The Noble Distractions - Part 1 (via Environmental Leader)
Posted by John RooksBelow is a copy of my recent article in Environmental Leader about the first of three noble distractions of CSR: Transparency. The article has received with equal parts criticism and praise. I would rather see a less equal distribution, but in which direction I do not care.
In the past few weeks there has been a lot of chatter about the "death of csr." This is an exageration. CSR is on an evolutionary arc - at ZMR we see it starting as an internal dialogue, and then radiating outward. In this first article I take to task Transparency (radical vs. defensive). Transparency is coming fast. Corporations need to make sure their CSR inititives are clean, proactive and in line with their "other" corporate obligations. CSR is not dying, it's just getting started.
Next week Part two will focus on Third Party Certifications.
In the environmental space, the practice of corporate social responsibility (CSR) is on an evolutionary arc, predominantly propelled by external forces: pulled by the lure of competitive benefits evidenced by leading practitioners (Stonyfield, Seventh Generation, Patagonia, etc., etc.); and pushed by watchdog, consumer, shareholder, and public expectations. More often than not the desire for CSR is not generated internally (that is, Authentically) – it is a reaction to a modern condition or event.
For the vast majority of businesses, CSR has become a noble distraction away from the business of business. The concept of CSR embodies the lofty promise to help increase profitability, improve brand loyalty, strengthen market position, and engage social / environmental concerns. In practice, however, it often appears as a patchwork of disassociated environmental programs or (heaven forbid!) marketing initiatives with righteous intentions beyond the corporate walls.
But these noble distractions have a price.
That price manifests as internal conflict, gaps and missed opportunities, inconsistencies and contradictions to the core business, and confusion over priorities. At worst, it has the perverse impact of decreasing profitability, degrading brand loyalty, and eroding market position. Even for some leading practitioners, CSR initiatives tend to be bolt-on activities, which do little to advance the company’s core strategy, and/or fall short of their potential to move the needle on the targeted environmental concerns. Strategically (as opposed to operationally), these initiatives tend to share a common set of tools.
Transparency, for example, is often a strategy used to authenticate the environmental sustainability of a company. More frequently than not, however, it is either a risk mitigation strategy or selective translucency. When we deconstruct many moments of corporate transparency, it appears as a flinch – a protective stance.
Forced transparency, I think we can agree, is almost always bad for business. If a watchdog group, a government, publication or a citizen uprising forces you to be transparent, you have already lost. Any trust your branding program, advertising, coupon and/or actual actions might have earned is depleted to varying degrees based on the offence.
QSRweb.com, a publication for the fast food industry introduced an article about how Taco Bell was dealing with its latest “meat authenticity” issue with this headline: “Taco Bell fights back with Transparency.” Under the rubric of authenticity, however, if you are forced to be transparent, it’s too late. The damage is done, and you must now use corporate resources to rebuild the trust, marketshare, value, etc. These resources could undoubtedly be put to better use.
Here’s the other way to “do transparency.”
From a manufacturer of outdoor gear describing their backpack:
“…the Chacabucco Pack embodies no environmental innovation. The nylon is virgin, its polyurethane coating is solvent-rather than water-based, and like all of our products and rainwear, it has DWR (durable water repellant) surface water-repellent that involves the use of PFOA [perfluorooctanoic acid]. The pack is not recyclable.”
“No environmental innovation,” “not recyclable.” It’s hard to believe the language above is coming from a company that cares about the planet. But in fact it is copy used to sell a product produced by one of the most environmentally progressive companies on the planet – Patagonia. It’s almost daring “real” Patagonia fans to buy it anyway. And this is why it works. The moment created by this authentic transparency (an acknowledgment of environmental impact contrary to its image) puts the corporation and the consumer on the same informational plane – they share a knowledge that makes them equals.
Proactive and radical transparency, like that demonstrated on Patagonia’s Footprint Chronicles, a website that displays Patagonia products’ footprints from design to delivery, establishes a powerful corporate operational paradigm. In some sense it tends to disarm any watchdog distraction, allowing Patagonia to focus its business on its business. But it does not come off as risk mitigation (even if it is). It feels authentic – they openly admit the pack was created to fit a price point in the market that makes them a more competitive company.
This is the place where the corporate strategy of environmental transparency overlaps with consumer marketing in an authentic way. The selective transparency referenced in Sustainability Reports inaccessible to the majority of stakeholders. Extending the boundaries of these reports is an opportunity, not a threat. Patagonia uses this moment of transparency to introduce us to the people of their supply chain, and allows them to tell us their stories. The framing ultimately creates a space for the company to share stories from within their supply chain, created by their supply chain in an authentic voice. From these stories, we learn more about the complexity of “footprint” than we bargained for. Openness creates opportunity.
This moment would not be possible without authentic transparency. Businesses cannot show the positive human impact of their business without exposing the environmental footprint along the way. While there is marketing opportunity created by the authenticity (to move the dialogue forward), the expression serves as a corporate lubricant and internal guide for departments from product design to human resources and logistics.
It’s true that advertising is the price you pay for not being creative. It is also true that it is the price you pay for inauthentic transparency. The resources required to maintain the veneer of authenticity are greater than the resources required to bring corporate alignment to bear using authenticity strategies. (And, yes, it is odd to talk about strategic authenticity. But we are so far off course that we need it as a guide.)
Mostly, the veneer of bad CSR is neither malicious nor intentional. It exists in the exuberance to do better (by doing good) and in blind spots created by the excitement of doing something good.
It is a good thing. But it is bad strategy – a noble distraction.
John Rooks is the author of More Than Promote –A Monkeywrencher’s Guide to Authentic Marketing.
February 16, 2011 "Fixing Capitalism" takes a hit on On Point
posted by Julianne Zimmerman
Following on our previous post, we listened with interest to yesterday's broadcast of On Point, in which host Tom Ashbrook fielded (and also chimed in to express) considerable skepticism over whether businesses are capable,
let alone trustworthy, to act in their own enlightened self-interest. It's both indicative of the extraordinary level of consumer / voter distrust businesses have earned with at least some portion of the populace, and also potentially
a pointer to a timely opportunity for progressive-minded business leaders to achieve profound differentiation in such
a jaded marketplace.
Cynicism is easy to come by, and hard to shed. But it's not the only option.
We believe it is entirely rational for corporate leaders to pursue shared value as a legitimate business strategy.
We also believe that successful capture of shared value and its attendant differentiation will depend on real authenticity from design through execution.
Admittedly, a shared value strategy requires a change of perspective that not many organizations will be willing to adopt. Those who do are sure to stand out among their competitors.
February 6, 2011 HBR and Bill Cosby
posted by Julianne Zimmeman
Michael Porter and Mark Kramer conclude their cover article in the January-February issue of The Harvard Business Review,
"...shared value offers corporations the opportunity to utilize their skills, resources, and management capability to lead social progress in ways that even the best-intentioned governmental and social sector organizations can rarely match. In the process, businesses can earn the respect of society again." — The Big Idea: Creating Shared Value
In the online edition, a February 3 blog post by Lauren Zander and Deborah Gruenfeld, entitled, "Authentic Leadership Can Be Bad Leadership" reminds me of Bill Cosby's standup routine, Himself, in which he quipped,
"'Tell me, what is it about cocaine that makes it so wonderful,' and he said, 'Because it intensifies your personality.' I said, 'Yes, but what if you're an asshole?'"
We couldn't agree more.
True strategic authenticity involves going deeper than simply accentuating or holding fast to your most cherished (unproductive) habits, and it offers much more value than hewing to well-trodden (increasingly unsatisfactory) stereotypes. It demands the adoption of a new, larger vantage point, and promises dramatically improved value creation outcomes well after the initial high wears off.
February 1, 2011 One for Sports Fans
Posted by John Rooks
Here's one for the sports fans working out extra hard this week so they can indulge this Super Bowl Sunday. Part of the trickle down economics of the Super Bowl is the market is creates for fake swag. From baseball hats to sweatshirts to rings and the balls themselves, off-market items feed some economy somewhere.
This year, the NFL is taking it more seriously, particularly the balls used in the game. The footballs will be marked with invisible ink so that collectors will be able to identity them as authentic.
What's interesting:
1. There is no use of an external body to authenticate the real-ness of the balls. The brand itself is responsible.
2. It is an invisible mark.
We might argue that the truly authentic brand does not need any markings to prove itself. But an invisible (to most) is an interesting approach, it serves to authenticate a transactional value, but only for "serious collectors." The rest of us have to guess, or perhaps gamble.
Super Bowl balls are like any commodity at this point. How do you increase the value of a commodity? By increasing its authenticity you increase its value. Things that are real (hand-made, artisan, human) are worth more. Transactional moments with consumers can become brand heirlooms.
What happens when we make hand-made brands?
January 22, 2011 Getting Sustainability Right
Posted by Julianne Zimmerman
This past week, I've enjoyed a string of conversations with knowledgeable practitioners about both the state of the art and the widely adopted norms within the realm of sustainability.
The first theme that emerged without any ambiguity is that "sustainability" is a term that is locally defined — that is, different organizations, industries, and thought communities define it according to their own purposes. Moreover, even once a shared definition is established, the scope of consideration (the "envelope", in technical terminology) may vary from a single product or process to a facility, supply chain, or even the entire community of people who touch that product or process over its entire existence from concept through obsolescence and/or disposal.
A second, related theme is that while some companies are pushing forward very effectively with sustainability and related programs, many others are reluctant to consider sustainability-related initiatives as serious business propositions. In some instances, this may be because they have previously adopted ambitious targets, only to see the results fall short of expectations; in others, they may be struggling to justify why they should accommodate or internalize demands being placed upon them by outside entities. Some executives have expressed apprehension about the negative blowback they have seen other companies experience when their sustainability performance failed to meet with customer or shareholder approval.
Still a third theme is that some business owners and executives are driven by principles from the outset, but most executives are ultimately far more influenced by the proof of concrete results than by any argument based on moral, scientific, or even contractual grounds.
I see these conversations as indicative of healthy candor and pragmatism. In that same vein, I was particularly impressed by a Mass Technology Leadership Council panel discussion moderated by Vanessa Fox (Principal, Partners in Productivity), in which Cynthia Curtis (VP & Chief Sustainability Officer, CA Technologies) and Kathrin Winkler (VP, Corporate Sustainability, EMC Corporation) spoke in frank, pragmatic terms about their respective efforts to adopt sustainability programs within their companies. Both acknowledged the challenges associated with defining appropriate targets and metrics, and both described the hurdles they have faced in gaining acceptance of new initiatives. Both Cynthia and Kathrin pointed to strategic alignment as vital to gaining executive buy-in for sustainability programs; both Cynthia and Kathrin also described multiple situations in which those sustainability initiatives delivered measurable rewards that were embraced and eventually championed by other functional groups, based on the financial and operational benefits they reaped. As Cynthia put it, "driven from the top down; energized from the bottom up."
The bottom line of all of these conversations: while there are many third-party programs and services designed to deliver sustainability benefits of one kind or another, it's up to business owners and executives to choose, design, and implement programs which are appropriate — we call them authentic — to their own companies' strategic needs and aspirations. Everyone I heard from this week agreed that isn't always easy, but the results — reduced costs; increased top and bottom line; enhanced supplier, vendor, customer, and shareholder loyalty; improved employee recruitment and retention; increased valuation — are compelling inducement to take on sustainability as a serious business proposition.
January 17, 2011 Authenticity at Adobe
Posted by: John Rooks
For Adobe's release of their new platform, customer collaboration is essential. To attract these collaborators, they understand that authenticity is a key strategy. Appreciation and Authenticity in fact are key to their B2B relationships.
In a very real sense, they need a community to be successful They predict that taking an authentic approach to B2B relationships will create a more organic and therefore stable platform.
In the video Ed van Siclen, VP of Technology and Partnerships, interviews author Mike Robbins and reveals some insight into why they focus on Authenticity in business.
January 12, 2011: Flirting with Selective Transparency
Looking back, Davia Temin, CEO of Temin and Company, a public image firm, said "2010 was remarkable for its series of public gaffes made by CEOs and other leaders that shattered organizations, share price, job tenure, coastlines, and even religious tolerance."
In Temin's 10 Ways Leaders Can Protect Their Reputations in 2011 published on CSRwire, #9 was about Authenticity.
#9 Authenticity is ineffable, but undeniable. Possibly, it is more important than any other personal quality. In our slick, cynical time, full of free-floating public anger at the economic, corporate, and personal mistakes of our leaders and leading institutions that have caused immeasurable pain, nothing can harm you more than being seen as trying to be who and what you are not. And nothing can help you more than being known as earnest…and real. We've all heard the aphorisms: "walk the talk," "be the change you wish to see in the world," etc. But, I promise you, it is not just talk. If you can project who you really are, and what you really care about, a coherent and impressive reputation will follow.
This is a common sentiment today in that it focuses the discussion on public image and the external appearance of the corporation to its customer. Authenticity does play a role here for sure. More (and growing) consumers do expect authentic experiences with their brands. Or so they claim.
However, one problem lies with this string "If you can project who you really are..." Most companies - by their own admission - have a lot of 'housekeeping' to do before they inact this as a strategy Most flirt with selective transparency. (That's why ZMR exists, after all)
A more immediate opportunity for corporations is to use Authenticity as a tool to streamline objectives, reduce corporate friction for resources, and improve bottom line and share price, and engage in authentic mission-critical CSR performance first. Public image comes second.
December 28, 2010
82% of Americans are disappointed in corporate America. Or, more precisely 82% have given them a grade of C or lower (40% have a D of F), according to a recent survey by StrategyOne. StrategyOne conducted 1,081 online interviews among a representative sampling of Americans between December 6 and 8, 2010.
Much like the "shellacking" wake up call received by the Federal Government, it seems as if corporate America is getting it's own wake up call of dissatisfaction. All the more reasons the smart ones are retreating to the defensible stance of ethics and authenticity.
88% of consumers said it was extremely or very important to conduct business in an ethical manner in 2011, and 87% said it was a top priority to do business in an honest and moral way. But just 17% of Americans thought companies deserved an 'A' or 'B' for honest and moral conduct in 2010, and just 18% awarded companies an 'A' or 'B' for their ethics in 2010.
December 20, 2010
We're big fans of the Crane and Matten Blog. Their latest looks at the popularity of "business ethics" versus "corporate responsibility." It's an intriguing take on the language that represents and shapes our collective perceptions and expectations.
In the US, "business ethics" has an edge of popularity, according to NGram Viewer from Google Labs, a data visualization tool that crawls 500 billion words culled from 5.2 million books published between 1500 and 2008.
The results show that in the US, "business ethics" is more used than "corporate responsibility."
The US chart above shows a blip in the 70's, where "corporate responsibility" briefly overtook "business ethics." The gap is narrowing, however.
Comparing "ethics," "authenticity," and "corporate responsibility," we see "authenticity" running second behind "business ethics" as shown below (1900s to 2008).
Below, we see the same terms and the same time frame, but have included "transparency" and "authenticity," both of which have gained traction in the past two decades. How will the next decade play out? We're as curious to know that as anyone else. Our operating hypothesis is that leading companies will have significant influence in shaping the curve, and we aim to help them do so.
December 17, 2010
Pepsi's Refresh Project is a classic case of noble distraction. Sure it generated a ton of press created by "moving" budgets from SuperBowl advertising to the creation of a philanthropy platform, but it was a distraction nonetheless.
Reference the recent Do Good Do Well Public Opinion poll on cause marketing that reports only 15.3% of consumers were able to identify Pepsi as the beverage company that allows members of the public to nominate, vote, and select charities to receive the company’s financial donations (72.6% didn’t know).
Read the full report here.
December 16, 2010
Weber Shandwick and KRC Research's new report identifies the top 5 reasons why corporations are investing in CSR.
30% are making investments in CSR to have an impact on critical issues.
25% are doing so make make corporate value visible.
Only 15% are making investment to improve customer loyalty.
59% fund NGOs to advance their CSR or pro-social initiatives.
91% say well-defined objectives and clear outcomes are important.
22% cited a single-issue focus of environmental sustainability for CSR.
KRC Research surveyed 216 executives in Fortune 200 companies who have responsibility for philanthropic, social responsibility, or community outreach initiatives within their organizations. The survey was conducted via phone between October 6 and October 22, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 6.8 percentage points at the 95 percent confidence level.
View the PDF here.
December 14, 2010
Mallen Baker recently posted an article on his blog with the title: Catching Companies that Fake Authenticity.
In it, he points to the rise of social media — that great tool of democracy, voice and transparency — as the catalizing force behind companies being caught. And that's true. What is interesting is not the degree to which "getting caught" might have hurt those companies, but their lack of REAL authenticity as a motivating factor in faking it in the first place.
Today, it seems, if you don't have authenticity, you may feel compelled to develop a strategy to fake it. A doubly hazardous line of reasoning, with potentially disastrous consequences.
Read the full blog post here.
September 30, 2010
Today, on The Colbert Report, screenwriter of The Social Network, Arron Sorkin said that "socializing on-line is to socializing what reality is to reality TV."
Does anyone think that The Real Housewives of Atlanta are representative of Atlanta housewies?
Sorkin also called Facebook "performance".
Is social media driving or part of your transparency strategy? Is it authentic to your company? What role does social media play in your CSR strategy?
See the full interview below.
| The Colbert Report | Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| Aaron Sorkin | ||||
|
||||
September 20, 2010
The authenticity of many cause marketing programs is being called into question. Reference Carol Cone's own observation that 'cause marketing as we know it is dead.' The Cause Marketing forum LinkedIn Group has taken up this conversation.
Most members agree that some standards might be a good idea. But what are the standards there to represent? Effectiveness? Of what? The conversation can quickly become maddeningly circular.
Our approach is to develop programs that are in perfect alignment with your corporate strategy. When strategic authenticity is the driving force behind business decisions, effectiveness is a direct and measurable outcome.
Incidentally, strategic alignment also mitigates potential claims of causewashing — if you're authentically and consistently pursuing your strategic goals, it clearly isn't just for show.
Sounds straightforward, and it is. But like many reasonable propositions, it's both more rewarding than the (unreasonable) conventional approach, and also harder than it looks.
We're here to help.