Here’s the essence of Professor Karnani’s case:

“Companies that simply do everything they can to boost profits will end up increasing social welfare. In circumstances in which profits and social welfare are in direct opposition, an appeal to corporate social responsibility will almost always be ineffective, because executives are unlikely to act voluntarily in the public interest and against shareholder interests.”

Here’s the essence of Mr. Edelman’s reply:

“[Edelman's case studies] demonstrate that contrary to Karnani’s assertion, the decision isn’t whether to run an effective, “smart” business or a socially responsible, engaged one. Performance with purpose (a term used by PepsiCo CEO Indra Nooyi) is not an either/or proposition.”

Now, as it happens, Richard Edelman makes a good point. But he also misses it completely. The core social purpose of a corporation is to provide whatever goods or services it is in business to deliver – be that street cleaning, cigarettes, incubators, medicines, machine guns or bubble gum. Mr Edelman, in contrast, believes that a smart business is an engaged one with a purpose. Engaged in what else other than what it does, I ask.

Mr. Edelman tries to explain it with three examples drawn from his client base:

“Unilever’s Omo Detergent adopted the “Dirt is Good” campaign – aligning with the brand’s business proposition by asserting that “every child has the right” to be a child and get dirty. After fielding new academic research highlighting the importance of outside play for the physical and social development of children and engaging parents, governments and NGOs to take action, the campaign triggered real social change – Vietnamese schools agree to assess national provisions for school recess while the brand commits to build 100 playgrounds over three years.”

He’s shooting himself in the foot. Unilever’s campaign has self-interest at its core. The aim here is to produce more dirty children that will require the use of more of its product to clean up the mess. Moreover, from my experience as a parent, kids don’t need much encouragement to get their clothes dirty or to play outside (try stopping them).

He tells us how the Clorox Brita’s FilterForGood campaign:

“…inspires consumers – and communities – to take a personal pledge and even engage in (planet) healthy competition with others to reduce their bottled-water use, as well as informs them about other environmentally-friendly decisions that each can personally make.”

In essence, he’s positioning his client’s “healthy product” against the bottled water industry’s and mains suppliers’ supposedly environmentally unfriendly or unhealthy alternatives. That is, for as long as Brita remains a client and come the day Edelman represents, say, San Pellegrino, or has to convince us that a utility produces a product fit to drink straight from the tap. This should warn us that the “public interest” Mr. Edelman favours is often just the selfish interests of his clients.

Then, if those two weak cases weren’t enough, he adds:

“The Pepsi Refresh Project, partnering with NGOs and experts, is directly crowd sourcing ideas from consumers to foster innovation in social good – awarding more than $20 million this year to fund local community initiatives and ideas that refresh the world.”

Regardless of the trendy crowd sourcing, that’s just a classic – old-style – brand marketing and awareness-raising campaign. It is, actually, a very low budget one for a company with $9.4 billion in revenues.

One wonders why Mr. Edelman didn’t mention another esteemed client: Ryan Air. It is one which is likely to accuse Professor Karnani of being soft rather than harsh in his defence of profit. Ryan Air states unambiguously that shareholder value comes before its staff, customers, partners and suppliers. Ryan Air has little time for stakeholder PR or for CSR, except as the butt of jokes. Here’s the brief that Edelman pitched for:

“Wanted: PR firm who is able to LOL at the advertising gags, and doesn’t mind poking fun at expensive airports, rivals, prime ministers … and even popes! No precious, sensitive, politically correct or clock-watching publicists need apply. Long hours, stamina and patience of St. Christopher, the patron saint of travel, are all prequisites.”

Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m not against corporations acting responsibly or managing their risks properly. I accept Ryan Air is an outlier; though it is one which has moved an entire industry’s behaviour in its direction. It is just that most CSR is shallow dishonest nonsense that sails close to propaganda, as BP’s Beyond Petroleum clearly did.

It is precisely such transparent charades and double-speak that generates the disabling cynicism that undermines public confidence in modern institutions. So there’s something refreshing about Professor Karnani’s bluntness and Ryan Air’s Michael O’Leary’s loud mouth.

Of course, in one sense there’s a bit of voodoo coming from both Mr. Edelman and Professor Karnani. The problem with deciding between profit-first or profit-with-purpose is that they are difficult to separate. Firms live within society and have all kinds of unavoidable obligations to fulfill as they produce profit.

One has to ask some tough questions about Mr. Edelman’s motivation, however. His main concern seems not to be the public good as much as helping firms restore their credibility and by so doing avoid state interference in their affairs. He says:

“We are at a very important moment in the relationship between business and society. The catastrophic economic events of September 2008 undermined the confidence in the private sector’s ability to self-regulate. Bankruptcies of centerpiece companies in the global economy, such as GM, plus reputation issues for leaders in finance (Goldman Sachs), energy (BP) and transport (Toyota) have called into question the values of corporate leaders. In the race for public credibility, it is fortunate for business that its prime regulator, government, is not seen as a worthy replacement as the leader in the dance.”

My beef is not with what Mr. Edelman wants to achieve; a free and mostly self-regulated market place. It is with how he believes that he can win public acceptance for it. I rebel, as do most people who are moderately sceptical of corporate humbug, to his pandering to the more infantile elements of this discussion; you know, the audience who cannot (supposedly) be told the truth because it would destroy their illusions.

So, I’d like to leave you with what I think is an effective demolition of Mr. Edelman’s style of PR, by quoting Professor Karnani’s robust expose of it:

“Executives are hired to maximize profits; that is their responsibility to their company’s shareholders. Even if executives wanted to forgo some profit to benefit society, they could expect to lose their jobs if they tried—and be replaced by managers who would restore profit as the top priority. The movement for corporate social responsibility is in direct opposition, in such cases, to the movement for better corporate governance, which demands that managers fulfill their fiduciary duty to act in the shareholders’ interest or be relieved of their responsibilities. That’s one reason so many companies talk a great deal about social responsibility but do nothing—a tactic known as greenwashing.”

Exactly!

Related posts:

1. Profit and risk need better PR Being socially aware didn’t make Big Pharma innovate. Here’s a...
2. PR should help leaders lead, not listen Here’s a manifesto in favour of decent top-down adult leadership rather...

I’m not qualified to know whether Mr Thiam was more right than wrong in seeking to buy AIA. What I do know is that too many CEOs believe that they are laws unto themselves or that today all stakeholders are equals.

So the assertion by Pru shareholders of their power to stop the bid for AIA is a timely reminder of where the priorities and corporate lines of accountability lie. The deal’s collapse makes it clear to CEOs everywhere that they must listen to their shareholders more.

I’ve been predicting that in the future shareholders will, and need to, assert their power more and more. That’s because – contrary to popular mythology – one of the lessons from the last boom and today’s bust is that shareholder-value was not over-valued so much as marginalised in the pursuit of short-term interests. Real long-term shareholder value was denigrated by management teams which ran companies more or less for their own benefit whilst covering themselves in the rhetoric of wider stakeholder interests.

My bottom line (and the firms’)? Shareholders may be quite good custodians of long-term value after all. Perhaps even better ones than the “stakeholders” who bang on about sustainability.

I’m not saying that always applies or is even what’s applying in this case. I’m saying that it’s wrong to assume that modern shareholders always fit the short-termist stereotype that’s foisted on them.

What’s more, it may be that Mr Thiam has understood where the long term prospects of the Pru really lie (it may be that his spate with shareholders was mostly about the price of AIA rather than his strategy).

The challenge now is for the Pru to repair its broken relationship with its shareholders, particularly with Prudential Action Group, which planned to oppose the deal at a shareholder vote due to be held on 7 June.

Personally, I hope that the impressive Mr Thiam survives. I believe he should be given room to learn from this setback. But if the price is his head, so be it, because it will provide a much-needed reality check throughout the corporate and PR worlds.

Related posts:

1. Manifesto on shareholder value for PRs Here’s a PR manifesto offering a post-credit crunch reality check...
2. Wither stakeholder doctrine? In 1994 Tony Blair promised to turn the UK into...
3. Stockholm Accords interrogated – part 2 Here’s the second in my trilogy on the Stockholm Accords....

There was something very panicky about what Shell called its visionary remediation plan for Nigeria. The press release partly explained the company’s motivation thus:

“The expected hurricane of regulation and policy change across industry, resulting from the negligent practices [in the Gulf of Mexico] by one pair of companies especially, means that all of us need to try to push harder in the interests of long-term survival. Shell will therefore distinguish ourselves by being the first oil company in history to cease taking risks with important delta ecosystems.”

But Shell has no more idea what caused the accident in the Gulf of Mexico than does BP. There’s been some discussion as to likely causes at a Senate hearing (dubbed the blame game by President Obama) but there’s been no conclusive evidence revealed that negligence sparked the accident. It is highly indecent, opportunistic and disrespectful of a rival for Shell to say or suggest otherwise right now.

Let’s get back to Nigeria. There is a blinding omission in Shell’s picture of its work in the Niger Delta. It has completely ignored the truth of the damage it is supposed to have done. Instead, it has scapegoated itself. It has seemed to accept responsibility for stuff it didn’t do. Maybe the “truth and reconciliation” work it is funding will start to reveal the rights and wrongs of all the parties in Nigeria, but I frankly doubt it. This is a pity. Nigerians have the right to know the truth about their country’s workings.

Poverty won’t be dented much

Shell proposes to spend $8 billion over the next two years followed by $1 billion per year over the following ten years to clean up the Niger Delta. That’s a region in which more than 30 million people live. So there’s no way that an investment of $2.50 per person per week for two years, followed by $0.62 for ten is going to lift the region out of poverty.

Such an expenditure might help clean up the Niger Delta. Equally (perhaps more than likely) it might not. Shell promises to use locally-sourced suppliers and staff in a region in which it was and remains responsible for just a small proportion of the overall oil pollution, and in which it has little power to tackle the problem of leaks at source. Moreover, the Niger Delta is the most corrupt region in one of the world’s most corrupt countries (the world’s 130th most corrupt state, and falling) as I recently explained in my personal account, CSR: it’s not the same in Lagos as in London.

Shell also said yesterday that it proposes to establish a $4 billion fund earmarked for compensation for perceived injustices in the Niger Delta caused by its operations since 1958. In describing its intentions, Shell borrowed emotive language from post-apartheid South Africa. It talked about creating a $45 million ”truth and reconciliation process” fund, which will assess and award reparations. That’s likely to create a feeding frenzy centred on locals involved in the fund in which those that win bank in Zurich, and those that lose reach for their guns and head back to the Niger Delta’s creeks.

To glimpse the trouble Shell might encounter, we need only examine how hard it has been for Pfizer to handover around $30 million worth of compensation to 100 or so so-called victims of its meningitis-related drugs trial in the north of Nigeria. Unlike Pfizer, however, Shell possesses no DNA data-bank of the people affected by its activities (regardless of the evidence, Pfizer has been unable to convince the other side of who is entitled to compensation and who is not).

China seeks to replace Shell

But there was also some more weird stuff wrapped up in yesterday’s press release from Shell. I say weird because it strikes me as unreal, and therefore as untrustworthy. Shell promised to:

“…cap oil production at current levels until 2015, and then to gradually reduce production to 10 percent of current levels by 2050, while compensating for this reduction through the development of renewable energy sources.”

Yet Nigeria has just concluded a deal with the Chinese to construct three oil refineries at a cost of $23 billion. It is clear from this that Nigeria is dreaming of an oil-filled future, not one based on renewables. But this deal might explain Shell’s warped CSR strategy, as the WSJ says:

“For the Nigeria government, the deal represents a victory of sorts over U.S. and European oil companies, which have long turned a deaf ear to Nigerian government calls to operate refineries in the country because of the poor financial returns.”

The real prize for China is getting its hands on Nigeria oil reserves. To do so it needs to displace the Western companies already established there with their rights to exploit the resource. So that perhaps explains why Shell took the bold step yesterday to cease:

“…deepwater drilling off the coast of Nigeria until the conclusion of a full independent safety review by our local government partners with international oversight.”

This will, as Shell explained in its release, ensure that it has a secure long-term licence to operate in the region (assuming it jumps this self-made hurdle). This pro-active move might well strengthen Shell’s grip on the Nigerian market in the face of stiff competition. It might well explain Shell’s CSR flannel. But yesterday’s announcement is not so easily dismissed. Hidden away, low down in the release was this very significant global commitment to create:

“…local stakeholder program [s] that gives decision-making and veto capacity over new and ongoing projects to communities affected by Shell and SPDC projects worldwide, pending more formal control at the level of local government.”

Exactly how this will be implemented is not explained. Whether Shell would really give, say, the spokespeople of 500 000 local Ogoni tribes people in the Niger Delta region the right of veto, when it has the support of the Nigerian government representing 150 million citizens, remains to be seen.

Lending Goodluck a hand?

There’s a new President in Nigeria. Goodluck Jonathan’s chances of remaining President come the next Presidential election depend in large part upon whether or not he can secure peace in the conflict-ridden Niger Delta region from where he hails. So one suspects Shell has a two-pronged approach. Its latest strategy looks like a ruse to see off Chinese competition and to curry favour with the new President. As I see it, Shell simply decided that its survival in Nigeria depended upon it helping to fund the peace process through its CSR initiative.

Much of yesterday’s announcement came wrapped in today’s obligatory language of sustainability:

“The unique geology underlying these deltas have sustained our shareholders very well, but we must not let that kind of sustainability come at the the expense of the biodiversity, carbon absorption and O2 production that are their true worth.”

But Nigeria’s economic future and sustainability depends upon oil revenue. The sustainability of Western economies also in large part depends upon continued oil supply. China’s future economic growth depends upon cheap energy much of which it hopes to obtain from Africa.

Some home truths

Sure, nobody can doubt that the Niger Delta needs cleaning up and that Shell should have stopped gas flaring years ago, which it announced it was ceasing immediately. Sure, it is also welcome news that Shell now proposes to exploit the surplus gas instead to provide free energy to local people. Sure, nobody can argue with a commitment to protect the region’s biodiversity. Actually, though, Shell has wanted to reduce gas flaring for many years and for several years (I cannot speak for the very recent history) its investment was bedevilled by the failure of its Nigerian government partners to cough up their share.

The issue I’m exploring right now, however, is what’s really driving Shell’s new strategy.

We immediately meet the oldest problem in discussing CSR. When a firm claims to be interested in environment and society, does it matter if these are cloaks for its own self-interest? Is it morally and strategically sort of OK for firms to claim an interest in being virtuous when, after all, it happens that the wider human and planetary good happens to flow alongside their own advantage?

I would not want you to think I am too much of a purist. Hypocrisy and humbug are often valuable. We need lots of sleeping dogs to have their peace.

But when a firm announces a CSR programme, half-way sensible people start digging (it’s better than running straight for the doors). Maybe we’ll never know what Shell’s motives really are. One casualty of the CSR process is honesty: outsiders will never now know what Shell is really thinking. We have to speculate.

Using Nigeria as a poster child

My main guess is this: Shell has decided that it will turn the Niger Delta into a poster child. It will do a very great deal to buy itself a good global reputation by its work there.

I believe that Shell’s imprudent comments on the Gulf of Mexico disaster reveals boardroom-level angst about the likely consequences of the spill for the entire petroleum industry. That will have tempted the company to over-hype the virtue of its CSR spend in Nigeria and throw into the mix some loose global commitments to listen more to stakeholders.

There must also be a very big Nigerian dimension. It takes very little cynicism to speculate that locally, regionally and nationally in Nigeria, these new CSR schemes have been designed to do some quite shabby or at any rate covert and unseen work whilst flying the CSR banner.

So I can’t help feeling that Shell’s response is a self-interested and cynical abuse of CSR and all that it should stand for.

Peter Vosper puts his foot in it

There is something comic in hearing CEO Peter Voser say:

“At long last the words ‘stakeholder’ and ‘sustainable’ will actually mean something. CSR-ND means planning not just for short-term profits, but for what actually matters, including the viability of the planet itself.”

It’s as though he’s admitting that CSR has been hogwash so far, and this time it isn’t, honest injun. But maybe his successor, and his successor’s successor, will be making similar declarations that CSR is at last the real clean, saintly, truthful thing.

Shell’s stunt may work on most levels. The Niger Delta may be a slightly nicer and happier place. Shell may secure its place in Nigeria’s tortuous political economy. The firm may acquire a global bloom at tolerable cost. It may be able to feel better about itself.

I still think it matters to say that corporate culture is polluted when the necessary, expedient and self-interested are dressed-up as outward looking, transformative and virtuous. I don’t know how much narrow self-interest and canny show-boating lies behind this new strategy of Shell’s, but my guess is that there’s a fair bit of it. Anyone interested in the well-being of Shell, but especially of Nigeria, ought to keep watching and inquiring.

Maybe we should be asking Shell to archive its discussions on this CSR programme, and promise to publish them in 30 years. In the interests of intellectual and moral sustainability, you understand.

Related posts:

1. CSR: it’s not the same in Lagos as in London Amnesty International has accused Shell Nigeria of human rights abuses,...
2. PR should help leaders lead, not listen Here’s a manifesto in favour of decent top-down adult leadership rather...
3. Manifesto on shareholder value for PRs Here’s a PR manifesto offering a post-credit crunch reality check...

This manifesto might seem a lost cause. Speaking at the RSA/Sky Sustainable Business Lecture Series in London, Richard Lambert, director-general of the CBI, the British employers’ group, said “what you might call Jack Welch [1980s] capitalism” was drawing to a close – a reference to the former General Electric chief executive’s championing of shareholder value. Last year Welch dubbed his old mantra “the dumbest idea in the world”. He added: “Shareholder value is a result, not a strategy . . . Your main constituencies are your employees, your customers and your products.”

Richard Lambert advocates that doing good is good business and that:

“The risk now is that the public and political response to what’s happened will itself have troubling consequences. If you don’t trust an institution to behave well, you impose regulations – perhaps to a point that undermines the dynamic workings of a market economy, and in turn holds back the forces of job creation and sustainable economic development”

He’s not alone in thinking that shareholders are now just one of many competing interest groups CEOs work for. In a recent FT interview, Paul Polman, Unilever chief executive, said:

“I do not work for the shareholder, to be honest; I work for the consumer, the customer. I discovered a long time ago that if I focus on . . .  the long term to improve the lives of consumers and customers all over the world, the business results will come.”

I think these intelligent people are setting up a false dichotomy. Shareholder value is not necessarily at odds with social value. Customers and employees are not necessarily at odds with shareholders. Sure, running a socially respectable, customer-facing business may well be the ticket for shareholder value.

So I prefer the more robust approach of Lord Haskins, the former chairman of Northern Foods, who has questioned Mr Polman’s assertion that he does not work for Unilever shareholders, saying:

“Isn’t it the shareholder who appoints him, provides him with the funds to run his business, and awards him with his substantial pay package?”

Moreover, many firms, such as Swiss Re and DuPont, to name but two, still put creating shareholder value at the top of their stated objectives: see here and here.

To echo Michael Skapinker writing in the FT, before we consign the shareholder value movement to the dustbin, it is worth remembering why it arose: to prevent chief executives from running businesses in their own interests rather than those of the companies’ owners.

So here are my manifesto’s key points:

The problems:

• The emergence of a generation of CEOs who ran companies for their own benefit;
• A generalised passion for short-term stock value.

The solution:

• CEOs (agents) should be more accountable to the owners (principals) of their businesses;
• They should agree and assert the kind of firm they are running (long or short term value, for instance);
• They should communicate and sell these propositions.

Some principles:

• As a fan of Theodore Levitt, I’ve no doubt that Welch and Polman are right that great products, services and customer focus are the key ingredients of a successful company;
• No firm can function without a licence to operate;
• Key stakeholders need to be kept onside – employees, customers, suppliers and the like;
• If the longer term is what counts most, CEOs need to do more than they currently do to invest in innovation and in R&D (here’s a useful manifesto addressing this issue).
• Longterm profits matter a great deal to some firms, but that requires great flexibility and constant change.

PR challenge

PRs would do a much better job for their employers and clients if they spoke plainly and honestly about the realities of business. The current recession is caused by a crisis of profitability and negative growth. It is experienced as a crisis of confidence and trust. But it is not helpful to the cause of restoring growth and boosting reputations in society when PRs communicate that profit and growing shareholder value no longer matter most.

Today, the reality is that millions of people are losing their jobs, accepting pay freezes, going part-time, and feeling insecure about their futures, precisely because there’s not enough profit or a strong enough expectation of long-term shareholder value growth in the system. We’d all do better with our PR if we faced the truth rather than evaded it.

Related posts:

1. Wither stakeholder doctrine? In 1994 Tony Blair promised to turn the UK into...
2. PR should help leaders lead, not listen Here’s a manifesto in favour of decent top-down adult leadership rather...

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...

When Obama was elected some PR theorists said it was the dawn of a new age of democratic and decentralized public engagement. In the words of Richard Edelman, delivering the Grunig lecture at University of Maryland, the main evidence for this was:

…Obama campaign’s mobilization of five million volunteers, who are able to make decisions on how best to contact voters, attract funds and communicate on social media.

But one year on, the evidence does not stand up. The trend today is toward disengaged elitism, not mass engagement.

As Obama’s popularity plummets, Jacob Weisberg’s writing for Slate blames the childish, ignorant American public – not politicians – for his country’s political and economic crisis. He whines about how the GOP has put the nation in an angry, populist, tea-partying mood.

The Tea Party Movement is a kick in the goolies (English slang) to the Obama Presidency. According to Reason Magazine, the campaign is materially affecting things as big as Scott Brown’s election and as little as a Virginia state vote to outlaw health insurance mandates. It adds that its core messages appeal beyond the movement’s ranks.

Meanwhile, Kurt Andersen rants in New York Magazine about how the walls that the founding fathers erected to contain the mob may no longer hold. He says irregular passions and artful misrepresentations are being whipped up to an unprecedented pitch and volume by the fundamentally new means of 24/7 cable and the hyperdemocratic web (the author of Reset is dead set against nonsense and the worst aspects of modernism).

In contrast, Andersen describes the essence of America’s democracy as being, by the people and for the people, definitely; of the people, not so much. Lamenting the emergence of the tea-party citizens, he says they are:

…under the misapprehension that democratic governing is supposed to be the same as democratic discourse, that elected officials are virtuous to the extent that they too default to unbudging, sky-is-falling recalcitrance and refusal. And the elected officials, as never before, are indulging that populist fantasy.

It seems, then, that critical thinkers are “deserting” dialogue and increasingly seeing Grunig’s two-way symmetrical model as a threat.

The reason is that Middle America is feared. It’s a case of What’s The Matter with Kansas, Thomas Frank’s bestseller, which attempted to solve the conundrum of how so-called ruling class conservatism became the creed of millions of ordinary Americans. His answer was that the masses were so stupid they’d been duped. Our old friends, cognitive dissonance, false consciousness and denial are in play.

Obama nearly let his elitist contempt for the masses – the white and black working class – out of the bag during his campaign with his ‘cling to guns and religion’, remark.

Anybody who still harbours a hope today that Obama’s regime is listening to criticism from friend or foe, let alone engaged in dialogue, hasn’t taken note of the recent rant from the White House’s chief of sfaff Rahm Emanuel. He’s been dismissing liberals as “retards”.

Regular readers of this blog know that I admire elite thought and achievement. They will also know that I believe that it is the job of leaders to lead.

I’m a critic of the two-way symmetrical “orthodoxy” that Grunig espouses. It is my belief that if one seeks answers or to find one’s direction in the crowd, one comes up with confusion (or worse, a horrible gungho certainty), which leads to paralysis (or a parity of unpleasantness).

Nevertheless, I maintain that dialogue, consultation and two-way communication has its place. But so does decision-making, which must not be shirked.

In reality, I don’t think there is any correct model for conducting PR. That’s because PR is an art, not a science. It is more results-driven than method-driven. It is a flexible tool designed for a specific purpose, which comes from above. Put simply, PR serves whoever pays for it, or whomever else it is accountable to, including the law and other stakeholders.

Moreover, how could anybody have ever really thought that somebody with Obama’s preacher-style approach to politics could ever become the leader of a new engaged movement based on real-time dialogue?

Related posts:

1. Obama doesn’t Tweet. Does it matter? Barack Obama has 2.6 million followers on Twitter and follows...
2. Briefing for PRs on E2.0′s brave new world There’s been lots of talk in PR circles about value...
3. Reflections on the media and the UK Election The British General Election barely registers on the street. It’s...

This year’s World Economic Forum in Davos was very downbeat. Still, even as profits are becoming difficult to make, we are still (Davos-style) asked to believe they’re not that important anyway.

To take one important example, Edelman’s trust survey reports that respondents rated financial returns at or near the bottom of their priority list in nearly all of the world’s major economic regions. Business, it seems, should be more concerned with wider social issues and causes that are not necessarily connected to its core purpose.

What’s this? False consciousness? Cognitive dissonance? Denial?

As Sandra MacLeod puts it – in an interesting piece here on sustainability and CR – the aha factor was “we can do well by doing good.” She makes some good points about CR, but they’re not ones that will help companies finance innovation.

Meanwhile, business leaders Twitterd from Davos things like “we have to change the success measurement system beyond just money and share price” if we are to rebuild trust.

Few business leaders at Davos felt confident enough to question the notion that shareholders and profit don’t matter most. Few argued that one big problem is that there’s too much waffle. It was almost taken for granted that all stakeholders are now equals.

So, I welcomed the robust counter view in The Times today from Jonathan Waxman, Professor of Oncology at Imperial College London. He makes a compelling case in defence of the importance of the bottom line. He highlights how much harm to the greater good can be done when the profit motive is undermined:

Today it is unusual to see people die in the industrialised world from diphtheria or pneumonia, and we are at the edge of developing effective therapies for Alzheimer’s, multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis and diabetes.

But where do these marvellous advances originate from? Not, as you might imagine, from the golden glades of the University of Arcadia. The universities have elaborated hypotheses and elucidated mechanisms, but it is the profit motive and the market that have been responsible for these life-improving changes. Big Pharma, that boggle-eyed devil in the undergrowth, has brought forward virtually all the drugs that make our lives liveable.

He points out how the bureaucratization of risk management by over-regulation strikes at the bottom line and sidelines R&D. This is no small matter.

SmithGlaxoKline is axing 6000 staff, mostly from its R&D departments, and AstraZeneca is cutting 8000 more, while Pfizer its slashing its R&D budget from an equivalent of around $11 billion today to around $8 billion and $8.5 billion by 2012. As Waxman says:

The bottom line does matter to the drug industry — and Britain has created a regulatory environment that makes it harder for them to make money and produce the drugs that we depend upon.

He calls for an overhaul of the regulatory system. I concur. I would add that in the interest of the greater good we need to overhaul our attitude to profit, and the bottom line, and to rehabilitate its importance in the public mind. That’s a pressing PR challenge.

No related pages.

All businesses are about relationship-building. Butchers, say, depend on it. As in: “I’ve some nice sirloin today. A bone for the dog?” One pitch of modern PR is to say that we manage the relationships other people can’t reach – or don’t spot. And indeed we are right to stress that nowadays, reputational risk is everywhere: your suppliers can let you down as easily as your managers. So, yes, PR is about a clients’ 360-degree reputational risk. We have to look at our clients’ relationship risk and its way upstream, way downstream – and all around. To some extent, we can fix those relationships, or find people who can.

But I think we’re starting to go too far, as though PRs were uniquely suited to giving a sort of therapy, or a laying-on of hands. We are at risk of not spotting that messages and influencing behaviour remain our core business.

Here’s an example from a popular blog and thought leader of the muddle PRs are currently in:

“Communicating (communications departments typically engage in: talking) is not a particularly useful skill. Relating is. Maybe it’s time to reclaim the words “public relations” and, more importantly, the philosophical principles that underpin those words. (Paul Holmes’s blog here)

Of course, I accept that our trade is public relations. But I insist that the essence of that remains preparing and communicating messages. We improve people’s relationships by ensuring they understand the value of developing their messages carefully, getting them out, and living up to them.

That means we are like diplomats, journalists and yes (blimey) philosophers. And we do indeed go further: we remind our clients, over and over, that good messages produce their own weakness and risk; we remind them that they have to walk the talk. A stated aspiration is a hostage to fortune, a challenge to our critics (stakeholders, indeed!).

You can have all the relationships you like with the media, with one’s neighbours, with one’s customers, with the NGOs, and when you don’t deliver the reality you’ve told them to expect, they’ll still all pile in on you with gay abandon and crocodile tears.

So of course, we PRs build relationships. But relationships are no sort of insurance or guarantee. They may not even be the best sort of investment. What you need is good behaviour, solidly communicated.

I’m trying to get it across that winning friends is not the necessary or sufficient condition of influencing people. The relationship of trust (which PRs may well want between themselves and their clients and the rest of the world, that great Other) is not the same as or even like the relationship of, say, friendship or affection. Reputations are about more than relationships.

Perhaps I can put it this way: I often trust people or institutions I don’t know and don’t like. I don’t have a relationship with judges, the police, firefighters, the surgeons in my local hospital, the drivers of Shell’s road tankers. I don’t want one either. I just want to be able to trust them.

By the way, new media don’t change any of this much. The people who twitter and blog may believe they are a new social entity, and PRs may believe that this new sociology requires a new sort of relationship-building. Like Harold Burson here, I doubt it.

Much was made of the new relationship Obama had forged with the American people in the new ether. Yeah, well, maybe. Right now, he seems to have gone on to hack off the floating, middling, uncommitted American centre ground. Will he get the enthused kids back? Has he got an ongoing, er, relationship with them? We’ll see. It looks to me that in important measure, what he surfed was a wave of enthusiasm, and it may have broken on the shore in a trillion sparkling droplets. His vast virtual Rollodex may develop into a relationship, but we can’t know yet because a relationship is a thing which gets a history or it isn’t anything.

Moreover, we’ve always known that the best PR is heard and not seen. That means that PR has mostly an indirect relationship to its target audiences – through the media, through third-party opinion formers and other influencers (advocates) whether that’s online or off, through the media or by other means.

PR’s hand is even more remote when, as Edward Bernays showed us with his “Torches for Freedom”, it manufactures consent by engineering events that help create a new social consensus or climate of opinion.

So I come back to the importance of asking the question, relationships with whom? Of course, most institutions and firms want good relationships with clients, opinion-formers, hacks, enemies, politicians stakeholders, neighbours and everybody else.

But, actually, most of those audiences don’t have time to have a relationship with you. What most audiences require is the right message, at the right moment via the right channel. Most of the people who determine what reputation you acquire (reputations are conferred by others) will respond positively (or dangerously). They won’t do so because they’ve been nurtured directly by PRs.

For advocacy to work, of course, people need to be persuaded to think a certain thing. Hence, it makes sense for PRs to engineer a genuine invitation to accept and meet informed challenge by the target audience – but very often still without engaging directly as the PR team – for anything controversial or requiring consent or acceptance by various stakeholders (new runways, licences to operate etc.).

Of course there are exceptions. Those are strategic and tactical considerations (Ryanair doesn’t talk to PlaneStupid, but many firms talk to Greenpeace, but some won’t talk to either and some talk to both).

There’s no love in war, competition, public opinion and the media, so why bother to be loved or liked? Being understood and trusted should be enough. That means putting integrity, truthfulness, evidence and authenticity at the heart of communication.

Related posts:

1. Ready for the real PR revolution? I’m captivated by the provocative headlines on Paul Holmes’s PR blog....
2. Stockholm Accords interrogated – part 2 Here’s the second in my trilogy on the Stockholm Accords....
3. Stockholm Accords interrogated – part 1 This is for everyone interested in the Stockholm Accords and the debate...

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...