CSR and PR

As much as we (PR people) would love it, PR does not ‘own’ CSR. CSR is, or at least in order to be effective should be, core of the business strategy. CSR is the way a company manages and communicates (PR’s job) its impact on society and the environment.

The way companies practice CSR has changed over the past decades; back in the 70s CSR was about philanthropy and what a business could do with some of the money it had to spare. This included supporting the arts or giving to the local community.  Later, there was a shift of thinking and companies started to act more strategically considering results and outcomes and how they could invest in society.   

CSR as we know it today is about how companies manage their business processes in order to maximise their positive impact on society while at the same time minimising any negative impact whether that is economic, social or environmental. However, one cannot deny the fact that at the end of the day, it is all about how businesses can operate profitably within this role.

Companies are now forced to act responsibly against society and this can be attributed to many factors like globalisation, the turmoil in financial markets, technological changes, scarcity of resources and many more. Companies have a great impact on society and in this globalised world this has become an increasing focus for activists.  This is why companies today, have global standards to manage their risks (even though these are sometimes not enforced as we have witnessed) which include procedures, human rights acts and even determine how companies report on CSR.

Sustainability, the latest evolution of CSR looks into the future of business and society and tries to find mutually beneficial solutions to plan for future challenges. So why does sustainability matter to businesses? Well, first, it can improve a company’s reputation both externally and internally. Second, it can bring awards and ultimately it will make the company more profitable.

Sustainability can mean a lot of things for companies like:

• Managing resources wisely
• Demonstrating leadership 
• Being clear in corporate values and governance
• Giving short term needs a long term value
•  Managing change responsibly
•  Employee engagement
• Preparing for future low carbon economy
• Supporting the communities from which they employ, trade and purchase
•  Securing the supply chain

 

Another point to mention is that CSR is complex and diverse. There are different ways in which companies implement CSR programmes and these usually depend on how a company’s products or services overlap with society and where societal needs meet business opportunities or responsibilities. Companies need to have CSR programmes that apply the company’s specific resources to help with world issues. Also, CSR programmes are flexible and they adapt according to environmental changes or pressures.

The bottom line is that to be successful, CSR has to be embedded in all activities of the company and every employee should be involved in it.  CSR should be part of the mix which includes strategy, product development, marketing, finance, HR and management. When CSR is created for PR purposes only, then it becomes greenwashing and spin.

PR and spin have undermined trust in politics.. or not?

               'Lies and deception in politics are not synonymous with spin.' 

Recently, I attended the debate ‘PR and spin have undermined trust in politics’ which was organised by my university (University of Westminster). The panel was made up of Kevin Maguire, associate and political editor of the Daily Mirror and Sheila Gunn, political consultant, formerly political journalist and John Major’s spokesperson speaking for the motion and Lance Prince, former Labour ‘spin doctor’, now author and commentator and Francis Ingham, Chief Executive of the PRCA speaking against the motion. Overall I thought that the debate was very interesting and that all of the speakers had strong arguments. So what was the outcome of the debate? Have public relations and spin, undermined trust in politics, or not?

Well, you might think that the answer to that question is pretty obvious, but sometimes what is very clear at first, might turn out to be different if we look at it a bit more sceptical. Up until the debate, I used to believe that pubic relations and the work of spin doctors had definitely played a role in undermining trust in politics (in Britain). However, I had never attempted to challenge that and to consider any other factors there might be to blame and this debate was definitely an eye-opener.

It was suggested that although public relations and spin do play a role in undermining trust in politics, the real problem is rooted in the behaviour of MPs themselves and the media. Mr Price and Mr Ingham, suggested that first of all MPs have lost the public’s trust because of their improper behaviour. They are mischievous (sex scandals) and dishonest and also give the public false hope and make promises that at the end they do not keep. (Recent example: Bob Blackman, Conservative Party MP pledged to vote against any rise in tuition fees during his election campaign and then broke that promise by voting in favour of the rise). The media was another driver of mistrust is politics. This is because they are always looking for ‘hot’ stories to expose MPs. So the way journalists report on politicians reinforces the MPs’ bad image. One might say that they are just doing their job but perhaps if they didn’t report so extensively about every politician’s personal life, the public would have a better perception about them.

Kevin Maguire on the other hand who was blaming public relations for undermining trust in politics, called public relations practitioners ‘herbivores’, ‘horns’ and ‘devils’ among other. Well that was harsh! So what were the opposing views? Mr Price argued that ‘spin doctors’ should not be blamed because their job is to merely translate what politicians want to say to the public. So spin is only as vicious and bad as those who employ it. He also noted that there had not been a politician in history (Britain) who did not have a ‘spin doctor’ next to him. ‘Politicians are hooked on ‘spin’ and media management’ (Lance Prince). The conclusion was that good communicators cannot turn a bad politician into a nice one and that bad communicators cannot turn a good politician into a bad one. The outcome of the debate, which I firmly support, was that PR and ‘spin’ have not undermined trust in politics.

Social Media Webcast

This week I had to do a webcast for one of the modules in my course. This was the brief:

You are the Social Media Strategist within a PR agency. The MD of the agency has suggested that you produce a short webcast to the agency’s current and prospective clients that introduces them to certain key aspects and issues regarding social media.Your webcast is to address the following areas:

1. What is social media, why is it called socia media?

2. What are the sociological and cultural concepts behind social media and what is their relevance to PR?

3. How will the agency be using social media?

4. What are the benefits to the client?

5. What are the negatives to the client and how will they be dealt with?

Please be kind enough to excuse my poor editing skills :)

NGO's, activism and PR

The third sector is large and diverse; it consists of non-profit and non-governmental organisations that exist to serve a social cause, which can also have a political or an environmental aspect attached to it. Third sector or voluntary organisations are in a continuous battle to improve the world, society and the lives of people who are part of it. The organisations’ causes range from fighting world hunger/poverty, aiding the unwell and sustaining the environment. Although these organisations have different aims, they all engage in the same activities which can be the ‘hands on’ activities like providing physical assistance, campaigning and most importantly advocating and lobbying. 

The key stakeholders of charities and NGO’s are the general public, corporations and local and national governments. Having said that, the relationship of corporate companies with NGO’s can often be tense, as NGO’s are always on the lookout for company misconducts and are prepared to take action if they feel like a corporation is engaging in activity that goes against what they stand for.

From a corporation’s viewpoint, NGO’s can be classified as active publics. As Grunig’s situational theory suggests (Grunig and Hunt 1984), active publics are groups of people who share an interest or concern for an issue or problem and who organise to do something about it.  According to this theory, an organisation should actively communicate with these public and to maintain a positive relationship with them, as they are likely to take action. Seeing that the relationship between corporations and NGO’s can often be edgy, it could then be in a corporation’s or even in the NGO’s interest to form a partnership with each other. Reaching to some kind of negotiation would benefit both and conflict could be avoided. 

Companies often form partnerships with NGO’s as part of their CSR programmes. This could be a win-win relationship. British retailer Marks and Spencer is famous for these kinds of partnerships. Some examples of this work are the M&S and Oxfam clothes Exchange programme in 2008 or Greenpeace supporting M&S’s policy on sustainable sourcing of fisheries products. However, on other occasions such partnerships may have their critics. Nestlé’s partnership with the Forest Trust (TFT) last year to combat deforestation (Nestle was allegedly reviewing its palm oil supply chain) was criticised by Greenpeace who organised a campaign against them claiming that this move was just a cover up and that the company had ulterior motives. This is the viral video of the Greenpeace campaign:

This is just an example of how sometimes partnerships with NGO's can backfire. Another interesting issue it that just because an NGO forms a partnership with a company, it does not mean that the NGO will have a favourable view towards it. Companies need to be cautious when selecting partners and to ensure there are no conflicting interests in the process.

An interesting report by C&E Advisory (leading ‘business & society’ consultancy) provides an insight to how companies and NGO’s perceive partnerships formed between them.  The report provides information on the nature and importance of corporate- NGO partnerships, also the challenges and opportunities that arise from them. Click to view the Corporate-NGO Partnership Barometer 2010  

Bibliography:

Tench, R.,Yeomans, L.,(2006). Exploring Public Relations. England: Pearson Education Limited.

Grunig, J., Hunt, T.,(1984). Managing Public Relations. USA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers

Additional reading: 

http://www.csreurope.org/solutions.php?action=show_solution&solution_id=114

Crisis management: Threat or Opportunity?

Every PR practitioner will face a crisis at some point or another in his career, whether that is a small crisis like a banner gone wrong or a huge crisis like product failure. Some crises can be solved in a very short period of time while others can continue for a long time before they are completely cleared.
 

A badly managed crisis can destroy a company’s reputation as much as it can destroy the PR practitioner’s. On the other hand a well-managed crisis strengthens the company’s reputation as well as the PR practitioner’s.
 

An optimistic outlook of a crisis is that it is an opportunity for PR to raise its profile, status and role in an organisation. Very often, the value of PR is underestimated. Company CEO's are more concerned with business objectives rather than communication objectives and fail to realise how the two are linked.
 

A reputation is a company's most important asset and it is PR’s job to protect it. If a PR practitioner manages to emerge strong out of a crisis and maintain the company’s reputation, then he will be able to demonstrate the priceless value of PR.
 

For this to happen:
 

For a crisis to be handled well, the PR practitioner needs to plan ahead of it and make sure that he is prepared for any events that might follow. The truth is that most crises are predictable; the PR practitioner’s job is to think of any possible scenarios, the way each of them would be handled and include everything in a crisis manual.
 

The crisis manual needs to be read and rehearsed by everybody involved in its execution. The manual should include response papers, people’s roles, contact details and any other useful tips. It should be short (otherwise people won’t be bothered to read it) and straight to the point, avoiding technical jargon so everyone can clearly understand it.

A  useful guide for crisis management can be found in the book 'Public Relations for the New Europe' by Trevor Morris and Simon Goldsworthy, chapter 18