CSR is not a product of PR

“Today, corporate social responsibility goes far beyond the old philanthropy of the past – donating money to good causes at the end of the financial year – and is instead an all year round responsibility that companies accept for the environment around them, for the best working practices, for their engagement in their local communities and for their recognition that brand names depend not only on quality, price and uniqueness but on how, cumulatively, they interact with companies’ workforce, community and environment. Now we need to move towards a challenging measure of corporate responsibility, where we judge results not just by the input but by its outcomes: the difference we make to the world in which we live, and the contribution we make to poverty reduction.” Gordon Brown, Chancellor of the Exchequer

Corporate Social Responsibility has indeed come a long way since signing a few cheques to charity. It is evolving to become a way of doing business, and an increasing number of organisations are changing their business models to fit into this new environment. As we've seen over the years with Nike, Gap, Nestle and many other MNCs, have been been under the limelight for their less than ideal business practices. As we understand the greater significance of our consumerist lifestyles, the only way of sustaining ourselves is by moving to a "sustainable" way of producing, consuming and disposing things. And organisations are also focusing on these concepts. But, there are many industries where changing business models will not compensate the damage to the environment. As a result, such companies engage in other activities. While the intent is usually goodwill, CSR has gathered a bad reputation because it's construed more as an image building exercise by organisations than a genuine attempt to contribute to the community. 

For all those companies that are indeed guilty of trying to seem like they care about their community, and the impact they're having on the environment, there are an opposite number who're genuinely looking to alter their business to deliver on the CSR promises. The fact that organisations such as CSR Europe, and regulations set up the UK government help in bringing firms to the book. But, as is the case with most consumer oriented organisations, it's often a customer, or a disgruntled employee who blows the whistle on their malpractices. From all the ongoing conversations about transparency, sustainability, and similar industry trends, there are something that most organisations are aware of, if not implementing: 

• The likelihood of attracting customers who're interested unsustainable products is diminishing—slowly but steadily 
• Sustainable business models are the only ones that will be able to compete in the future market place where resources are bound to be scarce
• The internet, social media and other technologies are making it impossible for companies to hide any step of their production processes. While there's a thin line between company confidentiality, and transparency to stakeholders, it can be easy to trespass it due to the internet, and companies need to be careful. 

As more organisations realise that they can't hide behind philanthropy, and  making genuine contributions is an imperative, it becomes obvious then that PR has little role in convincing audiences that the organisation is really oriented towards its operational environment. Winning trust is a by-product of CSR (and shouldn't be the end goal) but it's one that's very hard earned. 

Is there such a thing as a Free Lunch?

The second episode from Dr. Aleks Krotoski's "Virtual Revolution" series, titled "Cost of free" works like an eye-opener for many who think that everything that's on the internet, and for free is done by people with an overabundance of milk of human kindness. But truth couldn't be further from it. Through the episode, one realises that the world wide web is in fact dominated by a few big names. The information that's circulated, which is seemingly limitless, is controlled by those who wield power—by offering things for free. This is not to say that these brands seem like conniving business houses that are exploiting our naivete. But it's important to be cognisant of the dangers of relying on things for free. 


Milton Friedman's book "There's no thing as a free lunch" offers insight into issues that we tend to gloss over in every day life, and the fact that governments can seldom offer anything for free. Taking a cue from these theories, it's plainly obvious that every single choice we make has a consequence—an idea that many economists have suggested. But, do we ever pause to weigh these consequences? I'd hazard a guess and say no. We don't because often aside from being ignorant about the implications of our choices, we're too preoccupied with the "instant gratification" that we have come to relish, thanks to the internet.

Dr. Krotoski's documentary is one such piece of work that joins the dots with regards to the internet and its apparent "freeness". It offers different perspectives to the idea of "free internet", and perhaps what it really means. From the documentary, we come to see that this invention that governs our life (the documentary does in fact conjure up a 1984-esque Orwellian image) is oddly handy, forever evolving to pander to our  fancies, and diligently works to make us more reliant on it.  


Though the documentary doesn't present such a dour, and dark picture entirely. It ends on a positive note, taking cues from the nature of the beast. The beast, in question being the internet, does have a way of trumping over those who can shout the loudest by virtue of their might. The downfall of the music industry brought about by Napster is one such example. One is tempted to believe that perhaps somewhere on the horizon there's another revolution underway that will once again overturn this new order that the internet has ushered in. 


At this point, it's important to understand the implications for PR practitioners. In most countries with fairly evolved PR industries, social media is touted as the next big thing after the invention of the printing press. In part because there's so much access to the audience, and in part because it can't  be controlled—which makes it a double-edged sword. But this Eutopian view of social media is  perhaps slightly naive. Especially, when we consider the role of PR practitioners in not just selling soap or soup, but for other applications such as political communications, governmental communications, etc. Can we really rely on a service that's relies on people's naivete and eagerness to engage to transmit our messages properly? The economics and models of operation that are used by internet platforms such as Google, Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, LastFM, etc. are dependent on people giving out information, which is then commoditised and sold to marketeers. And if our messages are discordant or different to the ones that are being paid for—or indeed even criticise those paid messages—will we still have a voice? This debate of voice gets even more complex when we introduce Moloney's concept of pluralist societies and PR's role in them. If we're the ones persuading people, and our messages are not the ones that are being paid for, will we still be able to do our jobs? 

Vidcast on transparency as a growing trend

As organisations around the world are put under a microscope by stakeholders more than ever before, the need for transparency is heightened. The video below highlights why we have reached this stage, in what ways can we help achieve this goal, and the potential risks it poses to the organisation. I hope you enjoy watching it. 







Disclaimer: This video contains audio and video inputs from different sources, and was produced as part of an assignment for a degree course. No copyright infringement is intended. The designation of the speaker is fictional.

Stakeholder Segmentation: are the existing models still valid?

One of the fundamentals of communication is to bear in mind whom you're talking to. In PR specifically,—and more so with organisations—this develops into a more complex subject since the priority of the stakeholder group keeps changing, depending on the intended communication. There are many ways of looking at stakeholders. But to start with, during class, we looked at the three nomenclatures: stakeholders, publics and audiences. Is there a difference? An elementary Google search lays out the distinction very clearly. Stakeholders are affected by an organisation's actions. Audiences are those who participate in any activity—by reacting, or being present, etc. Publics, on the other hand, are said to be a collective of various groups. Therefore, by that definition, can we say that under the umbrella of publics, stakeholders and audiences reside? 

To decide about prioritising one's communication to stakeholders, various theorists have come up with their models that would help create effective strategies to achieving desired goals. Grunig's situational theory states that there are four types of publics: 

• Latent: a group that faces a particular problem as a result of an organisation's action, but doesn't recognise it. 
• Aware: recognise the problem.
• Active: a group that organises to discuss and react to the problem. 

The theory further segments publics based on the range of issues to which they're responsive. But in the new media environment, these distinctions, according to me, are a little old-fashioned. When you're planning your communication activity, with New Media in mind, these boundaries between latent, aware and active are so blurred that the strategy (an effective one) has to target all three without much of a distinction—or utilise the same media platforms that the biggest group uses. The limitation with this theory is that it doesn't take into account the role of media which has morphed dramatically since the theory was first published. Given the types of platforms available to organisations, how does one segment the stakeholders? So we considered some other alternatives. 


We examined Bernstein's wheel. But again, by virtue of being dated, the way in which an organisation communicates with its publics has evolved. Marketing has become an overwhelming umbrella under which many of the stated practices fall, and PR still struggles to create its own niche. Further, it's limited by its seemingly one sided style of communication. Given the presence of Web 2.0, the conversation as we all agree isn't one sided anymore. However, it is an improvisation over Grunig's seemingly rudimentary divisions, since it at least takes into account the various environments for an organisation. 

Then there's Esman's Linkages theory which divvies stakeholders into what impact or relationship they have with the organisation. Enabling links being the ones that are crucial to the organisation's survival, functional offering inputs, normative linkages being the peer companies and the diffused linkages are termed as the group that has an interest in the organisation's activities. While this model does take into account various groups, it doesn't take into power of influence based on the organisation type. For example, there are some companies where the diffused group might be more influential than perhaps the normative ones. Also, interestingly it relegates media into a very small role, which is unusual given how widely it's consumed, and the current media climate. 


The Power-Interest Matrix, although seemingly simplistic, segments stakeholders into a matrix on the basis of power they wield and the interest they might have in a particular issue. It seems effective because it's fluid, and stakeholders can be moved from one section to another based on what is being communicated. 

Broom and Dozier too came up with ways organising stakeholders:

• demographics 
• psychographics 
• sociographics: covert power/position/reputation/organisational membership and role in decision making process
• behaviours 
• communication behaviour

This system, although cumbersome, does seem fairly apt in understanding the intricacies of stakeholders that have a bearing on the organisation, its decisions and activities. However, yet again, the media isn't taken into account. 


Each one of these models seem fraught with deficiencies that perhaps have emerged with changes in technology since they were first published. Perhaps, we now require a new method of segmenting stakeholders based on their relationship with the organisation, and the tools of communication available to connect with them. However, crafting one that's rigid would again be futile since relationships between stakeholders and companies are fluid (in the context of customer loyalty). Therefore, a model that's flexible is also key to developing working model for stakeholder segmentation in today's PR scenario.

The secret power of political lobbying

Image, courtesy: Stock Exchange

Each time I think of the word "lobbying", I'm reminded of India's very own version of lobbying for power: bribery. It's simple, effective and pervasive like the flu virus, and has held the country in its grasp for decades. In western countries, lobbying needs something else—not money in real terms. It's the revolving door; ensuring that corporations have a voice in the governmental decision making, and can often turn the tide in their favour. The "Super size me" documentary forces one to ponder on the implications of power that corporations wield. And in this, the role of a press officer. When you have an organisation as big as McDonald's can essentially lobby its out of allegations, aside from bad press for a bit, is there much to contend with? In this instance, the role of the press officer is particularly interesting. What is she/he supposed to do? We saw that the lady in the documentary sounded poignantly helpless—and it can't be missed. Is that the situation faced by most press officers in large corporations?

NGOs: Activists or terrorists— a PR professional's perspective

Image from: Amazon.com

There was a time when organisations could get away with murder, and no one would be any wiser. But then came along that three letter word that changed many things—including government policies: non-governmental organisation. For most people, an NGO is a body that stages protests and does all kinds of crazy things to gain attention; perhaps with little success in meeting their actual goals. But in class, I was pleasantly surprised to note that there are actually a number of ways in which they affect change. Right from negotiating with organisations to improve their practices, helping form regulations in partnership with governments to mobilising people about important issues by informing them. 

We also watched the very popular documentary titled "Super size me". It raised a critical question: where does individual responsibility (in this case of eating unhealthy food) end, and corporate responsibility begin? I couldn't help but wonder about the corporate communications person's position. It wasn't a position to envy. She was torn between her job, where obviously her employers asked her to ignore the film maker. What would I have done in her position is what I kept asking myself. When one is sitting in classroom, it seems very easy to say that you will do the right thing. But transport that into a real life job, and the notions of ethics, right and wrong, greater good and other textbook definitions of a PR practitioners role seem lofty. This isn't to say that being a righteous, and ethical practitioner is ridiculous or unattainable, but it's very demanding nonetheless.  

NGOs play a crucial role at times, in pointing companies in the right direction. It doesn't seem entirely bizarre that a company that's a preoccupied with running a business might lose sight of "greater good". The fact that NGOs can often serve the company's need to not damage their community, and environment says that it's a mutually beneficial relationship. Of the recent commendable achievements for an NGO, I can think of 38 degrees's accomplishment in getting the government to turn around on selling England's forests. It's heartening to know that in our world where market economics are force greater than any known to mankind, beating governments and companies in their game of perpetuating their goals selfishly is something NGOs have been doing successfully—and rightly so!


In the end, it keeps boiling down to this for the PR professional sitting on either side of the fence: keep your eyes peeled, and if you find an ally, keep them close!


This topic was a part of our discussion in our contemporary issues in PR class.

Recipe for crisis management?

Image courtesy: SXC

Today, in our Corporate Communications class, some of my classmates presented case studies on crisis handling/ reputation management. Cases in point were: Cadbury's salmonella story, Toyota Prius, and Dasani bottled water by Coca Cola. Although we all debated the finer points of why these brands suffered the crises they did, the discussions brought to light the question of "is there a template for crisis management?" As our course leader said, and I wholeheartedly agree, if crisis management, and reputation handling was so simple, surely multinational organisations would buy a book, and we would all be condoning their follies. But as it turns out, there isn't really a recipe. There's no set method that tells you what to do exactly. Like my classmate pointed out with the Cadbury case, it was also a question of timing: summer time when chocolate sales are usually low in the UK 

Every single case study we discussed today brought up the phrase "immediate response". In my last post on crisis communication, I questioned how is an organisation to react when the people within it don't know what's going on? This time, we go beyond such an obvious question. Here's we ask: when do we sound the alarm bells,being PR professionals within an organisation? At what point, does it make sense to approach the higher-ups, and say, "Oops! We have a problem!" It also brings up the issue of cultures, as is always the case with any PR story! With Toyota, people said that part of the reason it didn't react "in time" was because of the in-house teams that were advising the company. It was only after substantial public outcry, did they hire an agency in the US. Compare that with Peugot's quiet recall  of cars made with Toyota during the same period, which although was a mere safety measure, it was a pragmatic to check nonetheless.

While all these are points that one should consider while examining any PR disaster—and there are many where a brand's existing reputation has provided that essential buffer—Toyota in particular strikes me as a reverse case. Cars have failed before. But this one came across as terrible...why? One of the reasons that struck me was, aside from the delay in response, perhaps the very values that people buy into with Toyota were shaken. Safety, trust and security...when a brand doesn't deliver on its promised values, perhaps it's a bit like shooting yourself in the foot, no? 

But as they say, we can at best learn from other people's mistakes, and hope to make even lesser ones of our own. 

Not doing what you propagate?

On Feb 2nd, BBC2 aired a documentary called Who gets the best jobs? Richard Bilton investigated the question of social mobility offering rich ones better jobs, by virtue of their existing privileges. In the process, he interviewed people from many professions. Typically, doyens from these fields gave their own views, some pro and some against the belief. He also met with some bright young students looking to get into professional jobs, and not belonging to privileged backgrounds. 


In all of this an unwitting man—Modus Publicity, director, Julian Vogel—exposed himself in a not very flattering manner. Whist he spoke about how his firm often hired interns from well off backgrounds (only adding to the debate of socially mobile class getting a chance at the good jobs), and failed to answer if that was his business model (to hire people as interns so as to not have to pay them), he seemed utterly blindsided by Mr Bilton. Of course, while the PR industry has been up in Twitter commenting about it, and posting their feelings, it seems shocking that someone in his position would let himself open to such an interview. But in his defense he says, his company isn't the only one to employ interns without paying them. Interesting question there!    

Let's make a war: the art of spin

All warfare is based on deception: The Art of War


When one considers the definition of war, it's hardly ironic that it's everything we know to be true of it. What? I'm not making sense...am I? We know that in most cases war is disproportionate levels of aggressions. We know it involves mortality. We know that we have come a long way since waging them for survival and preservation of our species. And yet, we  can't seem to apply this understanding to refrain from engaging in meaningless wars. At the surface of it, this might seem like a terribly simplistic thing to say. But, really, did anyone ever benefit from them? Nope, I'm certain the answer is no. How is then that most leaders feel no remorse or guilt in leading their own countries, and being responsible for massacre? 


For our contemporary issues in PR class, we were shown a documentary produced by BBC, called War Spin, narrated by war correspondent John Kampfner. It's subtitled as Saving Private Jessica: Fact or fiction? From focusing on the story of Private Lynch who was allegedly saved from Iraq through a mission carried out by American troops, it then continues to detail the systematic way in which the American government, followed by the British government led its people into believing that the Iraq war was an honest mission to find WMD, and Saddam Hussein. Many things have been long since established, among them the fabricated nature of the war. 


But the documentary in itself is instructive of many things. It tells us that with a very adept communications strategist you can convince the world of anything, even a war. It's all about changing perceptions and painting the right kind of picture. At the same time, it also calls into question the morals (or lack of them) of the people who played key roles in creating this mirage of a war. 


Propaganda, and public relations have been associated, and questioned as two sides of the same coin for many reasons by academics and practitioners alike. In this case, the propaganda was to paint a different picture of a country that was simply looking for a reason to plunder an oil rich nation, and created one. This they did using some novel, and classic techniques. 


Step 1: Announce it to the world 
Step 2: Find some allies to help prop your story
Step 3: Invite journalists, and embed them, but be very careful about what they have access to
Step 4: Make sure that they receive only that information that you want them to know. Nothing more; nothing less
Step 5: If the people of the country, and other nations start asking questions, cook up stories about great war heroes and their tales of bravado: e.g.—Saving Private Lynch.

The documentary also informs one about how beguiling the rest of the world bought these stories. This wouldn't have been possible without the crucial cooperation of the media around the world that dutifully fed back information that was "drip fed" through daily briefings. At long last, many journalists did smell a rat, but the economics of running media conglomerates and need to be the one who got the story trumped the need to be accurate and questioning. While one can't point fingers at the media for the same reasons,  there will be others who will be looking to maul the strategists, and reputation managers.

After watching the documentary I felt awed by the sheer genius, not to mention magnanimity of the ruse. It does take exceptional skill and brilliance to orchestrate something like that. And while there's no denying that propaganda (in context of war) and persuasion are wrong, we should stop faulting Public Relations practitioners. It's not about condoning them, or criticising their actions but making sure the reprehensible ones don't get away with a change in government. Above all, it poses one very big question: whom can you trust to do the right thing? 

Social Media and its relevance for Public Relations

Social media can be defined as any such media that can engender an interactive dialogue between people, irrespective of their geographical boundaries and time differences. Social media gains more momentum as the number of people around the world who access it increases exponentially each day. It offers the perfect meeting place for brands to communicate with their audiences, get a sense of the public's pulse and respond to their reactions in time. The video illustrates the importance of social media PR and how it can be integrated into a brand's value propositions.