Category Archives: Uncategorized

Citizenship, corporate responsibility, sustainability, society: does it matter what you call your company’s sustainability efforts?

What’s in a name? Well, quite a lot. Just ask Reg Dwight or David Jones*. But does the same principle apply in the slightly less starry (but far more significant) world of corporate sustainability? In days gone by, it used to all be about corporate social responsibility (CSR), but almost no one seems to call it that anymore – it’s become the Reg Dwight of sustainability.

So what should you be calling your company’s sustainability efforts? A random poll of the group websites of a number of FTSE 100 companies proves that there is, as yet, no real consensus.

iStock_000019954466Small

 

 

 

The 2014 FTSE 100
what we call ‘sustainability’ survey

Aviva – Corporate Responsibility
BAE Systems – Corporate Responsibility
Barclays – Citizenship
Barratt Developments – Sustainability
BP – Sustainability
BSkyB – Bigger Picture
BT – Better Future
Burberry – Corporate Responsibility
Co-op Group – Ethics and Sustainability
Glaxosmithkline – Responsibility
Legal and General – CSR
Marks and Spencer – Plan A
Morrisons – Corporate Responsibility
National Grid – Responsibility
Next – Corporate Responsibility
Persimmon Homes – Corporate Responsibility
RBS – Sustainability
Rolls Royce – Sustainability
Royal Mail – Responsibility
RSA – Corporate Responsibility
Sainsbury’s – Responsibility
Schroders – Corporate Responsibility
Tesco – Tesco and Society
Travis Perkins – Citizenship
Tui Travel – Sustainability
Vodafone – Sustainability
WPP – Sustainability

Corporate responsibility, the child of CSR, is still prominent while a simple ‘responsibility’ (the grandchild?) still features, but ‘sustainability’ appears to be the new kid on the block, with a sprinkling of others: citizenship, ethics and some others,  BSkyB’s Bigger Picture and Marks and Spencer’s Plan A, the stand out candidates.

Ultimately it doesn’t really matter as long as whatever you call it resonates with who you’re communicating with. If your employees, clients, suppliers and partners understand and identify with corporate responsibility that’s all that matters. Why not ask them what they think? That said, I applaud the likes of BSKyB and Marks and Spencers for applying some original thought which perhaps suggests they’ve given sustainability more than just a passing thought?

Do customers not care?
What my ‘exhaustive’ survey of FTSE 100 businesses also revealed, was that while most businesses give home page links to their sustainability efforts (with one or two exceptions where sustainability is hidden a level down) on their group sites, when it comes to their consumer facing websites, there’s usually no sign.

Why not? Do they think their customers are not interested? Is it only shareholders and analysts looking at group sites that want to know about a business’s sustainability credentials? Perhaps that was the case, but I increasingly think that consumers are more savvy about the businesses they buy from and often make decisions based not just on price but on a range of other factors. Just look at the tax backlash against the likes of Starbucks and Amazon.

It seems to me
So, you can call sustainability whatever you like in your business provided it has relevance and meaning to your main audiences – don’t call it sustainability if that simply switches off the very people you’re trying to inspire for example. That said, whatever you call it, if its communicated poorly, you might just as well light a candle in the wind…

*Elton John and David Bowie .

 

Lick me, I taste gorgeous…

Actually I don’t. I’m a blog. But welcome to the world of wackaging as nicely described in this piece in the Independent. Innocent is obviously very good at it and it seems that consumer brands that push sustainability or their eco credentials are particularly keen to indulge in a bit of wackaging.

So what do we think? Is there a space for this style of communication, not just in the more casual world of consumer selling, but also in the more, stiff shirted, b2b environment?

Don’t take that tone with me
I suppose it all comes down to tone and matching it with the audience. If you’re selling nylon stretch trousers to a retired audience via a Sunday supplement, I’d probably say you’re better off telling it straight. That said, I think there is a place for a bit of a wackaging style communication if it can help deliver whatever the communication needs to deliver in an interesting, amusing, or just alternative way.

If you need to make inanimate objects come to life to get results, why not? Just choose your targets carefully and be subtle. Subtle wackaging if you like.

Anyway, thanks for reading me by the way…

Owned media: you might own it but does that mean you can say what you like?

In case you didn’t know, and why should you, there are apparently three ways of defining the media channels that companies and individuals use to communicate with their audiences. PR Week’s editor gives a good definition of ‘bought, earned and owned’ so I won’t repeat it here but I did think it worth focusing on ‘owned’ media.

Owned media is where you’re communicating directly with your audience via Facebook or Twitter for example. You don’t own the medium you use, but you do own the relationship with your followers and you can say whatever you like (within the boundaries of acceptable taste and moral decency of course).

A strange contradiction
Anyway, turn over the page in the same edition of PR Week (29 June) that I mention above and you find a strange contradiction. A story appears on Wayne Rooney tweeting a Nike campaign that the Advertising Standards Authority ruled had not been ‘obviously identified as marketing comms’. Hang on. Surely he owns the relationship so why can’t he do and say whatever he likes (again within those boundaries of acceptable taste and decency)?

Why should Wayne Rooney be subject to the professional standards that the likes of journalists and publishing houses have to observe? Does he own the medium he’s using or not?

That’s the trouble/great thing with the likes of Twitter, it’s turned the traditional publishing model upside down. There are no rules, so why should celebrities or anyone who chooses to use it, listen to it, converse on it, play scrabble on it, care what the ASA, or anyone else says?

Car crash PR

Anyone who read the Gordon Ramsay interview in the Observer last Sunday http://bit.ly/Kv2NIy would have enjoyed some spirited sparring between a spiky journalist and a prickly chef. From a communications perspective though, the role of the legion of PRs that Ramsay apparently brought with him was fascinating but ultimately did more harm than good.

Does an opinionated, forthright character like Ramsay really need a public relations team with him to guide the conversation? Of course he should have someone along to make sure the interview happens and that there is someone to listen in and make sure facts are recorded accurately, and any necessary follow-up takes place (or even post interview damage limitation, although it’s rarely effective – just look back at the Observer piece where the PR’s comments on Ramsay’s football injuries also get used in a slightly disparaging way).

Keep anonymous
In my book, if the journalist has to refer to the PR in their piece then the PR has failed. It’s a bit like the referee in a game of football. If you get to the end of a game and you don’t know the referee’s name then you know they’ve had a good match; they kept control without having to overly draw attention to themselves.

At one point in the Ramsay interview, the exasperated journalist turns to the PR and asks if they would prefer to conduct the interview. It’s not reasonable to pitch Ramsay for an interview ostensibly on his latest project and expect the conversation to stick firmly to the PR’s preferred topic – especially someone as colourful as Ramsay. To then repeatedly try and blunderingly guide the interview just makes it worse. Having said that, it does make for great reading!

Twitter, chicken runs and those irritating pay walls

Someone tweets an interesting piece of news or offer from their website. Intrigued, I feverishly click on the link to find out more. BLAM! The door is slammed in my face by the need to enrol, buy a subscription, and generally take time out from my day to jump a few hurdles before I can get to the news I was after.

The result?  Generally, I give up. Don’t you?

I’m not knocking the need for magazines to make money from their online news content, or other sites to garner much valued marketing information, but there must be a third way.

The chicken chase
If you were going to lure a chicken into a chicken coop for example (stay with me here), you wouldn’t chase her all round the garden and then, just as your harassed Henrietta looked poised to go into her coop, close the hatch and ask her to fill out a form. Of course not, that would be madness. You’d probably throw her some corn to show her the way, give her some more corn maybe when she’s safely in the coop and then close the door gently behind her (mind those tail feathers).

The point is, like chickens, we’re easily distracted; so don’t send out those Tweets linking to that website which are rewarded with, well, nothing. Feed us a little more, make it easier, and the rewards will surely come.