Unfortunate WRONG Turns in Corporate Social Responsibility

"All companies, big or small, have a social responsibility. How you deliver that will determine success or distress." - J. Durant

Remember back to my early college years I enrolled in a course entitled “Social Responsibility of Business”. At the time it was simply a requisite offering on route to obtaining a degree. But as I embarked on the journey of enlightenment I came to value the importance of business as being a part of a much larger community then just our self. It transcends our four walls, the industry sector we are part of and the professional community that we embrace.  Our very existence relies upon a much broader and close connection to the outside world. This is what we would consider as our operating sphere of social responsibility.

The basic premise of social responsibility requires a definitive clarity to the role we play. In those years taking this course the focus was precise in ways to give back to the community. Examples shown were through,

• Best of service,
• Responsible care,
• Sponsorship,
• Endorsements,
• Employment,
• Internships, and
• Leadership in community affairs.

If we were to characterize these objectives we would have to say they are safe and have point-specific intent (without expectations).  But somewhere along the way to stepping forward with these endeavors we went beyond and became engaged in social positions. The lines in time are fuzzy as to when this all started to come about, our best guess was on or about 2010. Up to that point it was erratic and often in connection with defensive or supportive positions that had a direct correlation to the company.  Looking forward to the present state companies are becoming actively engaged in a wide array of topics many of which do not relate to the primary purpose of the enterprise.

Left-Turn

Corporate confidence initiates a mindset that the persona will create opportunities. But in doing so we need to examine the possibility of alienating alliances that have supported our success. As one CEO told us, “we are willing to sacrifice some to gain more”, but when questioned as to what extent no specifics could be given. We suspect that the decision was taking a gamble and that the positions taken were from a platform of position and not value. In other words the opinions of roles and functions influence this new found tact on social responsibility.

Our actions as a business are respected but it’s this respect that has to be continually nourished and not open ourselves to unnecessary temptation to shout out our opinions. An interesting observation is that the good (or damaged) that is self-inflicted seldom has substantial value to the social issue to which sides are being taken. So unless you don’t wish to gamble with potential fate we need to make a concerted effort to focus on value, and this comes from within the span of control we directly influence.

Opps… Wrong Turn

When venturing into unknown or unsettled waters it’s best to watch from the shoreline than it is to venture out. Social positions require credible and substantial factual occurrences and not virtuous rants that lack prevalence. It is much like supporting a business case supporting a pursuit it must be founded on facts and not conjecture. In another case a member of a steering committee asked us about stating their established position, on a very controversial topic, in a widely distributed press release. But when asked for what purpose it served the answer were for informational awareness. In other words to simply state what is or should be obvious then creates a contentious opportunity. Sometimes its best to not only reduce exposure for debate but also to avoid being viewed as a part of the herd. It’s this herd that creates a viral contamination of guilt by association.

Let’s say for a moment that we jumped into the fray, whether as a matter of role or function, on a very contentious topic, what should you do? This is clearly a case of determining whether we are comfortable with the situation or is it unsettling enough that we move into a damage control scenario. We are sure that we can think of a few examples in which the company is clearly positioned to live in a state of controversy and have already started to encrust their brand with this persona. But for others that simply took a position it’s this persona that they don’t feel comfortable with and may even run in opposition to the mission of the business. This is then becomes a case for damage control. In the few case we have been involved with and the hundreds that we have observed/tracked the best measures involve,

• Curtail further position responses on the inflamed topic,
• Internal discuss the situation in order to keep everyone unified,
• Concentrate further external communications on the business,
• Expedite external communication quickly,
• Established a strong initial screening of all communications (internal AND external), and
• Learn and re-calibrate your social positioning posture.

Damage is damage, you can’t recover value from damage, but you can recover ones standing through refocus and reaffirmation. Abstaining, diverting and avoiding social positions that are not contributory to the well-being of the enterprise.

 Decision Points:

• Scope of social responsibility
• Direct and indirect roles relating to topic and brand effect
• Remedial response approach

Freely Redistribute/Share With Our Permission

Clarity Group Global is an intellectual decision validation institution dedicated to the support of leaders, companies and organizations that face challenging choices. Making right decisions that produce significant value equates to less disruption and chaos, "non-tradition made exceptional".