view is that openness demands are going global and so holding back the tide is going to be impossible in the long term.
The challenge ahead for the industry is to take the lead on transparency for the sake of their own legitimacy.
The stage now seems set for serious change in 2012 as the EU Transparency Directive and elements of Frank-Dodd Act take hold.
How leading oil, gas, mining and other natural resource firms react may be hugely significant for a variety of reasons.
Reputation, political stability, global governance changes and economic development are all in play here.
For interested readers, a Google search alert on "revenue transparency" or "Extractive Industry Transparency Initiative" might be a useful way to keep track as events unfold.
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Sunday, March 18, 2012
Superb videos on climate science, policy and consequences
This series of videos, from the science journalist known on YouTube as Potholer54, are a fantastic resource for anyone.
I'd recommend them for both entry level folks and scientists alike.
More of these kinds of resources on the complex problems business faces are urgently needed.
Rather than spending money on things like newspaper or TV/online advertising, progressive companies may want to consider sponsoring further work like this, or partnering with NGOs who can help deliver it.
One recent valuable contribution is embedded belpw and linked here:
I'd recommend them for both entry level folks and scientists alike.
More of these kinds of resources on the complex problems business faces are urgently needed.
Rather than spending money on things like newspaper or TV/online advertising, progressive companies may want to consider sponsoring further work like this, or partnering with NGOs who can help deliver it.
One recent valuable contribution is embedded belpw and linked here:
Saturday, March 17, 2012
Reputation management and social media insights from GE, Alcoa, Dezenhall
Here's a few podcasts I taped at Ethical Corporation's recent conference on the above subject in New York. Enjoy:
Gary Sheffer from GE shares his key lessons from the recent 'Reputation, Preservation and Crisis Management' conference
Nick Ashoo from Alcoa shares his key lessons from the recent 'Reputation, Preservation and Crisis Management' conference
Eric Dezenhall from Dezenhall Resources shares his key lessons from the recent 'Reputation, Preservation and Crisis Management' conference
You can listen to them all here. Each podcast it about five minutes long.
Gary Sheffer from GE shares his key lessons from the recent 'Reputation, Preservation and Crisis Management' conference
Nick Ashoo from Alcoa shares his key lessons from the recent 'Reputation, Preservation and Crisis Management' conference
Eric Dezenhall from Dezenhall Resources shares his key lessons from the recent 'Reputation, Preservation and Crisis Management' conference
You can listen to them all here. Each podcast it about five minutes long.
Thursday, March 15, 2012
Ethical Corporation awards 2012: Just over 24 hours to go for entries
If you are thinking of entering this years Ethical Corporation awards, the deadline is fast approaching. Here's the website for 2012. Good luck to all entrants!
High oil prices and consequences
This post: "High oil prices: Fortunately and unfortunately" by Chris Nelder is a useful crib sheet on what higher oil prices can and may well mean in the near future in the US.
As we all know, what happens in the US affects all of us, one way or another.
His summary makes compelling reading, in a number of ways.
Consider this:
Bus transport:
"Transit-hub based bus service enjoyed 6 percent growth in 2010, and 7.1 percent growth in 2011."
"Traffic on “curbside operators,” which offer pickup at various locations aside from transit hubs, grew a whopping 32.1 percent in 2011"
"...one can book a trip from Boston to New York on BoltBus just two days in advance for between $17 and $25; on an airline, tickets for the same trip start at $360"
Airlines:
"Southwest Airlines, one of the few carriers who hedged their oil price risks properly in 2008 and avoided heavy losses, said yesterday that it will not earn a profit in the first quarter of this year."
"Air France-KLM reported a $1 billion loss for 2011, saying that it had not been able to offset the rising cost of jet fuel."
Distribution:
"Nowhere is the cost of trucking more evident to consumers than at the grocery store. Fresh produce and other perishables must be shipped promptly no matter what fuel prices are. Grocers, who also operate on razor-thin margins, must raise their rates in turn. So if you’re wondering why a head of lettuce has jumped from $1.59 to $2.00, that’s why."
On the upside: "By training drivers to shift strategically and avoid hard acceleration or hard braking, they have shown that fleet operators of 100 vehicles can save $31,500 annually in fuel costs. Larger fleets, in the 1200-vehicle range, could save $1.2 million per year."
And also: "One analyst who has predicted this for many years is former CIBC chief economist Jeff Rubin, author of the book Why Your World Is About To Get A Whole Lot Smaller: Oil and the End of Globalization. “Soaring transport costs suddenly change the entire economics of importing everything from cheap labour markets half way around the world,” he writes, “So much so that triple digit oil prices will soon breathe new life into our hollowed-out rust belts, and, in the process, bring long-lost manufacturing jobs back home.”
Read more, here.
Now, I haven't verified the above facts. Some sources are linked, others are not. But assuming this is largely true, even the last part, it's not all doom and gloom out there. Just different.
Here's a video interview with Jeff Rubin about his book:
As we all know, what happens in the US affects all of us, one way or another.
His summary makes compelling reading, in a number of ways.
Consider this:
Bus transport:
"Transit-hub based bus service enjoyed 6 percent growth in 2010, and 7.1 percent growth in 2011."
"Traffic on “curbside operators,” which offer pickup at various locations aside from transit hubs, grew a whopping 32.1 percent in 2011"
"...one can book a trip from Boston to New York on BoltBus just two days in advance for between $17 and $25; on an airline, tickets for the same trip start at $360"
Airlines:
"Southwest Airlines, one of the few carriers who hedged their oil price risks properly in 2008 and avoided heavy losses, said yesterday that it will not earn a profit in the first quarter of this year."
"Air France-KLM reported a $1 billion loss for 2011, saying that it had not been able to offset the rising cost of jet fuel."
Distribution:
"Nowhere is the cost of trucking more evident to consumers than at the grocery store. Fresh produce and other perishables must be shipped promptly no matter what fuel prices are. Grocers, who also operate on razor-thin margins, must raise their rates in turn. So if you’re wondering why a head of lettuce has jumped from $1.59 to $2.00, that’s why."
On the upside: "By training drivers to shift strategically and avoid hard acceleration or hard braking, they have shown that fleet operators of 100 vehicles can save $31,500 annually in fuel costs. Larger fleets, in the 1200-vehicle range, could save $1.2 million per year."
And also: "One analyst who has predicted this for many years is former CIBC chief economist Jeff Rubin, author of the book Why Your World Is About To Get A Whole Lot Smaller: Oil and the End of Globalization. “Soaring transport costs suddenly change the entire economics of importing everything from cheap labour markets half way around the world,” he writes, “So much so that triple digit oil prices will soon breathe new life into our hollowed-out rust belts, and, in the process, bring long-lost manufacturing jobs back home.”
Read more, here.
Now, I haven't verified the above facts. Some sources are linked, others are not. But assuming this is largely true, even the last part, it's not all doom and gloom out there. Just different.
Here's a video interview with Jeff Rubin about his book:
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
How to design an office for health and productivity
This blog post from the author Tim Ferriss shows you how the office of the future may look. Well worth a read.
The keys seem to be: Avoid sitting, and keep moving. Here's a scary quote from the post:
"Recent research suggests that those who sit from 9-5 (more than 6 hours daily) and exercise regularly are more likely to have heart disease than those who sit less than 3 hours per day and don’t “exercise” at all."
Now that made me think...read the full post by going here.
The keys seem to be: Avoid sitting, and keep moving. Here's a scary quote from the post:
"Recent research suggests that those who sit from 9-5 (more than 6 hours daily) and exercise regularly are more likely to have heart disease than those who sit less than 3 hours per day and don’t “exercise” at all."
Now that made me think...read the full post by going here.
The Goldman letter reminds us that culture is everything...
Yes, yes, I know I have been banging on about corporate culture in posts over the years on this blog, but today's NY Times Op Ed: "Why I Am Leaving Goldman Sachs" appears to re-enforce the importance of culture audits.
In short the author, a senior executive, claims top management have let the culture of Goldman go to pot in the last twelve years. He says the culture now is one of pure greed rather than of serving customers.
Pretty brutal stuff. Not surprising to most of us outsiders though. Anyone who has read a book on the financial crisis probably had that feeling too.
So why don't more companies, including Goldman, spend time understanding the culture of their organisations?
The word "audit" may be part of the problem here. Its so dull, so compliance-focused.
Perhaps if one replaces that word with something that is not pure snake oil corporate speak at the other end of the bulls**t scale, such as "talent management", it might be a more compelling concept.
I'm struggling to find a better word than audit right now.
The bigger problem though, is that corporate culture is not really anyone's responsibility at senior levels in large companies.
It falls between the two stools of the CEO and the head of Human Resources, in many companies I have observed or worked with/spoken to.
Whilst the CEO and top management are responsible for the tone from the top, the HR head is largely focused on employee processes, rather than the big picture.
So whose job is it? If CEOs are too busy or shortlived, and HR too technocratic, who should take charge?
It has to be a role for the head of either corporate affairs, or sustainability/corporate responsibility in my view.
Conducting such audits, for want of a better word, is brave enough. Publishing the results will be quite another.
But it's where the transparency agenda is headed. Smart companies can jump on board, or risk ending up like Goldman Sachs: increasingly despised to the point where politicians will make life difficult for them because it will be expedient to do so.
In short the author, a senior executive, claims top management have let the culture of Goldman go to pot in the last twelve years. He says the culture now is one of pure greed rather than of serving customers.
Pretty brutal stuff. Not surprising to most of us outsiders though. Anyone who has read a book on the financial crisis probably had that feeling too.
So why don't more companies, including Goldman, spend time understanding the culture of their organisations?
The word "audit" may be part of the problem here. Its so dull, so compliance-focused.
Perhaps if one replaces that word with something that is not pure snake oil corporate speak at the other end of the bulls**t scale, such as "talent management", it might be a more compelling concept.
I'm struggling to find a better word than audit right now.
The bigger problem though, is that corporate culture is not really anyone's responsibility at senior levels in large companies.
It falls between the two stools of the CEO and the head of Human Resources, in many companies I have observed or worked with/spoken to.
Whilst the CEO and top management are responsible for the tone from the top, the HR head is largely focused on employee processes, rather than the big picture.
So whose job is it? If CEOs are too busy or shortlived, and HR too technocratic, who should take charge?
It has to be a role for the head of either corporate affairs, or sustainability/corporate responsibility in my view.
Conducting such audits, for want of a better word, is brave enough. Publishing the results will be quite another.
But it's where the transparency agenda is headed. Smart companies can jump on board, or risk ending up like Goldman Sachs: increasingly despised to the point where politicians will make life difficult for them because it will be expedient to do so.
Sunday, March 11, 2012
Twelve ways of dealing with difficult stakeholders
A tricky question came up at a recent reputation and crisis management conference hosted by Ethical Corporation and Useful Social Media in New York.
"How" asked many senior corporate communications delegates, "do you deal with people who have no interest in dialogue?"
There are a couple of facets here. Yes there are some foes, online or otherwise, who just hate their opponents (perhaps your company) intractably.
But there are others who may appear to be similar, but who can be convinced to change their minds.
How do you tell the difference?
And when does one group become the other?
Thorny questions with which to wrestle.
One simple response voiced by company managers many times last week is to argue that sometimes, particularly with regard to social media, it's best not to engage vociferous opponents once it becomes clear dialogue is not of interest.
As long as they don't break the published commenting rules, let them sound off, sooner or later they will get tired and move on.
Either that, or they will lose credibility with real customers and other stakeholders by being seen to beat the same drum over and over.
This is logical and appears often to work, if not always. And of course, social media and email is very different from the real world.
But for me the greatest opportunity is not the holy grail of swaying vociferous opponents, but the turning around of the views of annoyed groups or individual stakeholders who are upset but perhaps not permanently so.
They are the groups who could (usually not but sometimes) become advocates for your company, and not just on Twitter or Facebook.
So how might one address these groups? Every company has them.
Here's some engagement tips, some brought home to me more than ever by the conference last week:
1) Be responsive: An obvious one, but the days of asking everyone to send a snail mail letter are long gone.
2) Be humbly genuine: Again, not rocket science but still a trick missed by many.
3) Show you actually understand the issue: Grievances can be complex. Grasping the real nuances is vital.
4) Demonstrate action: Show them you have a process towards an intended outcome.
5) Be open about complexity of solutions. Solving stakeholder problems is complex and not often your role as a business. Folks can be more reasonable if they understand the limitations of what one actor can really achieve.
6) Be honest about what's realistic. Not over promising is one thing, but it's different from managing expectations. Both are vital.
7) Be brave enough to push back when you have to. Standing up for company values is important. See point 10.
8) Show a human face: tell the story of how your firm is working on the problem: Nothing wrong with honesty about the chain of command and debate in your business when it comes to difficult issues (unless you don't have one that is!)
9) Demonstrate commitment to collaboration with outside groups. Not sure with your annoyed stakeholder group A. Showing then how you work with groups B and C can help build confidence and shows commitment. It can also make group A understand your firm has a lot on its plate and create some empathy.
10) Point your customers/stakeholders to your explicit values statements. This is risky if they are not well written, but also an excuse to update or improve on them internally. It also enables you to talk about how you live your values during a disagreement.
11) Be patient, with a deadline. You can't turn every annoyed person or group around, as discussed, and deadlines matter. But bear in mind that you are dealing with people and that's an art, not a science.
12) Tell them they may need to compromise, and maintain your consistency about this. Sounds trite, and possibly repetitive, but consistency is key: respect is possible if friendship is not.
If face to face discussion of this sort of thing might be useful for you, then take a look here.
"How" asked many senior corporate communications delegates, "do you deal with people who have no interest in dialogue?"
There are a couple of facets here. Yes there are some foes, online or otherwise, who just hate their opponents (perhaps your company) intractably.
But there are others who may appear to be similar, but who can be convinced to change their minds.
How do you tell the difference?
And when does one group become the other?
Thorny questions with which to wrestle.
One simple response voiced by company managers many times last week is to argue that sometimes, particularly with regard to social media, it's best not to engage vociferous opponents once it becomes clear dialogue is not of interest.
As long as they don't break the published commenting rules, let them sound off, sooner or later they will get tired and move on.
Either that, or they will lose credibility with real customers and other stakeholders by being seen to beat the same drum over and over.
This is logical and appears often to work, if not always. And of course, social media and email is very different from the real world.
But for me the greatest opportunity is not the holy grail of swaying vociferous opponents, but the turning around of the views of annoyed groups or individual stakeholders who are upset but perhaps not permanently so.
They are the groups who could (usually not but sometimes) become advocates for your company, and not just on Twitter or Facebook.
So how might one address these groups? Every company has them.
Here's some engagement tips, some brought home to me more than ever by the conference last week:
1) Be responsive: An obvious one, but the days of asking everyone to send a snail mail letter are long gone.
2) Be humbly genuine: Again, not rocket science but still a trick missed by many.
3) Show you actually understand the issue: Grievances can be complex. Grasping the real nuances is vital.
4) Demonstrate action: Show them you have a process towards an intended outcome.
5) Be open about complexity of solutions. Solving stakeholder problems is complex and not often your role as a business. Folks can be more reasonable if they understand the limitations of what one actor can really achieve.
6) Be honest about what's realistic. Not over promising is one thing, but it's different from managing expectations. Both are vital.
7) Be brave enough to push back when you have to. Standing up for company values is important. See point 10.
8) Show a human face: tell the story of how your firm is working on the problem: Nothing wrong with honesty about the chain of command and debate in your business when it comes to difficult issues (unless you don't have one that is!)
9) Demonstrate commitment to collaboration with outside groups. Not sure with your annoyed stakeholder group A. Showing then how you work with groups B and C can help build confidence and shows commitment. It can also make group A understand your firm has a lot on its plate and create some empathy.
10) Point your customers/stakeholders to your explicit values statements. This is risky if they are not well written, but also an excuse to update or improve on them internally. It also enables you to talk about how you live your values during a disagreement.
11) Be patient, with a deadline. You can't turn every annoyed person or group around, as discussed, and deadlines matter. But bear in mind that you are dealing with people and that's an art, not a science.
12) Tell them they may need to compromise, and maintain your consistency about this. Sounds trite, and possibly repetitive, but consistency is key: respect is possible if friendship is not.
If face to face discussion of this sort of thing might be useful for you, then take a look here.
Friday, March 09, 2012
Four tenets of good reputation and communications
Following from my earlier post "Fifteen lessons for protecting/enhancing corporate reputation" I had a conversation with Neil Glassman of Social Media Today about some of the themes covered in our conference held in New York this week.
If for some reason, listening to a conversation about the following is of interest, click here.
Here's the four areas we talked about, sort of:
1) The relationship between business objectives and reputation
2) How PR has evolved from press releases
3) The essential nature of local knowledge
4) The perception that it takes a generational change in top management for companies function in today's always-on communications channels.
The full piece, a 15 minute audio chat, is here: You Can't Do Proper Engagement on a Skype Video Call
If for some reason, listening to a conversation about the following is of interest, click here.
Here's the four areas we talked about, sort of:
1) The relationship between business objectives and reputation
2) How PR has evolved from press releases
3) The essential nature of local knowledge
4) The perception that it takes a generational change in top management for companies function in today's always-on communications channels.
The full piece, a 15 minute audio chat, is here: You Can't Do Proper Engagement on a Skype Video Call
Monday, March 05, 2012
Fifteen lessons for protecting/enhancing corporate reputation
Ethical Corporation and Useful Social Media are today hosting a conference on reputation and crisis management in New York.
Here's fifteen tips that came out of our first session and Q&A, which featured GE, Alcoa and P&G, among others:
1) Boards and senior managers DO understand the value of reputation BUT still want numbers and a firm business case.
2) Reputation and social media measurement tools urgently need to evolve and become a lot smarter.
3) EVERYONE is now connected. Remote communities are also online.
4) Modern reputation management is now, more than ever, about what you do every day, everywhere. Doing the right thing above all is what counts.
5) While we need better measurement and ROI indicators, we must recognize that balance between art and science AND communicate that internally.
6) Modern communications has evolved from a simple press release to engaged campaigning across multiple channels and markets.
7) It takes a LOT of persuasion to embed the idea of constant, greater engagement across your business.
8) Generational change in top management matters hugely for buy-in.
9) Employee engagement MUST be seen as strategic, better resourced and much more rigorous (GE has gone from 2 to 9 people in this area in recent years) Know your culture...do an audit.
10) Spending on communities is now just a cost of doing business, not an 'additional expense'. But there's no set model: All situations are different.
11) Alliances and supporters are vital and take years of consistent cultivation.
12) Local knowledge is now ESSENTIAL. Head office in a particular country may not know localized issues.
13) Most crises emanate from a culture of: "That's the way we do this around here". Understanding how issues and expected responses have evolved is key. Complacency is your enemy.
14) Management processes and issues/stakeholder councils matter most and must be invested in. (P&G's management matrix for issues has been a huge help in managing issues early on)
15) Defining what you MEAN by reputation is vital in a crisis: You must understand the drivers but also the desired outcomes of the parties involved. Not all stakeholder groups are equal.
Here's fifteen tips that came out of our first session and Q&A, which featured GE, Alcoa and P&G, among others:
1) Boards and senior managers DO understand the value of reputation BUT still want numbers and a firm business case.
2) Reputation and social media measurement tools urgently need to evolve and become a lot smarter.
3) EVERYONE is now connected. Remote communities are also online.
4) Modern reputation management is now, more than ever, about what you do every day, everywhere. Doing the right thing above all is what counts.
5) While we need better measurement and ROI indicators, we must recognize that balance between art and science AND communicate that internally.
6) Modern communications has evolved from a simple press release to engaged campaigning across multiple channels and markets.
7) It takes a LOT of persuasion to embed the idea of constant, greater engagement across your business.
8) Generational change in top management matters hugely for buy-in.
9) Employee engagement MUST be seen as strategic, better resourced and much more rigorous (GE has gone from 2 to 9 people in this area in recent years) Know your culture...do an audit.
10) Spending on communities is now just a cost of doing business, not an 'additional expense'. But there's no set model: All situations are different.
11) Alliances and supporters are vital and take years of consistent cultivation.
12) Local knowledge is now ESSENTIAL. Head office in a particular country may not know localized issues.
13) Most crises emanate from a culture of: "That's the way we do this around here". Understanding how issues and expected responses have evolved is key. Complacency is your enemy.
14) Management processes and issues/stakeholder councils matter most and must be invested in. (P&G's management matrix for issues has been a huge help in managing issues early on)
15) Defining what you MEAN by reputation is vital in a crisis: You must understand the drivers but also the desired outcomes of the parties involved. Not all stakeholder groups are equal.
The case for re-evaluating values
Recently I was doing some work with a customer how they might update their vision, mission and values.
It was a valuable exercise in thinking through what these mean in today's world.
There's no doubt many organisations should go through the same process and use it to help frame their sustainability strategy.
Strategy is frequently both misunderstood and bandied about by companies in a sometimes worrying way. Read Peter Knight's excellent recent column in Ethical Corporation for a typically amusing and eloquent view on that.
The exercise on vision, mission and values I recently facilitated made me recall an episode of a few years back.
I was taking part in a private 'expert' roundtable with a particular company and some other folks.
At one point one of the company's managers blurted out that the firm had recently "changed our values".
The group raised a collective quizzical eyebrow. She explained:
"We've got a new CEO and he wanted them changed"
Surely, the group enquired, values are fundamental? Updating them may be one thing, but total change?
"Yes" the manager said, suddenly looking a bit worried.
So what are the new values? I asked.
"Well, we're,... we're...fun"
"Fun?" someone asked incredulously.
"Yes", she looked nervously at a public affairs colleague, "and we're..."
"Joyful" her colleague stated in a flat, dulled tone, which retrospectively was quite amusing.
Less than three years later, the firm in question was mired in a serious ethics crisis entirely of its own making which has to date cost the company millions.
So perhaps looking again at vision, mission and values with a senior team is not such a bad idea after all.
Here's what Wikipedia says as a reminder:
"Vision: outlines what the organization wants to be, or how it wants the world in which it operates to be (an "idealised" view of the world). It is a long-term view and concentrates on the future. It can be emotive and is a source of inspiration. For example, a charity working with the poor might have a vision statement which reads "A World without Poverty."
Mission: Defines the fundamental purpose of an organization or an enterprise, succinctly describing why it exists and what it does to achieve its vision. For example, the charity above might have a mission statement as "providing jobs for the homeless and unemployed".
Values: Beliefs that are shared among the stakeholders of an organization. Values drive an organization's culture and priorities and provide a framework in which decisions are made. For example, "Knowledge and skills are the keys to success" or "give a man bread and feed him for a day, but teach him to farm and feed him for life". These example values may set the priorities of self sufficiency over shelter."
It was a valuable exercise in thinking through what these mean in today's world.
There's no doubt many organisations should go through the same process and use it to help frame their sustainability strategy.
Strategy is frequently both misunderstood and bandied about by companies in a sometimes worrying way. Read Peter Knight's excellent recent column in Ethical Corporation for a typically amusing and eloquent view on that.
The exercise on vision, mission and values I recently facilitated made me recall an episode of a few years back.
I was taking part in a private 'expert' roundtable with a particular company and some other folks.
At one point one of the company's managers blurted out that the firm had recently "changed our values".
The group raised a collective quizzical eyebrow. She explained:
"We've got a new CEO and he wanted them changed"
Surely, the group enquired, values are fundamental? Updating them may be one thing, but total change?
"Yes" the manager said, suddenly looking a bit worried.
So what are the new values? I asked.
"Well, we're,... we're...fun"
"Fun?" someone asked incredulously.
"Yes", she looked nervously at a public affairs colleague, "and we're..."
"Joyful" her colleague stated in a flat, dulled tone, which retrospectively was quite amusing.
Less than three years later, the firm in question was mired in a serious ethics crisis entirely of its own making which has to date cost the company millions.
So perhaps looking again at vision, mission and values with a senior team is not such a bad idea after all.
Here's what Wikipedia says as a reminder:
"Vision: outlines what the organization wants to be, or how it wants the world in which it operates to be (an "idealised" view of the world). It is a long-term view and concentrates on the future. It can be emotive and is a source of inspiration. For example, a charity working with the poor might have a vision statement which reads "A World without Poverty."
Mission: Defines the fundamental purpose of an organization or an enterprise, succinctly describing why it exists and what it does to achieve its vision. For example, the charity above might have a mission statement as "providing jobs for the homeless and unemployed".
Values: Beliefs that are shared among the stakeholders of an organization. Values drive an organization's culture and priorities and provide a framework in which decisions are made. For example, "Knowledge and skills are the keys to success" or "give a man bread and feed him for a day, but teach him to farm and feed him for life". These example values may set the priorities of self sufficiency over shelter."
Thursday, March 01, 2012
Six levers to reshape ethical behaviour in large organisations
According to Jean-François Manzoni, Professor of Management Practice at INSEAD, individuals constantly over-estimate just how ethical they are, and how ethical their friends and colleagues are.
Sometimes ethical problems and integrity breaches are not about fear or greed, just ignorance about the ethics of what they are doing, he suggests. Apparently, academic and management research supports this theory. No surprises there.
This all sounds very logical to me. We've all heard colleagues, or our ourselves, over estimating our ability to manage trade offs.
I usually prefer to believe in cock-up over conspiracy any day.
Below is a four minute video from Jean-François Manzoni on some of the solutions.
These include understanding attitudes to issues and cultures that affect ethical or integity-based decision making.
But also modifying and (re)shaping individual behaviours using repitition over time, i.e. years for non-trivial change.
This works, says Jean-François Manzoni, by activating a series of levers, often under influence of senior executives:
1) Considering organisational structures
2) Analysing management processes that are in place
3) Incentives and KPIs
4) Top management behaviour
5) Information that is available to employees
6) Capabilities of the indivuals in the organisation to make decisions
These levers can send very coherent, consistent signals over a long period of time and remain the key to embedding integrity.
No easy solutions in sight.
Who says corporate responsibility professionals will one day be out of the job?
No chance, given the complexity of all this.
In the case you can't see the video below, here's the link.
Further resources:
For training/advice on how to make this happen, take a look here.
Here's a meeting where we'll be discussing these issues in depth in May.
Here's a report on how companies put these into action.
Sometimes ethical problems and integrity breaches are not about fear or greed, just ignorance about the ethics of what they are doing, he suggests. Apparently, academic and management research supports this theory. No surprises there.
This all sounds very logical to me. We've all heard colleagues, or our ourselves, over estimating our ability to manage trade offs.
I usually prefer to believe in cock-up over conspiracy any day.
Below is a four minute video from Jean-François Manzoni on some of the solutions.
These include understanding attitudes to issues and cultures that affect ethical or integity-based decision making.
But also modifying and (re)shaping individual behaviours using repitition over time, i.e. years for non-trivial change.
This works, says Jean-François Manzoni, by activating a series of levers, often under influence of senior executives:
1) Considering organisational structures
2) Analysing management processes that are in place
3) Incentives and KPIs
4) Top management behaviour
5) Information that is available to employees
6) Capabilities of the indivuals in the organisation to make decisions
These levers can send very coherent, consistent signals over a long period of time and remain the key to embedding integrity.
No easy solutions in sight.
Who says corporate responsibility professionals will one day be out of the job?
No chance, given the complexity of all this.
In the case you can't see the video below, here's the link.
Further resources:
For training/advice on how to make this happen, take a look here.
Here's a meeting where we'll be discussing these issues in depth in May.
Here's a report on how companies put these into action.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Sign up to my feed here
Posts
All Comments
