Should CSR be the new PR?

Campbell Soup Company is known as a leader in CSR.  The company has been named to the Dow Jones Sustainability North American and World Indexes, and one of the World’s Most Ethical Companies by Ethisphere in 2010.  It is included in Corporate Responsibility Magazine’s 100 Best Corporate Citizens List.

Campbell’s 2011 CSR Report states that attention to its role in society and sustainable agriculture is part of its 140 year history.  The report goes on to say that Campbell’s considers CSR and sustainability as approaches to the conduct of business that:

• build employee engagement;
• create positive social impacts;
• enable operational efficiency, reduce costs;
• foster innovation; and
• strengthen relationships for business advantage in the long term.

This view of CSR strikes me as a value-added approach to PR and what the PR function should, these days, strive to contribute to an organization.  The recently updated definition of PR by PRSA -- a strategic communications process that builds mutually beneficial relationships between organizations and their publics -- sounds a little weak or out of touch by comparison.   

Pushing the boundaries of accountability, transparency and engagement is one way PR pros can help their organizations. That's a start.  Applying skills of employee engagement, stakeholder relations, issues management, external monitoring in a context of CSR leadership is a growth opportunity for the PR profession to provide relevancy, superior value and competitive advantage to the organization.

Apple raising the CSR bar

Much has been written and tweeted these past weeks about Apple and the working conditions at China component supplier Foxconn.   The issue is not new, but was brought back to the public's attention with a recent New York Times article (and subsequent media coverage) and Apple’s release of its 2012 Supplier Responsibility Progress Report.

While I too flinch at the Foxconn stories of mistreatment, a knee-jerk reaction to blame Apple for Foxconn’s transgressions doesn’t take into account:

·         the challenge of managing cultural diversity and values in a global economy;

·         the negative impact on workers if Apple were to stop doing business with Foxconn; and

·         the unprecedented initiatives undertaken by Apple to improve the situation.

The efforts Apple has taken to support its supplier's workers rather than focussing on punishing Foxconn, gets to the heart of the problem -- worker empowerment and opportunity.  Refusing to do business with Foxconn would only result in Foxconn workers losing the powerful advocate they have in Apple. 

It works the same way with us as consumers.  By buying (or not boycotting) Apple products and voicing our expectations for the organizations we do business with, including organizations in the supply chain, we too can support the China workers.

Apple is fully aware that this issue is not going away, and of the enduring impact this could have on its reputation.  Worst case is for Apple customers to feel guilty about buying products built by Foxconn.  However, with its holistic approach to improve the plight of Foxconn workers, partnership with the Fair Labor Association, more stringent audit program and by enhancing transparency, Apple is raising the bar for model Corporate Social Responsibility.  

The issue is still hot and continues to unfold.  Boards of directors and CSR professionals would be wise to follow Apple's response and take note.

Wikipedia blackout - brilliant execution

One of the most rewarding aspects of my work is those times that elegant solutions in communication strategy are achieved. These are solutions that hit the mark in accomplishing the goal, are inclusive and result in an outcome greater than the sum of individually achieved objectives.   Wikipedia’s blackout campaign may be an example.

For some time, Wikipedia has solicited donations by a prominent banner on its website.  I wouldn't be surprised if its handling of the site blackout in protest of SOPA and PIPA will see a surge in donations as a result of the blackout being so brilliantly conceived and delivered:

·        Wikipedia’s position on the issue was clearly presented with a straightforward call to  protest the SOPA and PIPA legislation.
                                                                                               

·       In the post-blackout page, there is a broad scope of  detailed  information on the legislation with links to more.

·        The inability to access Wikipedia during the blackout reminds us of the value of this resource and how much we depend upon it.

·       The follow-up is beautiful in design and content – thanking viewers, acknowledging and quantifying their impact, inviting viewers to join with Wikipedia in remaining steadfast to the cause.

I fully expected that, when I clicked on “Read more,” there would be a solicitation for donations.  Instead, there was only the same sidebar donations link as on all the pages.  Unobtrusive.  

In grand Wikipedia style, the organization appears to have elegantly delivered the campaign precisely through the service it offers, strengthening its brand in the process.   

Carnival response looking like its own catastrophe

Crises are invariably complex - managing the immediate impact, searching for the cause, cooperating with authorities, keeping the rest of the business operating smoothly.  However, in many ways, crisis communications is straight forward:  communicate, communicate, communicate!

Use and manage the communication channels
So what’s happening with Carnival? Three days after the tragic Costa Concordia accident, go to the Carnival website for info. Their statement  about the tragedy is buried under FAQ.  Does Carnival really think this is not on everyone’s mind? The impression given is that Carnival is hiding, uncaring, or doesn't see this as a big deal... 

Suggestion: prominently post Carnival’s commitment to safety in a letter from the CEO and describe what Carnvial is doing for those affected by this incident.

Carnival's website Forum - not a mention. Its blog - the same.  Under Community - the headline is "Welcome to Funville."  
 Checking out "Carnival Latest News" to find: Carnival Kicks Off Facebook Contest Tied to New Thrill...

Suggestion: review advertising and web pages for offensive or incongruent juxtapostion with the incident.  This doesn't mean the business pulls all their promotions; rather, show sensitivity.

By now, I'm thinking Carnival must be centralizing its communications somewhere else:

Twitter – Carnival has posted a lonely tweet about cruise safety. Another tweet has a link to their Statement; too bad the link doesn’t work.  If you search the obvious #CostaConcordia there is no sign of  Carnival - another misstep. 

Suggestion: place staff ‘round the clock on Twitter and other social media sites, to answer questions, communicate company safety values and messages of concern, and to answer questions. Carnival is in the service industry: be of service.  Also, be visible in  the communication space by participating in discussions such as #CostaConcordia discussions; set the tone.  Monitor these spaces for misinformation to be corrected quickly and how company messages are being received.

Facebook – a lot of comment activity on Carnival's page, but again little from Carnival.  A statement responding to questions about cruising safety links to what appears to be a third party industry site. 

Suggestion: third party sources can be valuable, but for something as basic and essential as safetly, it would be best to speak directly to the company's commitment and actions.

Blaming is risky business
The company was quick to point the finger of blame at the ship's captain. (Reminds me of BP blaming employees in another terrible tragedy - the Texas City refinery incident. BP later retracted, but not before damage was done to its relationship with employees, unions and its credibility with all stakeholders; especially when the investigation found that employees had tried to warn the company about unsafe practices.  The investigation ultimately blamed BP management).  Another lesson: the public doesn't necessarily differentiate between a company and its employees when it comes to responsibility... does Carnival remember Exxon Valdez*?  If the captain is to blame, that still makes the company responsible in critical ways.

Suggestion: be extremely cautious about jumping to conclusions

I’ve seen situations where CEOs have a tendency to pull back in a crisis. That's a human first response. And it's an incredibly busy time with  internal meetings and discussions, lot of stress,   Board members and regulators hovering and wanting information. However, this is precisely the time CEOs must demonstrate leadership and ensure the company is actively and overtly communicating and engaging with customers, tourism industry...  sharing key messages with employees, partners and alliances.  In a crisis, stepping out and communicating is the CEOs #1 job - no excuses accepted.

I hope this information and outreach black hole is not at the direction of lawyers attempting to limit liability by putting a hold on communications.  It's that old maxim about being tried in the "court of public opinion."  Share price ... reputation... the perception of guilt if the company doesn't speak out and demonstrate leadership -- there's much to be lost before Carnival ever gets to a court room.

How Carnival manages this crisis will play out for years to come.  It may  impact the company as much as the tragedy itself. 

*From Wikipedia -  National Transportation Safety Board finding: Exxon Shipping Company fail[ure] to supervise the master and provide a rested and sufficient crew for Exxon Valdez.

Toyota report links crisis to corporate culture

A report on Toyota Motor Corp.’s sudden-acceleration crisis has been released and is a good read for PR professionals.  The report by Toyota’s seven-member North America Quality Advisory Panel includes significant discussion on how the corporate culture and organizational structure played a part in Toyota’s slow response to recognize the growing problem and resolve it.

While there will be a number of learnings (as there most always are in such crises) for Toyota and other large manufacturing companies, a couple of things stand out in the report in terms of strategic communications as a means to avoid or address such issues.

Customers as stakeholders... and remember Risk Communications

It appears that customer complaints were not taken seriously; blaming floor mats comes off as a roundabout way of saying that customers are stupid.    Toyota took a technical approach to an issue that eventually included a number of serious accidents and tragically, a number of deaths.  While I don’t know Toyota’s actions in following up with customers, businesses need to get close to their customers, engage and partner with them, in order to manage such issues. 

A “not our fault” approach never makes the problem go away.  And we know from risk communication models that relying on stats and other technical arguments can further enrage and alienate when stakeholders feel they are not being heard.

Follow your principles to avoid and respond to crises

The report states Toyota’s quality principles were not followed when issues were raised by external stakeholders and suggests application of company stated principles could have improved speed and quality of decision-making. 

Unusual situations brought before management teams may end up with strong and differing opinions on what to do next.  This is where a company’s culture and principles can be the salvation.  What do we stand for?  What do our principles tell us we should be doing?   Sometimes this means taking a tough decision or unpleasant action that management would rather avoid, but its principles shine the light on proper action.  

Not only can applying principles in issues and crisis management lead to doing the right thing, when company principles are truly embraced and applied, customers, and just as importantly, employees are more likely to trust and respect management’s response.