#

Archive for April, 2009

Branding in crisis?

Monday, April 27th, 2009

Majken Schultz, Professor Copenhagen Business School and partner in Reputation Institute since its origin based in Copenhagen. Majken also serves on several corporate boards. She is the author of many books and articles and has most recently co-authored “Taking Brand Initiative: How Companies Can Align Strategy, Culture and Identity Through Corporate Branding” (a book rich with cases and an analytical framework) Mary Jo Hatch. Together they also edited “The Expressive Organization”. For more see http:www.majkenschultz.com.

It is often stated that the moment of truth emerges from crisis. Do we keep our promises?

This goes for people as well as for companies. But crisis and recession also offer the opportunity to demonstrate that the values and central ideas behind the corporate brand do hold up. History has plenty of examples of how companies that stayed honest to their central values enhanced their reputation during a crisis. The Tylenol crisis and the way it was handled by Johnson and Johnson for example is legendary in that respect. When a company such as AIG is on the verge of self-destruction, the reason is not first and foremost the massive financial losses or economic mistakes. The reason is rather that the giant bonus payments on top of massive public support revealed values in use that are completely detached from the company’s claims about responsibility and decency. More so, the management of the company ceased to understand that the company has become a beaming symbol of the greed and lack of responsibility that in part generated the financial crisis.

In my opinion, the AIG story demonstrates that a lot of classic assumptions of brand management are in need of an over-haul. First, a brand cannot be protected or defended by legal means alone. Even though top management had a contractual obligation to pay the executive bonuses, the reputational implications were devastating and showed disrespect for the public. I will argue it is the responsibility for top management to consider and account for reputation risk involved and act accordingly. Secondly, it is not possible to hide, suppress or outsource a brand in times of trouble. On the contrary, the weeks that passed by before the bonuses were revealed made things even worse and increased the reputation damage.

Although the financial recession has generated massive losses in market value, the deterioration of trust and strained relationships with employees and customers will ultimately be more damaging long term.

The recession highlights the need for a new mindset for brand management…and for sure that will create new winners and losers. Maybe public companies and organizations will get their big chance to build a stronger reputation and attract even better employees? Other companies will truly have the opportunity to stand out as more responsible than their peers within the same industry…not all bankers are crooks and the responsible ones may ultimately reap the benefits long term.

Maybe even professors will re-establish the long gone esteem of their profession?

Do you agree we need a new mindset for brand management? And if so, what should it be?

Who will be the winners and losers of the recession and why?

Share/Save/Bookmark

CLICK HERE TO VIEW OR POST COMMENTS >

The CSR Preaching-Practice Gap

Monday, April 13th, 2009

Philip Mirvis is an organizational psychologist and senior research fellow at the Boston College Center for Corporate Citizenship. His studies and private practice concerns large-scale organizational change, the character of the workforce and workplace, and business leadership in society. An advisor to businesses in the US, Europe, Asia, and Australia, he has authored ten books on his studies including The Cynical Americans (social trends), Building the Competitive Workforce (human capital), Joining Forces (the human dynamics of mergers) and To the Desert and Back (a business transformation case).

The gap between preaching-and-practice is not limited to the clergy, congress, or corporate titans/financiers. It is also notable when it comes to corporate social responsibility (CSR).

On the supply side, the Boston College Center for Corporate Citizenship’s biennial survey of U.S. business finds that most executives believe in CSR, see its reputational benefits, and think it contributes significantly to their bottom-line. But when the Center compared company practices versus the public’s expectations of business some notable gaps emerged. Granted there was some alignment on business’s responsibilities to provide equal treatment for employees and to support charities and community projects. But on questions of whether or not corporations should apply high (US or European) standards to their operations in the developing world, or produce goods and services in a socially and environmentally responsible way, or help to reduce the rich-poor gap, public expectations far exceed corporate commitments.

Takeaway Message: Business has to “catch up” to reduce the gap. But there’s more to it than this….

On the demand side, there is evidence aplenty that while many consumers say they want to purchase “sustainable” or “cause-related” products, they opt for price, convenience, or for a product’s functional rather than ethical benefits. Now, a new study by Reputation Institute and Boston College finds there is a gap between the people’s views of CSR and how they rate corporate reputation in the U.S.

In our analysis of views of CSR and reputation in twenty-seven countries, we found that consumers give American firms comparatively high marks on CSR (e.g., corporate ethics, social-and-environmental practices, and treatment of employees). But, when compared to other nations, American consumers discounted the importance of CSR in judgments about a company’s overall reputation.

Some Hypotheses: 1) A credibility gap for business—PR; Greenwashing; Who can trust what corporations say about CSR? 2) Heightened cynicism among the public—Bailouts; BS; You just can’t trust companies no matter what they say or do! 3) What do you think?

Takeway Message: The public has to “connect the dots” for good CSR performance to payoff in reputational benefits for firms.

Share/Save/Bookmark

CLICK HERE TO VIEW OR POST COMMENTS >

What’s the ROI from Citizenship Activities?

Thursday, April 2nd, 2009

Kasper Ulf Nielsen is Managing Partner at Reputation Institiute

Despite the economic downturn, there is still optimism within the corporate citizenship community. That was the clear sense I got from the 300+ practitioners and academics who shared ideas, visions, and concerns at the Boston College Center for Corporate Citizenship Conference in San Francisco from March 29-31, 2009. Leading companies such as Campbell’s Soup, Novo Nordisk and Best Buy presented the programs and activities they were implementing to make a difference in the lives of their employees and the communities where they work.  The results are impressive! Still, the big question everyone was grappling with this year is what is the specific impact of individual citizenship programs to the corporate bottom line? What is CSR’s ROI?

What I saw this year was that many Citizenship programs are still driven from a specific cause, and are falling short of a larger strategy that engages with other functions like sales, product development, branding, marketing, public affairs, or Human Resources.  Thinking back on my time at this year’s conference I see three roadblocks to understanding and improving the ROI from citizenship activities:

1. The need for integration: Addressing social, environmental and ethical issues are central to any business and are not something that should be done separately. Citizenship involves responsible product development, considerate employee development, careful public policy and accurate financial reporting. All too often, I see a lack of organizational integration in companies around CSR issues and activities.  Worse they may be doing all the right things in different divisions and don’t even know it.  This means social programs occur in silos. And because of that, many companies are not getting the greatest possible return on their investment in this space.

2. The need to build a common language: To successfully integrate pieces of the business there is a need for a common language for the functions to talk from. At the core of this language is trust. Trust was a central theme in most of the sessions. And trust is the link to the different business functions. We want customers to trust our products, we want the investors to trust our financial plan, we want employees to trust our long term vision for the company, and we want our partners to trust our business practices.

3. The need to use a credible measure: CSR professionals have the opportunity to take the initiative to integrate the importance of trust across the business. A way to do this is to understand that citizenship activities build trust – and improve reputation – with stakeholders from across the business.  At Reputation Institute we measure reputation as fundamentally being a level of trust, admiration, good feeling and overall esteem that stakeholders have towards a company. We know citizenship activities are a key driver of this trust and a company’s reputation.

What companies must recognize is that reputation is formed from all of its functional areas:  citizenship, products/services, innovation, workplace, governance, leadership and financial performance. Only by taking CSR outside of the silo can companies can see how their combined efforts build reputation. By managing reputation companies are actively learning to manage their stakeholders’ trust and by doing so are impacting the bottom line.

Share/Save/Bookmark

CLICK HERE TO VIEW OR POST COMMENTS >