Tag: PR

PR needs to push CSR over CSA

~ penningink ~ Leave a comment

Let me start by apologizing for the acronym soup in the headline. Let me explain. Public relations as a profession needs to stress Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and resist the increasing push toward Corporate Social Advocacy (CSA).

So now, let me explain my explanation. I have been thinking a lot about the role of public relations in social responsibility and social advocacy in recent months. I’ve read books and attended webinars and talked to lots of people. What follows is a condensed summary of how I came to my own opinion articulated in the first paragraph.

CSR Appropriately Stresses Responsibility to All

CSR has a long history and has been discussed much in trade publications and academic literature. A brief and accessible history of CSR traces the concept back to the 1800s. Mean while, academics have often cited the more formalized Carroll’s Pyramid of CSR, which states that businesses have four responsibilities–economic, legal, ethical and philanthropic. Today, companies are so engaged in CSR that news of it is aggregated on CSR Wire. The evolution of CSR has blossomed today to include formal and transparent attempts to measure and verify CSR efforts (to avoid greenwashing and image over reputation) such as the B-Corporation movement.

Tangled into all of this is the notion of stakeholders. This means that it is an imperative that businesses not think only about profit, but consider all of the people who could be affected by their success or failure. Here too,. Stakeholder Theory is not new, dating to 1984, and asserts that organizations need to understand and respond to the interconnected relationships between and among various publics. I’ve always considered this fundamental public relations, but it has gained currency and attention in recent years.

At several recent conference sessions, webinars and blog posts of the Arthur W. Page Society, there has been a healthy debate about the very term stakeholder. Judy Samuelson, executive director and founder of the Aspen Institute’s Business and Society Program, and author of “The Six New Rules of Business: Creating Real Value in a Changing World,” spoke at a Page conference and webinar and wrote a blog post about her objection to the term stakeholder. Essentially, she views the term as too generic and says employees are the company and more than a stakeholder.

Page President Roger Bolton wrote a blog post in response, asserting that all stakeholders, including employees but also customers, investors, communities, need to receive value from companies and their interests heard and balanced with those of others.

Outside of this intelligent debate on stakeholders and the meaning of CSR, others have been striving to give a more clear and universal understanding of what it means for a company to be socially responsible. Some, like Christopher Marquis in his book “Better Business: How the B Corp Movement is Remaking Capitalism,” assert that the old economic “externalities” isn’t enough. In other words, businesses often say they avoid negative externalities or generate positive externalities–meaning harm or benefit to publics or stakeholders beyond the company itself. But a better concept is “interdependencies,” which removes the focus from positive or negative consequences of an organization working autonomously and stresses that corporations need to work collaboratively with stakeholders.

All of the above is good and interesting, but what happens when a company takes a specific position on a controversial issue?

CSA Dangerously Takes the Side of Some Over Others

A more recent trend of discussion in the field of public relations and among chief communications officers (CCOs) has been the notion of corporate purpose, and the extension of that is corporate advocacy (CSA) or even activism.

The Institute for Public Relations recently hosted Fred Cook of Golin and the USC Annenberg School of Communications to present their report on the Future of Corporate Activism. In the report, research shows that 77% of PR professionals say polarization is a problem for them doing their job, more think corporate activism is good for the brand. But the professionals also think three issues is a maximum number of social causes with which to associate, and that there is a risk so any activism has to be done in a way that is “unifying and humanizing,” in Cook’s words.

Meanwhile, another Page Society webinar was with Fortune Magazine’s Alan Murray, on the occasion of the release of his new book “Tomorrow’s Capitalist.” Murray interviews many CEOs and concludes they think very differently about their jobs now than 10 years ago. He points out that there is no tradeoff between purpose and profits, and that it took 100 years to come up with metrics for shareholder value so we will arrive at good metrics for stakeholder value.

Murray also said that thinking long-term is key. While there might be loss in profit in the short term over taking a stand on an issue, that trade-off is diminished over time. Part of the reason for this may be that 85% of the value of a Fortune 500 company today is in intangibles as opposed to physical product and property.

There is also a significant pushback against the whole wave of corporate activity in the social justice sphere. Vivek Ramaswamy, an entrepreneur and CEO himself, argues forcefully that many corporations’ actions in response to social issues are insincere, a cow-towing to “woke’ pressure and constitutes a “scam.’ Those are strong words, but you should consider his argument in his book “Woke, Inc.: Inside Corporate America’s Social Justice Scam.”

Coming to Consensus

Having considered all of the above, and the decision on whether a CEO or company should take a stand on an issue or become a corporate activist on the social cause du jour, I have a measured response. I don’t think any company should jump on every issue or come to a judgment too quickly. Consider the mess Disney got itself in. Or consider the recent Supreme Court leak of documents regarding abortion law. Many PR firms and CCOs are counseling CEOs to say nothing on that issue. Sometimes polarization is a lose-lose proposition. We need to consider that stakeholder groups can be at odds with each other–eg. employees having differences with customers–but also there can be division within groups–such as some employees being pro-life and others being pro-choice.

I asked Murray if tolerance and respect for diversity of opinion and nuanced corporate statements would be acceptable these days. He said, “good question, it’s hard, and requires thought and strategy.”

This is why I like Paul Argenti’s view of corporate activism and speaking out on issues. It is more rational than emotional, and thus strategic. His article in Harvard Business Review offers a good framework for taking each issue, one at a time, and seeing if it aligns with corporate values, purpose and most importantly practice before jumping into the fray.

My bottom line? Responsibility means listening to and considering all stakeholders and balancing their interests. It is fundamental public relations, consistent with stakeholder theory.. Advocacy means choosing some stakeholders over and against others. The question isn’t just what stance to take, but whose? Strategy and ethics both require considering the difference carefully. CCOs should always counsel for social responsibility, but be very judicious about counseling for corporate advocacy or activism.

A PR Role in Trust and Information

~ penningink ~ Leave a comment

Two significant reports have come out in recent weeks about the growing and related problems of declining trust and increasing misinformation and disinformation–the 2022 Edelman Trust Barometer and the Aspen Institute Commission on Information Disorder.

I have blogged previously about the related topics of civility and polarization and the efforts of the public relations industry to address these societal problems.

The annual Edelman Trust Barometer is titled this year ‘The Cycle of Distrust.” The broad global survey notes not only a decline in trust of government and media, but that these two institutions fuel the mistrust by a failure of leadership and effort to address problems of their own making. Business is the most trusted institution at 61%, followed by NGOs at 59%. Only 52% of respondents trust government with the media the least trusted at 50%.

Meanwhile, the Aspen Institute report addresses the related problem of misinformation (uncareful sharing of inaccurate information) and disinformation (intentional deception). The report gives a list of recommendations across three categories:

To increase transparency:

  • invest in public interest research
  • force social media platforms to disclose information about content sources, reach and impressions
  • require social media platforms to disclose their content moderation practices and policies
  • disclose information about digital ads and paid posts

To build trust:

  • expose origins of power imbalances and promote community solutions to social bonds
  • Develop and scale communication tools, networks, and platforms that are designed to bridge divides, build empathy, and strengthen trust among communities
  • promote diversity at tech platform companies
  • invest in local journalism
  • promote accountability standards that have consequences for those who willfully violate public trust
  • improve election security and voter confidence

Reduce harms:

  • a coordinated federal approach to countering disinformation
  • create an independent organization for engage in research, education and other misinformation countermeasures
  • develop platform features to raise user awareness of and resilience to misinformation
  • develop clear policies and penalties to swiftly hold misinformation “supferspreaders” accountable and prevent bad actors

Finally, the commission recommended revisions to Section 230 of the 1996 Communication Decency Act. Specifically they call for withdrawal of platform immunity for content that is promoted through paid advertising and post promotion, and the removal of immunity as it relates to the implementation of product features, recommendation engines, and design.

Some of the above strike me as sound ideas. But I also worry about the interpretation and implementation of some of them. For example, who and by what metric will “misinformation” be determined? And, will an already divisive public respond well to content hewing to uniform opinion as determined by elites?

All of this reminds me of the book “How to Lose the Information War,’ in which Nina Jankowicz makes the case that there has been “Russian collusion” or meddling in Eastern Europe long before it became the obsession in the United States in 2016. She would concur with the Edelman report that the media are complicit in exacerbating our divisions in the US. She says any antidote to misinformation, such as those proposed by Aspen, need to be bipartisan. I agree.

I would also say public relations professionals can contribute to rebuilding trust both in institutions and in truthful information in how they do their jobs. I advise three things to keep in mind in this regard:

  1. separate opinion from fact. Facts should be truthful, opinions should be identified as such and all opinion allowed.
  2. remember the public is best served with more, not less, information. Be mindful that our communication exists among a plurality of voices, in what has been called a “marketplace of ideas. ” PR professionals have an ethical imperative to enable informed decision making. Resist the temptation to advance or be the one dominant view. Remember, E Pluribus Unum, out of many one, is a national value.
  3. Focus on mutual understanding, not ultimate persuasion. It is ok to win some to your side but unanimity of thought is unrealistic practically and dangerous societally.

In the end, being too quick to label an alternative opinion ‘misinformation’ only makes the problem worse. It is better to calmly state you disagree and then explain why.

How to decide if your company should take a ‘stand’–some theoretical guidance

~ penningink ~ Leave a comment

A hot topic among PR professionals is whether or not to counsel their CEOs and others in management if the company should take a stand on current social issues. The trend has been moving in that direction, but some are hesitant to polarize their stakeholder groups or fall into mission drift.

A recent article in the Journal of Public Relations Research (subscription required) offers some guidance and proposes a research-based theoretical model. (Disclosure: I am on the editorial review board for this journal but did not review or participate in this article in any way).

Authors Cheng Hong and Cong Li of California State University Sacramento and University of Miami, respectively, developed a model after conducting a survey of 555 random participants about their intention to support or boycott a company based on their association with a social issue. The academic term for what they studied is Corporate Social Advocacy (CSA). They define this as

“a public relations initiative in which a company and/or its CEO expresses an opinion/stance on a sociopolitical issue that is unrelated to its business considerations.”

The key for me in this definition is “unrelated to its business considerations.” It would be obvious if a food company like Kellogg takes a stand on nutrition, or Starbucks takes a stand on supporting local coffee farmers, or Dick;’s stops selling guns. But when the social position goes beyond product or service category, that’s when things can get confusing and be cause for alarm.

There will always be some consumers who buy a product or service regardless of the sociopolitical stance a company takes on these unrelated issues. I heard several CCOs say this recently on a podcast. Meanwhile, however, there is increasing evidence that many consumers make purchase decisions in whole or in part based on the company’s posture on everything from gun control to climate change.

To try to cut through this clutter of considerations, Hong and Li developed a model. They admit the model may be limited and need further testing because they focused on one issue–same-sex marriage. But it is a good step toward developing a more robust theory.

The model includes several variables:

  • consumer-company congruence–when people and the organization share similar fundamental characteristics and values;
  • company-cause fit–when an organization takes a stand on something that is reflected in its corporate values and actions;
  • consumer-cause fit–if the consumer finds a cause relevant or important to themselves personally.

The study found that all three variables if at a high level would make a boycott less likely and increase purchase intention and corporate reputation.

The application, therefore, involves key considerations of relevance and authenticity. Taking a stand on a social issue– even if unrelated to product, service or other business considerations–will be a good move among consumers and other stakeholders who are of similar values, if the issue is relevant to the consumer, and if the company is acting authentically and not just issuing statements.

What Americans want from corporations–what PR provides

~ penningink ~ Leave a comment

A recent survey from Just Capital has some very timely findings given the state of society in this turbulent year. It also reflects some lessons and reminders for public relations professionals at the top of their organizations, and the top of their game.

Among the findings from the survey are that most Americans think companies should promote an economy that serves everyone, but only half believe companies actually do this. Another key outcome is that the public increasingly thinks companies should balance the interests of shareholders with customers and employees. Most interesting to me is the ranking of most important issues for 2020 that show a high ranking for things like fair wages and benefits, ethics, environment, diversity and job creation.

This public sentiment about corporate performance is further evidence of my constant emphasis that public relations is a management function. Public relations is about maintaining mutually beneficial relationships with ALL publics. This sometimes means balancing competing interests between two publics, such as shareholders and employees, or customers and community. But the work of PR is to counsel management on policy to actually achieve this balance and not just proclamations to pay lip service to these notions. The publics are watching closely.

We are a century beyond the days of “press agentry” and the notion that PR is a mere tactical exercise to “raise awareness” or “get the word out” or put an organization in a “positive light.” Consider the emergence here in 2020 of terms and concepts that have been at the heart of enlightened public relations practice for years:

  • Stakeholder theory and stakeholder capitalism–the idea as I described above that public relations is concerned with far more than the news media, and more even than customers, to include shareholders, employees, community members and more;
  • ESG–environmental, social, and corporate governance are the integrated concern of companies, and in particular CCOs (chief communications officers) and those who lead the public relations for organizations;
  • Conscious capitalism–the philosophy that economic interests are bound in social interests and ethical practice;
  • Sustainability–many public relations professionals produce sustainability annual reports or include the “triple bottom line” of people, place and profits in their metrics;
  • Purpose—Corporate purpose goes beyond mission to stress not only a company’s interest but its positive impact on the world (what old economists call “positive externalities”).

Once again, what the public says it wants of companies and all the associated trendy management buzz words are what good public relations has done and is poised to do now. Listen to publics. Learn what they want. Creatively and ethically devise ways to balance organizational interests with those of all publics. It sounds trite, but work together for common good.

The intersection of normative theory and actual practice in public relations is upon us. I just hope that future surveys will show that people and executives will realize that this movement is something long called “public relations.”

Ethically Speaking, Are You a Child Or an Adult?

~ penningink ~ Leave a comment

September is PRSA Ethics Month again and it brought to mind a memory.

Years ago, long before I was a professor, I was speaking about public relations at an event and brought up the subject of ethics. An audience member sneered: “you can’t teach ethics.”

Well,  now I actually do teach ethics. So I could say that gentlemen was wrong. But his implied point is worth considering. What he really meant to say. is that you can teach ethics classes but that doesn’t mean people will behave ethically.

To that I say, of course. You can preach the gospel, but not all will believe. You can teach the importance of research, but not all will do it. You can conduct a fundraising campaign, but not all. will give.

In any of the above examples, of course the individual has their own will and responses will vary. That does not mean NONE will respond favorably, and therefore does not mean the activity is pointless or without merit.

So, in teaching ethics, the goal is inspiration, to make conscious the ethical implications of what we do in the profession, and then to instill a curiosity about the right thing to do and a motivation to be ethical in all professional practice.

There are two things that help my students internalize a lot of the ethical theories, concept and issues we discuss in class: the four motivations for being an ethical professional, and the three levels of ethical character.  I would encourage any PR professional to consider these in their daily practice::

Four motivations for being an ethical professional:

  • Personal = characterized by self-regulation, driven by personal conscience
  • Organizational = a concern for the corporate or organizational reputation, could be driven by policy or internal ethics code
  • Professional = to enhance the profession of public relations, in keeping with the 6th provision of the PRSA Code of Ethics
  • Societal = characterized by a big-picture concern for others, driven by a desire to contribute to the well-being of society (also called the professional role morality)

Three levels of ethical character:

  • “Child” – Acting ethically because of a fear of  punishment. (No developed internal ethical character)
  • “Adolescent” – Acting ethically to confirm to perceived group norm. (Which means can be easily persuaded by colleagues, boss,  or clients to engage in unethical practice).
  • “Adult” – Individual grasp of moral issue, personal principle. (Has internalized ethical principles and acts on basis of integrity and character more than external influence).

I’ll let people consider these for themselves. But I would say that some degree of all four motivations should be a basis for ethical behavior. And as for the levels of ethical character, I encourage all who practice PR to act like adults, and against the pressure from peers and others, be the ethical adult in the room.