Have you ever wondered why so many firms get on their knees apologising every time they come under sustained media flak? Perhaps it is because so many firms are guilty of this or that crime? Well, think again.

The reason is more likely to be that PRs are telling firms and other institutions to surrender their reputation to media opinion. Here’s the director of the Public Relations Specialist Certification Program at BusinessTraining.com recommending just that:

So, how do you ensure that most PR is good PR for you and your company? Take responsibility, and act. If you see some negative PR buzzing around cyberspace, do something about it. Can you remedy the situation by offering an opposing thought? Can you change the minds of the negative WOM (word of mouth) spreaders by sharing information/facts/data? Can you offer a solution to an unhappy customer? I’m sure you can do all of the above.

The most important thing to do, however, is that first step aforementioned: Take responsibility. No one cares if it’s not your fault; if the media is building you up to be the big bad wolf, that’s what you’ll be. Apologize regardless of ownership of the problem, and get to work on telling and of creating a solution.

Let’s just pause to examine what’s being said. The author, Ashley Wirthlin (see full article on Ragan.com), seems not to realize that her advice to firms is the exact opposite of accepting responsibility. The consequence of her advice is to take responsibility out of the firm’s hands and place it in the media’s.

In reality, there’s often a good case to be made for not doing much when the media attacks you. The media agenda changes daily. Media storms come and go.

There’s also often a good case to be made for being seen to address a controversial issue sensitively and to hold a constructive dialogue about it. But making apologies and promises to reform and move on just because the media (or campaigners) demand it, risks undermining the trust people place in genuine apologies. Moreover, when a firm proactively decides to respond to a negative media campaign, it is the truth that matters first and foremost. Anything else lacks integrity and amounts to, or must involve resorting to, lies or deception, surely.

Related posts:

1. France Telecom grovel strategy (Part 2) Heather Yaxley’s very sensible comment yesterday in response to my piece...

BP is on a knife-edge. They can’t seem attractive (and suitably penitent) whilst blaming others, and yet they are not alone in causing the accident in the Gulf. (Leave aside that they’ve got a gaffe-prone CEO who says that he wants things to go well because “I’d like my life back”. A severe shortage of pre-accident media training there, I fear.)

But in time – and that time isn’t yet, not by a long chalk – BP may well find itself able and required to discuss (first in private with sympathetic mature journalists and opinion-formers) where other parcels of blame lie.

It may well be that Transocean or Halliburton or others are culpable in some degree, perhaps even greatly. But how about those nice regulators who are the thin line between corporate greed and the fragile public and planet?

I am pretty sure that if there’s blame to be spread, the regulator is as much at fault (or as innocent) as BP or other firms. Indeed, I am inclined to think that the regulator is more to blame based on what I’ve learned from the circumstances behind all of the disasters I’ve ever studied. I’ll return to this another time, but from Titanic to Three Mile Island, I’m struck by how technological failure has flowed from regulatory failure rather than greed. I mean that very often – most often – the private sector fails when the public sector thinks it’s doing fine and has signed-off on its behaviour. (The modern financial failures are examples of this, by the way.)

So I reason that it was more the regulator’s job to drive, own, the “what-if” process than BP’s. It isn’t exactly BP’s job to be gungho and alpha-male. But, certainly, in the modern highly-regulated and accountable world the corporation is in a proper and allowed tension with its regulators. Indeed, I hold the view that regulators are rather feeble in hardly ever accepting a proper share of responsibility.

Unless BP has purposely pulled the wool over our eyes, something I doubt, or didn’t carry out its agreed obligations, which remains possible, I think BP ought to be cut a good deal more slack than it actually will be.

It looks likely that BP was operating in the Gulf of Mexico at the edge of technology’s capabilities in a high risk environment. (Krauthammer in the Washington Post argues that’s because of green prejudice, a nice argument I won’t pursue.) If it turns out that BP’s bad luck was to have an accident that no regulator or operator on earth had made allowances for then BP has the makings of a sound defence.  Though, paradoxically, even if that’s proven true, that’s an argument which can’t be pressed too loudly in polite society without risking a backlash.

There’s little doubt, then, that the blame will stick with the corporations (it may widen from BP as Shell fears here). That’s not least because regulators and the politicians will wriggle out of it and the media will prefer to hound BP and the other corporations to hounding the regulators and governments. That’s unless, and I’m dreaming here, the balance of third party opinion comes down on BP’s side.

I am almost sure – and far from happy about it because I believe BP should say what it knows or believes to be true – that there is very little BP can say today credibly in public. It cannot exonerate itself to any degree without appearing to avoid responsibility. It is up against quite deep human prejudices and tastes.

People love disaster and villainy. That’s why certain accidents have had mythic narrative power which no amount of good evidence can shift.  The Titanic, Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Exxon Valdez, are powerful cases where the very names have stuck emblematically in our minds. Their very mention comes with the clutter of preconceived ideas about class, capitalism, corporations, technological over-reach. BP will, presumably, now join that list. Like the others, it will probably be a good example of an operation which went on to do good work whilst exploiting plenty more technology. But it will serve as an example of bad-intentions and hubris.

It is just possible that this event will sink BP. But that would make it truly unique (even the owners of the Titanic didn’t go under).

Away from the hype, the financial market will look at this issue in a wholly cash manner. What will the accident cost? Will BP face difficulty getting US or other licences? Yes, this might well be a transformative event for the entire petroleum industry. But the market may think that BP is becoming case-hardened in a big-time way.

Therefore the outcome of the whole affair provides BP with an opportunity to take pole-position in the battle to reshape the industry’s worldwide image. After all, the world remains as dependent as ever on petroleum, so there’s a lot of mutual self-interest out there. There’s also a lot of cognitive dissonance. Plenty of firms feel forced to align their reputations with tragedies, real and very often imagined, as if they were responsible for them, but still do good business regardless. Some of my colleagues – cynically, perhaps – call that hit on the company’s reputation the price of securing a licence to operate.

Related posts:

1. Risk free energy? Boycott BP? No way! At the Senate hearing into the Gulf of Mexico oil...
2. Let’s interrogate Shell’s CSR in Nigeria Yesterday Shell said it was going to clean up the Niger...

Utopian PRs have been dreaming about “one world, people and planet” in which all the barriers between various publics come tumbling down. They envisage a connected world in which the lines of demarcation between internal, boundary and external stakeholders dissolve as they connect transparently and interactively in a value chain that links interdependent companies to their consumers and markets.

But such views ignore some major issues.

One is that in an open digitally-connected world, there’s more need than ever to conspire – organise, ghettoise, corral – to keep things confidential and hidden behind closed walls.

Indeed, we will see the kind of problem which Freedom of Information rules can produce: a clever, covert, closed decision making in which everything which really matters is centripetally driven to a cabal. (Remember the government of Tony Blair?)

Arguably, the more open things become and the more control bosses relinquish to networks, the more restrictions they will have to impose on those who operate in them. This might, paradoxically, lead to even tighter control on commercially sensitive information than exists today. It might lead corporates to adopt a civil service mantra of only releasing information on a need to know basis.

Another issue that the utopian PR camp ignores is competition. Companies forging various so-called value networks (I’ll argue later that PRs should avoid using the term) are as likely as not to form lots of them. They are as likely as not to value some more than others and to find themselves involved in contradictory and conflicting chains.

This will lead to lots of tension and uncertainty within corporates and institutions, such as government service providers, as they are forced to choose between their various product ranges, service offerings and partnership relationships, according to either their broader interests or their ability to sustain them. The resolution of such problems, or issues, will remain driven from the centre, from the top, by corporate or institutional bosses concerned with strategy.

Moreover, because of competition, PRs at either end of a chain, not to mention the middle, might find themselves pulling in different directions and unable to always align their interests, messages and narratives. There is no reason to believe that just because we introduce new tools into the workplace that real-world tensions, politics and commercial interests, will evaporate. We should, I warn, avoid falling into the technological determinism trap.

My point is that we should not think that corporations are about to relinquish control to horizontal or flat digital networks. We should not kid ourselves that top-down management and communication are about to die out. Neither should we imagine, as the PR utopians do, that existing internal silos, lines of responsibility and accountability, will be or should be altered very much by commercial Web 2.0 applications.

Here’s what Norman Lewis, Managing Partner at Open Knowledge UK, had to say on this when he commented on my piece There’s no social media revolution:

… it’s definitely the case that social media like any other technology does not alter the realities of the business world. (I very much like your points about the chaos that would ensue in a company if everyone could relate to sales, customers etc). This is based upon the naive hippie prejudice that enterprises can become democracies run in the interests of employees empowered to act like free agents.

Another of the problems that’s being overlooked by utopian PRs is how social media usage in the personal sphere is maturing. They seem to have missed the point that the major stumbling block for social media of all kinds is privacy, trust and control over personal data. It would seem that social media users are emerging from the blindly heady immature days of the early adoption period and starting to ask tough questions. Anybody really interested in this would do well to read Facebook challenged by ambitious upstarts on BBC online.

So already in the personal usage of Web 2.0, privacy and transparency are emerging as issues which are tempering how it is used. But in the commercial sphere the risks and drawbacks are fairly clear from the very beginning. While knowledge-sharing, collaboration and instant feedback and decision-making all have great appeal, in fact IP, confidential information and in-house knowledge lie at the heart of commercial value. The open information flows between various players presents itself both as an opportunity and as a risk.

But there’s even more reason for PRs not to get over-excited about Web 2.0′s ability to transform the workplace as utopian PRs do when they talk about paradigm shifts. Some believe that Michael Porter’s value chain model has already been replaced – or almost so – “by fuzzy (and not linear) and immaterial (rather than material) networks that normally disintegrate the distinction between internal and external publics.” But the truth is that Web 2.0′s commercial applicability is in its infancy and has yet to make a great impact.

The point the utopians miss is how much experimentation will be required to ascertain where and how to make Web 2.0 and social media applications work best in the corporate and public sector domain given the virtual impossibility of measuring their benefits accurately. But don’t get me wrong. I favour innovation and risk. I decry our current risk-adverse culture. I look forward to seeing more Web 2.0 applications introduced by business and institutions to deliver products and services. I don’t doubt for a moment that they can boost productivity and add great value.

This leads me to flag an event which I think PRs should attend, and to use it to explain why I think PRs shouldn’t use the terms networked society and value networks: International Forum on Enterprise 2.0 – Milan June 9 – 10.

The term Enterprise 2.0 was coined by Andrew McAfee, professor at Harvard Business School (Technology and Operations Management Unit). He defined it thus:

“…the use of platforms of social software in an emerging way inside the organization or between the organization, their partner and their client.”

The three building blocks which constitute E2.0 are:

• Social software: instruments which enable people to be in contact and collaborate together creating an online community of practice;
• Platforms, or rather, digital environments:  co-created interactive collaboration spaces that are visible to all users at all times;
• Emergence: the capacity to make visible the application structure and basic patterns of interactions between people.

As the event’s website explains, in McAfee’s words:

“Enterprise 2.0 technologies make the intranet similar to what the web is already: an online platform, continuously evolving, defined by the spread of independent user actions.”

I find the definitions and explanations provided by the International Forum’s organisers very useful. I’ve been arguing for some while that for PRs the terms “network society” and “values network” lack specificity and are confusing because they are in-house IT-speak. What the utopian PRs forget is that PR is and always will be about communicating with publics via networks and that society is nothing but networks personified. Moreover, all human networks are united by common interests and, or, values.

For those PRs wanting to get up to speed on social computing and E2.0 (both terms are useful and convey specific meaning in a PR context), I strongly recommend the following experts who explore – from different perspectives – this emerging field:

• The Social Enterprise – Italian blog on Enterprise 2.0
• The Business Impact of Information Technology (IT) – Andrew McAfee
• Enterprise Web 2.0 – Dion Hinchcliffe
• Futures Diagnosis – Norman Lewis

Related posts:

1. Stockholm Accords interrogated – part 2 Here’s the second in my trilogy on the Stockholm Accords....
2. Time to reappraise Facebook I had thought that Facebook would go the way of...
3. Blowing the whistle on Wikileaks Warning: this post is counter-revolutionary. A recent BBC’s Culture Show...

As the three companies faced their interrogators, behind sat protesters wearing T-shirts embossed “Energy shouldn’t cost lives”. When the proceedings closed the protesters screamed at the BP spokesman, “Hey, Hey, Lamar MacKay, how many fish did you kill today?” They chanted “Boycott BP”. They seemed to have friends in the Senate. Bob Menendez, the Democratic senator from New Jersey said:

“We were told that the Titanic was so technologically advanced that it couldn’t sink, and we were told that this well was so technologically advanced that it couldn’t spill. Unfortunately both of these technological marvels ended in tragedy.”

Actually, nobody ever said that either accident couldn’t happen. Though the makers of the Titanic and BP both at some point understated the potential risk involved in their respective challenges. That’s all the more reason, I believe, for BP to use this latest incident to set the record straight with the public about the realities of its business.

But right now the White House has vowed to “keep a boot to the throat” of BP. That’s an understandable response while the oil flows unchecked from the seabed. That does not mean that either PRs or BP should see it that way.

However, PR dogma suggests that BP should bite its tongue. The PR rulebook, designed to maintain a licence to operate, opines that if people think BP’s the villain it should act like one. Larry Smith of the Institute for Crisis Management and Timothy Coombs of Eastern Illinois University advocated this viewpoint to Slate:

[It's] literally true: BP owns the oil but not the rig. But it’s a shoddy communications strategy, says Smith. Wherever the fault lies, BP shouldn’t be splitting hairs. Companies should take the fall and work out recriminations behind closed doors, says Coombs. For example, when the chain Taco Johns had an E. coli outbreak, it didn’t publicly blame the lettuce supplier. It took responsibility. And, of course, sued the lettuce supplier later.

Effectively, Coombs is arguing that BP should adopt a cynical strategy in which it says one thing in private and another in public. His logic – and that of most PRs – is that the truth is too nuanced and complex for the public to comprehend. The argument goes that perception is everything. As the WSJ explained, they’ve got a point:

When you consider that analysts’ worst case scenarios put the eventual cost to BP at around $8 billion, yet $30 billion has been wiped off the company’s market capitalization since the crisis began, it becomes clear that this reputational damage has a value.

The problem is that by accepting full responsibility for the accident, BP would promote itself (dishonestly) as incompetent. How would that help maintain its credibility and reputation? Hence, I much prefer BP chief executive Tony Hayward’s strategy of accepting full responsibility for cleaning up the mess caused by its oil, while quietly but firmly disputing that it caused or was responsible for the accident. But Malcolm Gooderham, MD, TLG Communications, dubbed Hayward’s approach a “Miss” in PR Week. He also contrasted Hayward’s stance to that of his predecessor, Lord Browne:

“The virtue of Browne’s tenure was that despite the disasters, he is revered because of his strategic achievements. The challenge for BP today is to define a new thought leadership agenda.”

Browne’s thought leadership led him to re-brand British Petroleum as Beyond Petroleum. It was deceptive positioning and slightly bonkers to boot. To his credit, when Hayward took control of BP, he quietly downgraded the tag-line’s prominence. It now merely serves as “shorthand for what we do”, which is petroleum, and it hardly features at all in BP’s PR. What’s more, the irony of BP’s current plight is that it follows Mr Hayward’s determination to re-oritentate itself on technological competence rather than geo-political flair.

So what’s my advice to BP today?

• BP should concentrate on proving itself committed and competent as it cleans up the mess and reconsiders safety strategies
• BP has to speak with one voice in public and in private, now and in the future
• BP should use this crisis to educate the media, public and political elite about the realities of complex accountability
• BP should seek to lay the blame wherever the facts take them, even if some more of it falls on them
• BP should remind the world that energy is bottled force; BP is as good as any in handling the hazards involved in fueling our world
• BP should state the Browne years of Texas and Alaska lapses are behind them and what happened in the Gulf of Mexico was not caused by the same internal flaws
• BP needs to stress that the oil that’s now being drilled is located in inhospitable conditions and has inescapable risks
• BP should repeat and repeat that whatever lessons can be learned will be learned and that no stone will be left unturned in discovering them.

Related posts:

1. Let’s not turn media dramas into real crises Contrary to popular crisis management mythology, most dramas and disasters...
2. Where was Mr Toyoda yesterday? Made public yesterday, the last words from a family of...
3. Public trust in risk remains strong Financial Times (FT) research suggests that the public trusts itself to...

Before we go on, it is worth building on part 1′s theme: what exactly do the Stockholm Accords expect to achieve? Here’s what the event’s website says about their objective:

“The aim of the Stockholm Accords is to articulate and establish the role of public relations in the “communicativeorganization”[sic] within a fast-evolving digital and value-network society.”

In essence, the Accords suppose that we live in a new “networked society in which communicative organizations are vital to organisational success” (forgive the clumsy words, they’re theirs, not mine).

In essence my beef is that this exercise over-complicates everything. Most PR is an effort to help clients both be and appear more attractive. You can usefully enrich that proposition by noting that there are internal and external audiences; that everything about an organisation can be part of its good or bad messages; that building up a good reputation may be useful for when things go wrong (as they will). One may want to stress how non-stop and intrusive and persistent modern observers are. Perversely, the globalised, modern world is more like a village than ever: everybody thinks everything is their business.

As I argued in part 1, the Accords ignore the obvious: society is, and always has been, networks personified. Moreover, all human interaction depends upon communication and relationships, or nothing whatever would have been or will ever be achieved. Of course, the digital bit is sort of new. I say sort of because the internet is now second or third generation. It strikes me that the Accords’ authors are really saying that their thinking boils down to considering technology’s influence on human behaviour. This narrow obsession has sent them and their new definition of PR’s role off in the wrong direction.

There’s no wisdom in a mob, but there’s often treasure buried in crowds. So, of course, I accept there is something in Reed’s Law. (See: “The Law of the Pack”). I accept its proposition that digital networks can scale exponentially by transforming technological platforms into social networks that add value. But in the business world, Reed’s Law is just a statement of potential. It remains a theoretical construct that might prove to be hopeless if taken too far. The commercial world is in recession. It is not currently up for the risky experimentation and investment that would be required to test the weaknesses and strengths of Reed’s Law. This is something I discussed in part 1 No. 2 & No. 14 (without mentioning Reed). In part 1, I also cited SM’s irrelevance in the British General Election and its only fleeting influence on American politics.

My charge is that the authors of the Stockholm Accords lack historical or sociological insight. Most of today’s social developments from the breakdown of traditional politics, to the shift in community alignments, or the fall of religious influence, to the decline in trust in, and authority of, traditional institutions, pre-dates the internet.

In other words, the internet and social media usage were shaped in the wake of already existing currents, including the already declining mass media. That was particularly the case with SM, which is more often used as a retreat from public life rather than as its lifeblood. That’s one thing China’s SM usage has in common with the West’s. There’s mass disengagement and passivity in society, which is the polar opposite of empowerment, which so many PRs like to crow about. That’s not to say SM is irrelevant, or that it does not have influence or empower people, sometimes, in this or that circumstance or usage.

It is the failure of the Stockholm Accords to look at these real world tensions during the boom and now during the recession, and the Accords’ myopic worship of all things digital, which I criticise. But let me make it plain. This blog celebrates technology and advocates innovation. It is obsessed with understanding them and with exploiting their potential. But it does not endorse technological determinism, which I believe the Accords’ authors do.

So, that’s the preamble. Let’s now look at the Stockholm Accords one by one.

Stockholm Accords on governance:

“The increasingly adopted stakeholder governance model empowers board members and organisational leaders as ultimate custodians of stakeholder relationship strategies and policies, as well as of monitoring their implementation.

“In today’s value networks, a communicative organization requires timely knowledge of economic, social, political, legal and environmental developments, as well as opportunities and risks affecting the organisation, its direction, its actions and its communication.

“Public relations professionals:
• co-create organizational values, principles, strategies, policies and processes;
• constantly report on the dynamics of stakeholder involvement;
• inform, shape the organisation’s overall communication abilities;
•  measure, evaluate and account for results;
• deliver timely analysis and recommendations to ensure an effective governance of stakeholder relationships, enhancing transparency, trust and sustaining the organisation’s ‘licence to operate.’”

My reply

I dealt with the above extensively in part 1. But let me now add a few more brief remarks;

• The stakeholder governance model or doctrine is seriously flawed. An organisation can’t look to outsiders as the first source of its probity and efficiency.
• Firms, governments and institutions primarily pursue self-interest. This will include a measure of enlightened and widened self-interest.
• PR is indeed uniquely useful in our complicated, media-orientated times. But we should beware over-stating the newness of our skills and roles.

Stockholm Accords on management:

“Effective and timely decision-making related to operations and resource management are essential for organizations seeking to enhance their license to operate. These management choices must be sensitive to the concerns of internal and external stakeholders, seeking equilibrium between societal and organizational goals.
A communicative organization listens to its stakeholders, uses this input to improve the quality of its decisions, and communicates through its behavior.

“Public relations professionals:
° help understand and interpret broader societal, political and economic interests and aspirations;
° participate to the solution of organizational issues and lead those that are particularly focused on stakeholder relationships;
° help to legitimize the organization; by increasing the communicative value of products, processes, services; and building financial, legal, relational and operational capital.”

My reply

Yes, PRs are the professional diplomats of the modern organisation’s internal and external relationships. But we won’t do the job better by having theories and ambitions which are too fancy for the valuable but recognisable work they have to do. Way too much of the Stockholm Accords’ approach brings in more posy sociology, management-speak, media studies, post modern guff. This is the way to lose the interest of clients and audiences alike.

Stockholm Accords on sustainability:

“An organization’s sustainability is based on balancing today’s demands with the ability to meet future needs, based on economic, environmental and social dimensions.

“In this network society, sustainability leadership offers a transformational opportunity for the communicative organization to enhance it’s license to operate and demonstrate success across the triple bottom  line.- economic, social and environmental.

“Public relations professionals identify, involve and engage key stakeholders contributing to appropriate sustainability policies and programs by:
• interpreting society’s expectations for sound economical, social and environmental investments that show a return to the organization (the advocate);
• creating a listening culture – an open system that allows the organization to anticipate, adapt and respond (the listener);
• ensuring stakeholder participation to identify what information should be transparently and authentically reported (the reporter);
• going beyond today’s priorities to anticipate the needs of tomorrow, by engaging stakeholders and management in long-term thinking (the leader).”

My reply

Sustainability has to do with robustness and flexibility, which can be darn hard things to reconcile. We need to be modest: sustainability is about the future, a thing we know very little about. We should not pretend to know the recipe for survival (or to assume, for instance, that environmentalists are any cleverer at it than supposedly un-green capitalists).

Stockholm Accords on the new boundaries of internal communication:

“Internal communication enhances recruitment, retention, development of employee loyalty and commitment to organizational goals by ever more diverse and segmented publics.

“In the network society a communicative organization goes far beyond today’s traditional definition of full-time employees, understanding that internal stakeholders now include full-timers with tenure generally shortening, part-timers, seasonal employees, contractors, consultants, suppliers, agents, distributors, volunteers and more.

“Public relations professionals constantly address:
° how organizational leaders communicate;
° how knowledge is shared;
° how decisions are made;
° how processes and structures are created;
° and expand communication to include many boundary publics that are also often considered as highly trusted sources of information about the organization and essential players contributing to the organization’s success.”

My reply

Yes, many of an organisation’s relationships are now both important and fleeting or arm’s length. Actually, that will often require an unattractive wariness. The need for secrecy, privacy and caution is greater than ever and has to be communicated as well as possible.

Stockholm Accords on the new boundaries of external communication:

“The network society mandates that a communicative organization expand its scope and skills to focus on customers*, investors*, communities*, governments*, active citizenship groups*,  industry groups*, mainstream, digital and social media*, and other situational stakeholders*.

“Public relations professionals:
° promote, support and contribute to modify products, services or processes;
° bring the voice of the organization into regulatory and community decisions;
° adopt social networking and research skills and tools to listen to stakeholder demands and report to management so that they may be appropriately interpreted and, where relevant and effective, integrated into the decision making process;
° strengthen brand loyalty* and equity*, thus reinforcing the organization’s license to operate;
° work with all organizational functions, through every step of production and delivery, to craft and implement effective communication programs*.
° actively participate in dialogue*, evaluate and measure results*, and accordingly adjust their practices.”

My reply

This looks like PR’s pitch to stick its nose in everywhere. Nice try, and to some extent justified.

Stockholm Accords on co-ordination of internal and external communication:

“In value networks, each communicative issue* is multi faceted*, multi stakeholder* and inter relational within and between different networks* and positioned in diverse legal frameworks.

“The communicative organization must balance global transparency, finite resources and time sensitive demands dealing with dynamic changes in inside/outside territorial borders and new conflicts of interests emerging from multiple stakeholder participation*.
Dialogue with internal, boundary and external stakeholders must be coordinated with the organization’s mission*, vision*, values*, implementation*, promises*, as well as actions* and behaviors*.

“Public Relations professionals:
° research, develop, monitor and adjust organizational behavior and communication behaviors providing leadership for issues based on stakeholder and societal relationships;
° develop a knowledge base that includes social and psychological sciences, best practices and formative research to create, evaluate, measure and implement programs for continuous improvement.”

My reply

This looks like a pitch for PRs to be rulers of the universe: all-seeing, all-knowing, etc. I don’t mind this accord but it is not so much edifying and energising as yawn-making. How about: “Almost every aspect of your work will convey a message about your organisation, so expect a good PR to take an interest in everything you do.”

Related posts:

1. Stockholm Accords interrogated – part 1 This is for everyone interested in the Stockholm Accords and the debate...
2. BM’s COO Roman Geiser interviewed When local boy Roman Geiser, Burson-Marsteller’s Swiss CEO, was catapulted...
3. Wither stakeholder doctrine? In 1994 Tony Blair promised to turn the UK into...

Here’s a muse on how the stakeholder doctrine failed both politics and business and how it may not survive the challenge from the BRIC countries where there’s a bit more realism about life.

Let’s start in the present with UK politics. Then we’ll turn to how stakeholder doctrine originated in the trendy 1960s in the business sphere. Finally, I’ll make the case for saving the term “stakeholder”.

What a difference thirteen years makes. Tony Blair’s mission, he said, was to use the stakeholder concept to redefine rights and obligations and to extend accountability in society. Under Mr Blair there was a flurry of government-NGO-private business partnership arrangements. The “Third Sector” swam into view. This was the stuff which Geoff Mulgan and the think tank Demos were promulgating. I suppose the point was that Thatcher gave us popular capitalism and Blair’s mission was to widen the remit to a new participatory, networking society. Trying to move things on, and find a new Tory mission, Mr Cameron castigated Mr Blair’s “bureaucratic accountability” (all that tick-boxing, all those targets which Blair actually inherited from John Major), which he claims he’s going to smash. Mr Cameron has his own “power to the people” agenda, and we’ll see if it happens.

As the New Labour project makes way for David Cameron’s Tories (or something less new than New Labour), we should remind ourselves that the slogan was a fiction. The new active politics was top-down, not bottom-up. This really did mark a significant shift from past practice: Tony Blair’s infamous decision-making “sofa government” was the most unaccountable clique to rule the UK in modern times. It was perhaps even more closed than aristocratic rule once had been. The involvement of stakeholders turned into the manipulation of stakeholders and the sidelining of a democratically elected parliament.

Of course the idea that politics is everybody’s business – that we are all stakeholders in it – is the very core of modern democracy. The term may have gone out fashion in politics, but the political class is obsessing on how to engage people, which is much the same as trying to make more people feel like stakeholders. Indeed, the tragedy is that so many people don’t feel and act like social stakeholders. They’ve volunteered themselves to be on the sidelines, not least by not voting. It’s tempting, too, to think of anti-social people as being the reverse of stakeholders. It’s enough to make one nostalgic for the idea that people are stakeholders in the degree to which they pay taxes and don’t sponge, but that’s another story.

But whilst the idea of everyone being a social or political stakeholder – at least in principle and as an ideal – is valid, and whilst the phrase was borrowed by politicians from business, I don’t think it make sense in a business context.

So now let’s go back a bit and look at how stakeholder doctrine worked its way into business.

The 1960s origins of stakeholder doctrine

The word stakeholder has been around most likely since the 1930s, perhaps before. But its modern persona began to take shape in the 1960s. According R Edward Freeman’s history of the term:

“The actual word “stakeholder” first appeared in management literature in an internal memorandum at Stanford Research Institute (now SRI International, Inc) in 1963. The term was meant to generalize the notion of stockholders as the only group to whom management need be responsive. Thus, the stakeholder concept was originally defined as  “those groups without whose support the organization would cease to exist.”

The groups defined as stakeholders back then consisted of little more than shareowners. So it was tightly defined and designed to help organisations understand and achieve their corporate objectives. But over time, as Freeman describes it, the meaning of stakeholder theory changed dramatically. It began to include people whose personal interests were closely related to those of a firm (employees and so on).  As the doctrine evolved it eventually came to be defined, as Freeman put it, “any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the organization’s objectives.” It later evolved to mean the whole of society. This radical development in stakeholder theory dates from around 1975 with the introduction of the “stakeholder audit”. The aim of this was to measure the social costs and benefits of business to all its stakeholders and to give them equal importance to financial results. So what was a deliberately narrowing term transmogrified into its reverse: something as wide as possible.

Freeman identified “stake” as an “interest” or a “share” (in an undertaking) and he considered three groups of stakes: Equity stakes (held by shareholders); economic or market stakes (employees or customers); influencer stakes (interest or activist groups).

Of course, stakeholders like publics are often found in more than one role. Employees can be shareholders, customers can be activists, suppliers might be creditors etc. Their interests might be contradictory in the different roles they occupy. Moreover, the stakeholder’s perception of his or her own interest might not be measurable clearly either by consultation and or research (that’s an issue I’ve looked at on my PR blog in relation to Edelman’s trust survey results here here here).

Reasons to cutback on stakeholder hype

Here are my concerns about the stakeholder doctrine in business:

• Firms were no longer run for the benefit of their owners who risked their capital in them.
• The objective of business with stakeholder theory became the balancing of stakeholder interests (this precluded favouring one group over another) rather than maximising shareholder value by achieving specific corporate objectives as defined by the owners.
• The foundation stones of capitalism are the concepts of private property, the rights of its owners to exploit it, and the first duty of its agents being owed to principals. Those foundations have not been overthrown in a social revolution. Rather they remain legally binding but weakened by populist nonsense in the public domain. The suspicion has to be that stakeholder theorists are crude propagandists trying to effect change by the back door, or that they are self-deluded.
• Stakeholder theory created ambiguities for corporate governance – exactly to whom and for what is management accountable?
• If management is effectively accountable to everybody, then it is not accountable to anybody.
• If “active publics” define stakeholders, as Jim Grunig seems to suggest, then perhaps that gives them power over the silent majority that they don’t deserve? For sure, laws and democracy were long-ago designed to limit activist power in the interest of the greater good.
• The specificity of the terms stakeholder, public and “activist public” as useful categories is rendered meaningless if one accepts Freeman’s definition of what constitutes a stakeholder, which includes the unborn, the environment and much more.
• At its most absurd stakeholder theory identifies irreconcilable forces as each other’s stakeholders. Hence Greenpeace becomes a stakeholder in the nuclear industry.
• Stakeholder theory does little to tackle the real problem business faces today; which is that managers have become unaccountable to their owners for their poor results. Today’s recession is partly caused by irresponsible bankers destroying shareholder value because they pursued short-term interests. The recession is about falling profits, failing businesses and their social consequences, not a shortage of CSR (BTW: corporate governance is not primarily about the relationship of corporations to society).
• Right now, business has to make brutal decisions. Consensus will matter but so will speed and agility. Stakeholder management techniques, if taken seriously, are slow. They lack the robustness to be tough and to set priorities which produce clear winners and losers.
• The insight that stakeholder theorists claim as theirs that relationships, networks and consent are crucial to business success has been known since trading in goods and services began.

How some of this works in politics

• Politicians who big-up stakeholder politics on the basis that it’s particpatory can be taken with a pinch of salt. New Labour went in for the Big Conversation and masses of consultation, but it often turned out to be a sham.
• In the modern perverse definition, stakeholders are self-defining. Victims – or anyone who says they feel strongly – have to be listened to as though they were experts.
• Representative democracy empowers people who go to the trouble of getting elected: stakeholder politics risks undermining that process.

Whose side are PRs on?

One of the startling logical implications of stakeholder theory for PRs is that we no longer remain representatives of our employers. Rather we become brokers of different interest groups, listeners, facilitators and managers of the many stakeholder relationships an organisation has. In this brave new world PRs are more likely to want appear on the side of activists or competitors than on their employer’s side. This fiction needs a reality check in the interest of transparency.

What then was the great attraction of stakeholder theory? In my view it was the opportunity to have power without accountability or risk. This compelling doctrine is a hippy hangover from the post-World-War-II boom. It promised all the benefits of business and political life without the responsibility and disciplines of them; no wonder it became popular among freeloaders.

How to rescue the term stakeholder

Stakeholder theory therefore requires a radical overhaul because the challenges ahead call for risky and accountable leadership. So it will either reform, get real, or be blown away by necessity as the democratic West reorganizes to compete with the BRIC countries.

We should begin with this proposition. It’s a nice compromise, I think. Stakeholders are people with a stake in a firm’s – or any entity’s – well-being. So yes, it can be much wider than shareholders or voters alone. What’s more, legitimate stakeholders may differ very strongly about what a firm’s or country’s aims should be, just as shareholders and voters can. Plenty of people who are not strictly speaking stakeholders may have very interesting and useful views to contribute. Having skin in the game is not the measure of a person’s value to a firm or to the rest of us. But the more skin you have in the game, the more of a stakeholder you can legitimately claim to be. If we are to rehabilitate the stakeholder category usefully, we must first cut the crap.

Note: I owe a debt to Elaine Sternberg’s “Stakeholding: Betraying The Corporation’s Objectives“, SAU, 1998, for insight on this challenging topic.

Related posts:

1. Three cheers for the Mighty Pru’s shareholders Prudential CEO Tidjane Thiam has just learnt the hard way...
2. Stockholm Accords interrogated – part 2 Here’s the second in my trilogy on the Stockholm Accords....
3. Manifesto on shareholder value for PRs Here’s a PR manifesto offering a post-credit crunch reality check...

My profession seems to be obsessing on stakeholder relationship management. I see why. When the angry mob is howling at the gates, it seems sensible to pretend that crowds have wisdom. Like politicians, media and most bosses in the West, PRs are terrified of seeming elitist. They believe that leadership is no longer possible, or is toxic.

I have often banged-on about how PRs fear that corporations are seen as evil, so now mistakenly believe they must wear a bleeding heart on their sleeve. That’s not my point today. I want to stress here that it is a profound problem that PRs and many organisations – from firms to political parties – dread leadership and responsibility.

There’s a shortage of adulthood

What I’m on about today is related to a wider social problem. I think it’s time the grown-ups behaved like adults.

We live in a society in which people strut about in a macho culture of bullying, slap-head, hyper-fit, scowling aggression, but at the slightest set-back everyone’s weeping and in therapy.

Big cars, sharp suits and watches the size of dinner plates don’t confer anything worthwhile on a person. Aren’t you struck by how fragile the self-esteem of so many modern pseudo-adults seems to be?

We have watched stars, CEOs and politicians behave like greedy, petulant, hysterical teenagers rather than heroes, but what is striking about many of them is that they have so little fortitude. Most CEOs disappeared from view when the credit crunch struck. We just heard how the British Prime Minister’s inner circle phones bullying help-lines to complain about him. Their confidence is wafer thin.

At this year’s Davos we were told that profit, shareholder value and shareholders are no longer priorities. All stakeholders are now equal. Such talk came from Western leaders. The bosses in the East held their nerve.

We need corporations rooted in a solid culture

It’s this bifurcation I’m after. I want to try to make it understood that ordinary decency, a workable sense of fairness, a sellable ideal of enlightened self-interest - proper trust between firms and employees and customers and wider society – has to flow from a far deeper sense of corporate culture than can ever be achieved by becoming a weather vane.

Today I want to try to get a proper handle on this particular concern: that our clients cannot afford to aim to become whatever the ether-mob, the gobby bloggers, the placard-wavers fancy. They can’t pick up a self-definition by triangulating the top three or four messages they get from a consultant. Even if they did, they’d have to live it and that involves sticking with it and that involves ignoring the next fashion which hurtles into view out of the mists.

I am tolerably sure that floating along on public opinion is never good. It sometimes leads to rushing weirs and crashing Niagras, but more often to long dreary shoals where no-one’s boat floats.

The public says it wants to humble corporations and corporate bosses, just like it  says it wants to humble political parties and politicians. So it has created the risk that firms, parties and institutions become rudderless (sorry, I couldn’t resist another water analogy).

In fact though, if there’s one thing the public fears and distrusts more than strong, mean, unaccountable and self-serving public bodies and leaders, it’s bodies which are too weak to do their job.

Before we can have listening and flexible firms, we need to have firms which are quite strong and quite clear about what they actually want to be.

So the perpetual self-abnegation involved in stakeholder relationship management is a folly. I believe it is a chronic abdication of responsibility. It is also constitutes a surrender to short-term market and social instrumentalism.

It is a myth that the best reputations must be sustained by stakeholder management crowd sourcing. Good reputations are not based on living within limits set by consumer or voter research and stakeholder engagement, but on breaking down barriers and achieving something significant.

Reputations, trust and success

The best reputations arise from doing things and from keeping promises and delivering results and sometimes from managing failures well. Reputations that endure do so because they inspire.

Great companies and governments transform the world by creating demand and conditions that didn’t exist before. They often do so at great risk in the face of fierce opposition.

There’s more for PR to do than to get their clients to reflect what audiences say they expect or claim that they will accept. There’s more for PR to do than to try to forge consensuses before advising firms to make decisions. Good PR acknowledges that what’s wanted in society is not fixed. Great PR helps society transform the prevailing perceptions of sustainability on business, cultural and environmental matters.

Successful countries from the democratic UK and America to today’s China and India were not built on the back of listening, engagement and consensus, but on the back of courageous leadership and innovation. Let’s review a few examples.

According to Edelman’s trust survey, trust in business and government is strongest where stakeholder relationship management matters least and among the weakest where it seemingly matters most. By a significant margin, China leads the world in both categories. India and Indonesia score highly. While Russia records higher trust levels than do France and Germany.

Moreover, the PC, the internet and Google’s search engine are all examples of top-down disruptive innovations, not ones driven by bottom-up demand-led engagement-based consultation. They did not arise from listening to the market or to stakeholder groups.

Google

Google’s search engine was an innovative marriage between algorithms and computing power. Google created its own demand.

The motto of Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin was “question everything”. As this review of recent books on Google explains, they were like postindustrial Henry Fords, using digital technology to eliminate all inefficiencies in traditional economies.

Ironically, Google’s Eric Schmidt’s recent Washington Post piece, Erasing our Innovation Deficit, advocates bottom up crowd-sourced innovation. It under-estimates the risk-taking top down investment and leadership which helped Google succeed, the internet take-off and the US put a man on the moon: see here. However, that weakness should not detract too much from the mostly timely, insightful points Schmidt makes.

Unloved Microsoft and lovable Apple

Microsoft at its peak never won our empathy. Microsoft never engaged with stakeholders. It hardly consulted anybody. Bill Gates wielded Microsoft’s power like a blunt instrument against all comers, including customers and partners. But if Microsoft was always unlovable, Apple is its polar opposite. Its fans adore it, believing it to represent an anti-corporate, culturally-fresh, arty sort of an entity. That’s mostly nonsense, but in any case Apple achieves this myth-making with top-down communication and command and control management.

Rock ‘n’ Roll

The electric guitar transformed music. It created new possibilities by creating new sounds. It helped spawn Rock ‘n’ Roll, including Punk, that outraged public opinion. But its hall of fame contains some of the greatest reputations of the last century. But as Simon Cowell shows, even this grass-roots business is managed from the top, even if it draws inspiration and talent from the bottom.

Ryanair: nobody’s friend

Last, Michael O’Leary’s Ryan Air’s low-cost digitally-networked business model revolutionised the airline industry. It was an achievement of an aggressive innovative genius, not of stakeholder collaboration, which he despises.

These examples provide evidence of Joseph Schumpeter’s law of creative destruction that drives the capitalist market. They support my argument that PRs who think our trade is all about aligning values, listening, engagement and relationships need a reality check; though I’m very pro using those techniques in the right context.

Key manifesto messages

In contrast, I say PRs should be more prepared to defend, advocate and promote risk taking. They should be less concerned about what’s acceptable and what’s popular. They should be more willing to celebrate elitism and success. They should be less concerned with the crowd as it is currently constituted or inclined to emote and opine.

PRs should be more willing to celebrate the arrogance of the change-makers who bring innovation to society. We should be less concerned with bad headlines and with tyranny of media produced crises. Instead we should focus our campaigns on achieving positive outcomes and on getting things done. We should be the torch bearers honing the narratives and messages of the people and forces which challenge or ignore society’s constraints. In that game PR plays a transformative role.

The blog which got me going

Here’s the article that inspired this manifesto: To listen, to engage: empty buzzwords? Let’s discuss. It sums up the risk adverse stakeholder relationship management approach of mainstream academic PR. According to this school of thought progress depends on winning the public’s trust by establishing empathy. For them it is all about connecting with stakeholders by gathering sense:

“The consequences of the interpretation-of the comprehension-of the gathered sense need to be explicitly related to the listener’s decision making process and are inherently fuzzy, non linear and situational. The competencies are creativity, feasibility, and time framing with their respective tools.”

This piece of gobbledygook is typical of current PR thinking. It springs from a misplaced faith in Grunig’s two-way symmetrical model of PR. Amusingly the author is so sure of his ground that he asks What comes after Grunig? and replies, “the answer to that looming question is that after Grunig…comes Grunig.”

The danger here is that Grunig’s supporters have ended up trying religiously to make reality fit the theory. That’s the trap, if I’m any judge of PR-related text, that the Stockholm Accords, arising from the Global Alliance’s World Public Relations Forum debate, is falling into right now.

In summary, my point is that PR is a multi-faceted, flexible profession. Sometimes it is top-down and one-sided. Sometime it is a two-way interactive real-time force. In whichever way it does its job, however, PR is an objectives-driven art rather than a science that’s reducible to orthodox formulas. My take home message is that PR makes its most useful contribution to society when it advocates transformative risk-taking on which great reputations are built.

Related posts:

1. Let’s interrogate Shell’s CSR in Nigeria Yesterday Shell said it was going to clean up the Niger...
2. Public trust in risk remains strong Financial Times (FT) research suggests that the public trusts itself to...
3. BM’s COO Roman Geiser interviewed When local boy Roman Geiser, Burson-Marsteller’s Swiss CEO, was catapulted...

Roman represents the future of our trade. His quality of thought is becoming more common – though far from common enough – across the in-house and agency world.

Roman Geiser

He embodies how PR is maturing as a business under a new generation’s leadership as it enters its Golden Age.

His take on things ranges from radical ideas for repositioning Swiss banks, to questioning the effectiveness of the S in CSR.  He’s prepared to think big about what disintermediation could do for his clients, while staying alert to the possible downsides for society as a whole. He is cleverly nuanced about social media (a tad over-enthusiastic for my taste, but there you go).

He joined the agency world seven years ago. His background was as a public affairs lobbyist for an umbrella organisation of Swiss businesses. Then he was hired by Jäggi Burson-Marsteller, a formerly family-owned business based in Zurich and Bern, which was bought by BM, Young & Rubicam.

So, as he readied himself for his journey as a PR agency EMEA COO, I asked him to give us an insight in to his business and thinking. Here’s the outcome:

Strategy, evidence and today’s market

PS: I’d like you to describe what the recession has done to your clients, to explain how well your business in EMEA has fared.

RG:  It really depends market by market and positioning by positioning of each unit we have in our organisation. In Switzerland, we work for industries such as energy, pharmaceuticals and food.  If you take those three industries, they’re doing pretty well in the recession.

We see a clear trend to specialisation and focus.  The mid-sized agencies in this market – those offering 360 degree service – have an issue. Clients either want an agency that really understands their business, or an agency with functional or specialist expertise, for instance agencies that are 100% specialised in digital media and social media.  So there is a need for all agencies to find a sweet spot.

We see a certain cautiousness. There’s a psychological impact on even healthy businesses. Investments are taken more slowly than before.

Some services have become commoditised.  However the more strategically an agency is positioned the better it is protected from the crisis.  So offering product PR in the fast moving consumer goods area, for example, has become a low margin business.  Or even doing financial communications around standard transactions like public offerings has become internalised by banks and commoditised.

That means the higher up the value chain you are, and the better the quality of service you offer, the better off you are during the crisis.  Services like doing press releases, or just media relations in multi markets – those are not services where you can differentiate your brand. They are really price-based discussions which put your margins under pressure.

Burson-Marsteller is known in the industry as being extremely strategic. Of course, all agencies claim that!

PS: What exactly does ‘strategic’ mean?

GS:  If I take the Swiss example, we are very successful in healthcare.  We have a team of scientists here.  We have four medical doctors and a professor at Rockefeller University.  You need that kind of calibre to really bring evidence to the table to provide analysis. Then you can have a discussion with the client based on “This is the existing mindset and this how we get to where we want to go”. For me, that insight and knowledge and in-depth analysis based on qualitative and quantitative research is evidence-based.  And it starts at the beginning of a project.

Froth on the boom’s coffee or the caffeine in the latte?

PS: Do you agree with me that PR was guilty of putting the froth on the late boom’s coffee? Or put another way, if bankers have had to say sorry, do we need to, too?

RG: I understand where you’re coming from. One of the key reasons to have a PR agency, or a trusted advisor, is to bring critical faculty to the table and to ask the right questions. And, for sure, in certain industries the PR industry profited from the hype and we were part of the overall economic system.  At the same time, I believe there were great attempts to warn and also to support CEOs in their function.

PS: To warn?

RG: Yes to warn. You like to quote Dr Leslie Gaines-Ross on your blog. She recently highlighted how the trend from celebrity CEO to credibility CEO, more of “please show me” and not just the glamour stuff, began some four or five years ago. And that’s a kind of clear anti-hype warning that came from the PR industry itself.

Burson-Marsteller tried to engage the Swiss Bankers Association, for instance, in some pre-emptive reputational research during the boom. But what do you do when a decision-maker tells me “Thanks for your advice but we don’t have an issue”? That’s why I feel we did our job properly.

What kind of capitalism comes next?

PS: Will the new boom produce a different capitalism, particularly considering that the world’s most dynamic economies are going to be amongst its least democratic?

RG: I don’t think that there will be new models to capitalism.  I mean, it’s a pretty well established domain, right? There will be a new global balance of economies being at the table as equals with with the US in some fields.  That, I believe, is certainly more than a trend.

PS: Is there a new morality to capitalism?

RG: First, capitalism is not anti-moral. Second it’s been in practice for decades. So it won’t have a new shape or new dimensions in future.

I wouldn’t jump to saying: “Here is the new global regime with new power bases”. For instance, I still see the US, just by its historic capability for revitalisation, reinvention and innovation, as a strong leader and player in the future.  But it’s interesting to see that the most recent growth and first signals for recovery came clearly from China, also from India, but basically from China, which is new.

We shouldn’t underestimate the power of the old economies. In a world which is getting much more complex, with multi-stakeholder management, with so many stakeholder groups having an impact on your business, that calls for managing complexity.  And if you look at the continent which really has experience of managing complexity from language to cultures, it is Europe.

Where is PR headed?

PS: What are the three major three trends that will dominate the PR landscape over the next ten years?

RG: The key trend definitely is social media and digital communications and the shift of paradigm from mass media into more dialogue-oriented communications. That’s a huge shift. But its impact varies from market to market, culture to culture. For instance, Switzerland is highly digitalised, but it also values privacy. People don’t speak up on blogs here, as they do in the UK, and give their opinions.

Second, I would say, is the balance of purpose and performance in an organisation in order to build trust longer term.  It’s basically the question of: “What is the purpose of a corporate, of a multi-national?”.  It’s very often around employees.  It’s around the products and the services for consumers.  So it’s around the mission and vision of a company

The third trend is multi-stakeholder transparency in a globalised world.  Companies operating around the globe need to demonstrate transparency and to explain themselves to many more stakeholders in the age of trend No. 1.

It’s not about structures but about leadership

PS: How will PR agencies change their business models and services?

RG: The first one sounds easy, but it’s extremely complex to make digital communication more than an add-on to your communications programmes. Very often you say “What could we do digitally?  Do we do a website? And yes, there are new trends like Twitter.  We need to offer that in our communications programme”.  And that’s the wrong attitude.  I believe digital or kind of low-cost media needs to become an integrated part of all communication concepts.

At the same time, you need to understand your business extremely well to see the limits of digital social media, such as in pharmaceuticals for obvious regulatory reasons.  Going into it with a kind of hype attitude can be dangerous. It’s new, but it’s more than just a fad. But it’s not a revolution. It’s an evolution. It’s an evolution which brings the business more into the dialogue-oriented sectors of communications.

The multi-stakeholder global trend goes into new agency models, which I believe are going to be more international.  PR agencies are still coming out of the first phase of family-owned businesses with very local business models.  But we are becoming more digital and more international.  Offering that service to your client becomes more and more important.

Of course, managing the matrix of markets and practices in agencies is extremely demanding. It needs people who like to work together. And it starts at the top.  So if you have a management team or market leaders who like each other and work together well, you have the key ingredients for not working in silos any more.  So there is no real ideal structural model. You can have all kind of bonus systems and financial incentives. But what is really needed is investment in a team that works together collaboratively and which produces success stories together. That’s the way to go.

What are reputations made of? A five point list

PS: How would you explain the success of Apple and Ryanair’s PR, both of which, for different reasons and in different ways, seem to do everything wrong, and yet seem to get everything right in terms of their reputation and business strategy?

RG: My explanation would be that it is always multi-dimensional. Let me list the top five elements that create great reputations for firms.

First, is how they develop talent and how attractive are they for potential employees.  Take Apple.  They are doing that extremely successfully.

Second is product and services of high quality.  You can be as digital as you want.  You can be as corporate responsible as you want.  If you don’t get your product right, if you have a problem explaining your hedge fund to your target group because you don’t understand it yourself, you might ask yourself the question, “Is my product really a good product”.  In the case of Apple or Ryanair, they have solid services, good products, which fit into very specific target groups.

Third, transparent leadership structures.

The fourth is financial results and performance. If you drive a business which is financially sound, you create the momentum for a sound reputation. And that brings me to number five.

The last one on my list would be CEO reputation.  And here again both Ryanair and Apple score through the roof on that one.

It is the balance between these five factors creates a good reputation and trust. You do not need to be top on all five. But it’s always a dimension of those aspects.  And other reputation studies maybe have a different ranking. But it’s those that I’ve listed which are the key drivers that count.

Time to ditch the S in CSR? And what is CR about?

PS: Is CSR a marketing tool or a genuine attempt to inject morality into capitalism?

RG: This really comes under my “purpose and performance” answer. Let me explain. I prioritise the  concept of responsibility rather than the social bit of it. That’s because “social” is corporate giving and sponsoring. But corporate responsibility goes to supply chain management and to diversity in the workplace. It goes to labour standards in all kinds of countries. It goes to compliance issues, too.

If you take corporate responsibility or give that angle to CR as a communication platform, we are talking evidence-based communication. We are talking about content and not just about how you brand it or how you position it and how you make a better marketing tool out of it. It is really about how you run your business and how you act responsibly in the roles in which you operate.

Elevator pitch to put Swiss banking back on track

PS: Good to hear. I’ve always advocated dropping the S in CSR and also for promoting business sustainability much more forcibly than we currently do.

Now, moving on. Please pick an unpopular person, institution, firm or country and make an “elevator pitch” for it.

RG: I’d pitch the financial sector in Switzerland.  And what I’d be pitching would have nothing to do with communications.

PS: Okay, go ahead.

RG:  Behaviour drives communications and reputations. It’s all driven by behaviour.  And the first behaviour recommendation I’d make to the Swiss banks would be not to base a product or the financial sector on a system of differentiation of tax evasion and tax fraud.

The only differentiation that matters is excellence in Swiss banking. There are huge assets which come with excellent banking and the positioning of it. So Swiss banks should not hide behind a smart legal differentiation of evasion and fraud. That’s not the way to go.

Second, nobody likes secrets.  We do like privacy, though.  Why is Swiss banking branded “banking secrecy”?  It’s the protection of the individual and the protection of one’s privacy that matters. And that is a different concept.

My third point would be look at self-regulation. I say don’t wait until the regulators push their positions on you.  Self-regulation can be a very healthy way to come out of the crisis stronger and to keep enough room for your core business.

My fourth is look at the products, because the banking products have become too complicated. There are many ways to shape products in more understandable ways. After all, good products, as we discussed earlier, are one of the key drivers of reputations. Products need to be much more transparent. Any risks in those products require a clear assessment of the portfolio. Sometimes in the boom years, the underlying risks were not clear even to specialists working in the field.

Power shifts in media – good news and not so good news

PS:  Ask yourself the question I should have asked you.

RG: A point you haven’t mentioned is the role of old media, if you want. There is right now a power shift of who produces relevant content and who has the power to invest in content?  And that shift goes from media to the PR sector.  It goes to in-house PR, external PR. And as a PR man, I could say it’s a great strength. But as somebody who is socially or politically aware, I would say it can do harm to the balance of democracy, because media have an important role there.  And sizing down all those newspapers, and taking away their ability power to do in-depth research is a problem.

At the same time you have big companies, PR firms basically involved in paid-content production.  It doesn’t mean that the content is not correct, but it always presents one perspective in a discussion and I believe there still needs to be strong media to play a role in public debates.

Certainly, big corporate can become the media. Why not have Nike TV doing sports programmes? But I like the “competition of ideas”. If you want to have a competition you need a few players being part of that competition.

PS: Do you have any closing remarks?

RG: Yes. If you ask our founder Harold Burson what makes a great PR person he says “curiosity”. And I think it is fascinating right now to be a PR person. There are so many things going on. We are challenged more than ever before. There’s loads of opportunity. I think we can say it is a new age, as you say, a golden one.

PS: Thanks. Great stuff, if I may say so.

Related posts:

1. Stockholm Accords interrogated – part 2 Here’s the second in my trilogy on the Stockholm Accords....
2. Briefing for PRs on E2.0′s brave new world There’s been lots of talk in PR circles about value...
3. PR should help leaders lead, not listen Here’s a manifesto in favour of decent top-down adult leadership rather...

Whatever Gordon Brown said or did about Libya he would have faced criticism. He was in a no-win situation. Moreover, his critics missed this point: it is a noble art – responsibility even – of a leader not to reveal all that she or he knows or thinks when under pressure.

In that sense, Gordon Brown did well this time around, and it played well to his taciturn image; an image that would have served him splendidly had he stayed true to it more often. This time he was also very effective – in using the one statement he did make – condemning the hero’s welcome the convicted terrorist received on his return to Tripoli.

Meanwhile, Bronwen Maddox got to the heart of the wider issues at stake in yesterday’s The Times:

The release of the Lockerbie bomber symbolises Libya’s move in from the cold. Obama and Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, may have condemned the decision by Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish Justice Minister — and by inference the British Government’s lack of intervention — but the Administration is giving time and attention to Colonel Muammar Gaddafi.

I would add that the release also symbolizes – on the world stage – that Scotland’s devolved government is more than a symbolic institution. That was a point well understood by the Scottish National Party’s leader Alex Salmond when he wholeheartedly, and without much public backing, backed Kenny MacAskill’s decision to release Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi.

Yes, this was a complex affair. Not least the latest statement from the Colonel’s son Saif al Islam Gaddafi clarifying how his earlier comments about the release, a prisoner transfer agreement and trade deal had been misunderstood by the media. Perhaps he should have stayed silent first time around or picked his first words more carefully. There was, he said, no quid pro quo.

By the way, Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi’s account of the relationship of Scottish justice to his release is compelling here.

The truth is that there has been much misreporting and even more speculation about the known facts (not many) by politicians and media bent on taking the moral high ground. All good fun, but most of it will not pass the test of time.

But Britain is not alone in getting into a flap over Libya. Switzerland, where I live, was once thought exemplary at managing such delicate affairs. However, one of the Alpine-state’s cantons “declared war” on Muammar Gadhafi’s other son, Hannibal, when it arrested him, without first considering the consequences for the country as a whole. The Swiss government was later forced to apologize after Libya withdrew its billions from Swiss banks, detained two Swiss in Libya, and cut off oil supplies.

The lessons? I stand by wisdom of the Prussian military thinker Carl von Clausewitz, a master of strategy and tactics. He said that in order to win a war (one infers PR, diplomatic and commercial as well as military) one does not need to win every battle, or indeed any battles at all. It is the sense of the bigger picture, of knowing where one’s long term interests lie as one makes compromises that matters. It is about knowing – conceptualizing – how the jigsaw fits together that at the end of the action separates leaders, winners, and big thinkers from the also-ran.

No related pages.

Richard Edelman argues on his blog 6 AM that we are entering a new era of Mutual Social Responsibility, in which companies will operate differently, partner differently and market differently. Really?

Richard Edelman urges firms to give NGOs a seat at the table and a real voice in discussion to reduce the contentious interaction between civil society and business.

PRs certainly have to make their clients attractive. It is only natural for leaders, firms and industries to find ways to avoid being vilified. Being open to “the opposition” can be part of that.

He says:

The democratization of communications will require a more public vetting of the assumptions behind environmental marketing – from green brands to new power plants. It will also mean a conscious decision by companies about whether to be Light Green (at minimum standard) or Dark Green (a green brand, with ever higher expectations).

Richard Edelman is correct to say firms have choices about how “Green” to become.

But whatever they do they cannot be all things to all comers. Some differences are irreconcilable. That said, I agree with Richard Edelman that there is little benefit to be had from being uncommunicative or from trying to fight head on the Green or whatever other zeitgeist predominates.

However, the ethical debate really is a minefield. While the terms “Green”, “organic”, “community”, “non-toxic”, “natural” are deeply attractive words and mantras, they do not capture all the merit, say, from “unnatural” cleaning products, for instance.

On other hand, some natural products such as oil, gas, coal, uranium, and french fries are reviled. The debate around them focuses on their assumed negative – many argue insurmountable – side effects. There’s nothing natural about insulin, but it hardly gets noticed. Meanwhile, Richard Edelman might be right about Hellmann’s “Real Mayonnaise” not promoting its simple natural ingredients enough.

The tough job facing PRs has always been how to defend clients that do not have obvious merit in the eyes of many “stakeholders” or – more precisely – campaigners. Genetically modified crops and food, airports, runways and flying being classic examples.

Richard Edelman argues that the solution is for firms to wrap their reputations in those of NGOs. There is, of course, much to be said for obtaining third party endorsements (not limited to NGOs) and for doing deals with NGOs. My point is that the hug-an-NGO strategy has severe limitations.

Much of Richard Edelman’s approach derives from a negative interpretation of his own PR agency’s 2009 Trust Barometer; a more positive assessment of which, in terms of the level of trust in today’s corporations, I provide here.

My beef is that Richard Edelman over-eggs the “democratization of communications”, and the role NGOs play in restoring trust in firms, when he says:

As NGOs are advocates and not consultants, the new best practices that they create are meant to spread across entire industries, magnifying the environmental benefits. This open source solution is good for both partners’ credibility. Note that in the recent Edelman Trust Barometer 2009, NGOs are the most credible institutions in most nations, with respondents by a 3 to 1 margin asking for cooperation among government, business and NGOs to solve key issues such as global warming (as opposed to unilateral action by business and/or government).

We now see that major NGOs are now willing to work toward a mutually advantageous outcome by partnering with business; by going beyond technical advice to establishment of standards.

That is only half the story. It overlooks the fact that NGOs and debates are not static, but dynamic. Indeed, one can view campaign groups as a set of concertina doors arranged on a sliding scale of positions running from the deliberately accommodating to the determinedly non-negotiable.

No sooner does a firm or politician win an endorsement from one lot than they get a cup of green custard in the face from another. That was literally the experience of Britain’s Business Secretary Lord Mandelson when he turned up to speak at a low-carbon summit in London and Plane Stupid saw the makings of a stunt (see picture below). For sure, the NGO world of protest is a highly competitive slippery fish.

It is also deeply flawed to believe that (most, many, all) consumers are in the same place as NGOs, even of the more moderate ones. And if, as Richard Edelman argues, firms try to mop up, assimilate, accommodate such campaigners, they need to know that this merely creates space for others who will stay out of their reach. That does not mean firms should not court sensible NGOs. Rather it is a warning to firms and PRs about the limits, effectiveness and motivations for doing so.

Moreover, as Richard Edelman notes, the premiums to be had from so-called ethical brands are falling. He gives the example of ASDA which puts it at 10%. But the more firms that go down that route the more “ethical products” will become mere commodities until there is zero premium to be had.

Richard Edelman also quotes Professor John Gourville of Harvard Business School saying that while people aspire to good behavior, “When times are difficult, final decisions are made on bottom line cost.” Edelman says:

His (Gourville’s) research on car purchase behavior indicates that while people are interested in miles per gallon they are unwilling to sacrifice comfort and styling. Several clients shared findings from their research which found that people are interested in living more green but unwilling to sacrifice convenience and effectiveness. People today expect a company to ensure their brands to be, say, environmentally sustainable, and they are not necessarily willing to pay more.

The future – particularly in this recession – is likely to see a resurgence of lean-mean marketing machines advocating no frills good value. The recent success of KFC, McDonald’s and Wal-Mart surely owe more to the relevance of their core brand values in today’s tough conditions than it does to them becoming ethical (which they always were) or them promoting green and organic practices (which they now rightly do).

His marketing advocacy for his firm’s role in managing “a new era of Mutual Social Responsibility”, which results from doing deals with NGOs, has severe one-sided limitations for the rest of us – even if it brings Edelman’s PR firm much new business.

PRs bring to the table diplomatic expertise that takes account of the wider view of the social and business world. Our job is to advise firms about the consequences of issues they might otherwise miss or misinterpret.

My message is that the world is going to be a much more topsy turvy place for PR firms and their clients to operate in than Richard Edelman suggests. This is going to throw up a variety of strategies for firms to adopt – only one of which will be the Mutual Social Responsibility approach.

Related posts:

1. Manifesto on shareholder value for PRs Here’s a PR manifesto offering a post-credit crunch reality check...