CSR Communication at a Crossroads?

Flying back to London last night, I bumped into a very inspirational individual who reminded me of what it is I want to achieve in life, and who enhanced my drive to do so. While I should have probably made full use of the 1 hour 30 minute opportunity to sell myself, I found myself taking in valuable lessons of life, passion and career instead, listening to his stories of failure and success and the coincidences behind them.

I explained to him that I was a recent PR graduate with an interest in landing a job in corporate social responsibility (CSR). He was a senior conflict specialist with more than a few impressive roles behind him in international affairs. I listened with profound interest as he shared his stories from Iraq, the Balkans, Palestine, Somalia and Indonesia, to name a few of the places he had made his mark.

While I could focus this blog post on the lessons I learned from him, I am instead going to focus it on a small comment he made during our conversation, which has relevance to communicators who, like me, believe that PR has the potential to be more than just a field existing to engineer a climate of consent to foster a favourable environment for an organisation. Rather, I believe, communicators hold a role in which they can truly contribute to creating mutually beneficial relationships between an organisation and its stakeholders, and should actively seek to do so.

You see, when I mentioned that I was a PR graduate and interested in working in CSR, my travel companion automatically assumed that my intentions were purely financial, rather than being related to the true essence (I believe) of CSR and communications; namely that communicators hold a unique role in organisations, from which they have an opportunity  to build truly sustainable relationships between the organisation and its publics; and not simply exercise ‘green washing’ or ‘window dressing’ as he (and many others) assume. In fact, if PR is to accomplish its self-declared aim of building mutually beneficial relationships between an organisation and its publics, it has no choice but to own up and practise transparency and accountability; and CSR communication is the ideal starting point. 

“Next time you introduce yourself as a PR graduate with an interest in CSR, you should elaborate your humanitarian interest,” he said, continuing: “for obvious reasons, one does not associate PR and CSR with more than just window dressing.” He had a point, and indeed couldn't be the only one with that understanding of PR. After all, it is no secret that the profession does not (ironically) have the best of reputations.

Indeed, as my flight companion pointed out, the notion of CSR as a strategic reputation management tool has received much criticism. Internally, business owners have enjoyed the multiple reputational benefits that CSR communication has brought to their businesses. Externally, the relationship between public relations and corporate social responsibility has for long been under the scrutiny of critics. In 2008, for example, Lawrence and Webber stated that many believed that “social responsibility is nothing but a clever public relations smokescreen to hide business’s true intentions to make as much money as possible,” and prominent characters such as Peter Frankental of Amnesty International has suggested that there are paradoxes evident in the application of organization’s CSR efforts and that rather than embracing their real duty to society, CSR has become a ‘PR invention’.

However, a bit or research, to my delight, seems to identify that all of this has the potential to be changing. I dare to make this statement because while people differ in what they aim for in their social life, they are very much alike in what they find harmful or strive to avoid. Thus, as a result, a growing number of people in modern societies, expect that large companies become more involved in seeking solutions to societal problems that go beyond their direct sphere of influence or core competences. Moreover, consumers have woken up to the fact that they, to a large extent, can control companies in their purchasing behaviour and that often, they have more power over companies than they do over governments.

As a result, hands-on examples of philanthropic achievements no longer fills the gap. The emergent CSR is  much more comprehensive. People in modern societies expect corporations to achieve benchmark financial results and not only to avoid scandal, but to consistently meet social, environmental and political standards. Consequently, during the last 50 years, companies have progressively assumed responsibilities which are beyond their economic activities within the social sphere.

For example, a global study carried out by Havas in 2010 found that 74% of consumers believe that businesses bear as much responsibility for driving positive change as governments. With such a number, it is to be assumed that the famous assertion of Milton Friedman discussing CSR in 1970, declaring that business’s only responsibility is to maximise profits for shareholders and therefore social responsibility is anti-business, is swiftly becoming obsolete.

The Millennial Generation (anyone born somewhere between 1980 and 1999), specifically, cares strongly about corporate behaviour and the motivations behind it. The group, together with the growing crowd of ‘prosumers’ who are proactive, empowered and engaged consumers, are leading the charge of change and are not satisfied with corporate philanthropy ‘made in the twilight of stellar careers’; they expect business to improve now.

In fact, 80% of consumers believe that they carry the responsibility to censure unethical companies by avoiding their products. The Millennials, in particular, are true to their cause, with 84% agreeing that it is their duty to change the world, and almost equally many, 82%, believing that their generation has the power to bring about global change. Thus, the punishment for those corporations falling short can have fatal consequences to business.

As a result, business strategy is swiftly changing as business leaders have started to reassess their roles in society. Many of these leaders are young entrepreneurs, who have decided that financial profit is not everything, and are therefore starting new brand ventures. Thomas Edison famously stated:  “I find out what the world needs, then I proceed to invent it;” a drive which is very similar to that of some of the emerging Millennial Generation  leaders, including Mark Zuckerberg.

Zuckerberg, while he might be perceived as an 'overused' example, is also one of the best examples of a model for his  generation; the Millennial Generation. One of the richest entrepreneurs in the world, his motivation to create Facebook was not to monetize it but to ‘accomplish a social mission to make the world more open and connected’.  Commenting on the above statement, corporate reputation guru Van Riel (2012) stated that the emerging business leader attitude should serve as a notice to stakeholders everywhere, that a new generation of business leaders has ‘entered the arena’. The new generation, ”leads with reputation-based thinking and actions, not the 20th century brand building or “slow and steady wins the race” strategies.” 

Van Riel’s warning of a new generation of business leaders who lead with reputation based thinking and actions, and the above statement, should serve as an eye opener to the future challenges of business leaders and the next generation of public relations executives, alike. However, while the non-conjunction of PR and CSR continues to be widely debated, it is of importance to take note of the fact that the next generation of public relations practitioners themselves, belong to the Millennial Generation and can therefore be expected to demand change on an equal level to their non-PR generational counterparts.

The next generation of PR executives has the ability to reshape businesses as they gradually begin to replace older generations. Here, employees can constitute a highly positive or negative force for a brand and can become powerful advocates if they passionately believe in the business. Therefore, it is with no emphasis of say that public relation practitioners who are truly passionate about their cause, not only have the ability to change businesses, but also have the ability to change the image of CSR as a strategic public relations management tool.

Who is with me?

Has the World Wide Web and the internet affected globalization?

Those of you who know me, will agree that I am very passionate about the topic of international development. Indeed, while I thoroughly love the business transaction side of public relations, I more than often find myself drawn towards how public relations can be used as a tool to cater for the greater good socially, culturally and economically through initiatives such as corporate social responsibility, which I am currently writing my thesis on.

A question which I have not addressed before on this blog, is the topic of media, communication and technology as a means of globalization. In the West, the media sphere has been dictated by the emergence of new media which has changed the entire communication sphere and the way that businesses choose to communicate with their publics. However, the full population of our dear mother earth does not have the same access as we do; and while we talk about globalization, the vast majority of the earth still do not have access to the World Wide Web or internet. 

So, has the World Wide Web and the internet indeed affected globalization at all? The term globalization is used in many different contexts, having become a social buzzword with a multitude of interpretations and meanings. Indeed, it is widely contended that the introduction of the internet as a tool available to the mainstream public in the early 1990’s, has had a direct effect on the integration of worldwide communities. However, to determine the extent to which the internet has shaped globalization, it is important to first establish the precise meaning of the term globalization and to determine how the internet could contribute to affect it. 

What is globalization? 


From a conceptual viewpoint, the process of globalization can be split into two parts; outwards into geographic space and inward into culture and society. 


The “outward” factor relates to trade, cross-border production, investment, technology, and the homogenization of policies and institutions. The IMF states that this refers to ‘the increasing integration of economies around the world, particularly through the movement of goods, services, and capital across borders’ as well as ‘the movement of people (labor) and knowledge (technology) across international borders’.  


The second “inward” factor relates to the social dimensions of globalization, affecting the life and work of people, identity, culture, family and the cohesiveness of communities. The WHO states that this dimension ‘refers to the increased contact between cultures, identities and views across national boundaries that result from the application of modern communications.’   


Drawing the two terms together, globalization can thus be defined to be the elimination of barriers to trade, communication and the exchange of culture. Through the above, it is contended that globalization exists to benefit the international development of higher living standards, new opportunities and faster growth.


How can the internet and WWW affect globalization?  


Now, let's investigate the internet and world wide web’s role in contributing to globalization. 


Global organizations argue that modern technology has played a central role in globalization. A 2005 report released by the OECD, for example, states that ‘the dissemination of information and communication technologies has been one of the most decisive factors in accelerating the process of globalization.
Moreover, the UN argues that the World Wide Web and internet is a central tool for the economic and material development and wellbeing of our time and age, contributing to the conditioning of knowledge, power and creativity. They also emphasize that the cultural and educational development which is brought forward by the sharing of ideas though the internet, conditions technological development,  leading to economic development,  leading to social development, which once again stimulates cultural and educational development. Thus, it is believed that the internet enables knowledge growth, considered to be synonymous with economic growth. It is therefore argued that the internet, like globalization, promotes the wealth of all nations.


So, has the internet and WWW affected globalization at all?  

To answer this question, it is necessary to investigate a number of factors and arguments.   Firstly, for populations to truly reap the benefits of the internet and become “globalised”, it would need to be evenly distributed on a global scale. Secondly, worldwide governments would need to be in agreement about the benefits of a world wide pool of shared thought. Thirdly, the internet would work as a means to influence the masses cross-globally through symmetrical communication. Finally, the internet would contribute to trade and cross-border production in a win-win relationship.

The first argument entails that to fully affect globalization, the internet would need to be distributed equally. Globalization as we know it today, however, exists in an asymmetrical form and attention is increasingly turned to the fact the internet is in fact unequally distributed. In its most physical form, more than a billion people worldwide are currently connected to the internet, but the gap between the connected and unconnected is enormous. For example, while the internet has a very high population penetration rate of 78% in North America, the penetration rate on the African continent is merely 11%, with less than 1% of the populations in countries such as Ethiopia, Guinea, Niger and Liberia using the internet. Conversely, the internet reaches 100% of the population on the Falkland Islands and 95% of the population in Norway. Thus, there is a large gap between countries, groups and populations in terms of the physical access, knowledge and use of the internet. However, population penetration rates of the internet cannot alone be used to determine the use of an open net in which global citizens can exchange communication, culture and trade.

The second argument demands that for populations to use the internet as a tool for globalization, governments would need to be in agreement about the benefits of the internet. Another factor which must be considered is therefore internet policy practices. For example, while the penetration rate in a country such as the United Arab Emirates is 70%, websites are widely censored for contents which are not consistent with the religious, political, cultural and moral values of the emirate.  The practice of controlling or suppressing the publishing or access to information available on the internet and World Wide Web is known as “internet censorship,” and is not limited to cases such as the above mentioned, but stretches throughout the world. While some countries have very little internet censorship, such as Demark for example, where it is limited to the ban of child pornography and portals which violate copyright laws, other countries, have implemented censorship that goes as deep as limiting the access to news, suppressing discussions, and prosecuting bloggers for opinions that are against the regime in which the laws exist; in China for example. Yet, other countries, predominantly in the developing world and notably evident in Sub-Saharan Africa, no regime except the Ethiopian, uses technical filtering to limit the access to online content.  Here, it is worth to notice that Ethiopia is also one of the countries in the world with the smallest internet penetration rate.



The third argument involves the internet being available as a global tool, able to communicate cross-culturally through symmetrical communication.  Here, the concept of a “digital divide” is best used, which is the term used to describe the gap between those who can benefit from digital technology and those who cannot. Craig Smith (2011) states that the problem is not so much about internet access as it is about the tangible benefits derived from the access.  Smith argues that while the upper-to-middle class has access to high quality internet, the low-income populations have been ignored by digital programmers who, historically, have specifically been creating solutions for the affluent who are profitable. As a result, the less affluent have had no benefit from the digital technology.  In fact, he argues, that the inappropriate access is harming the poor rather than benefitting them and that extending the access of internet and the World Wide Web into emerging markets will do more damage than good.  Another point to notice, in agreement with the concept of a “digital divide.” is the language of the internet; the concept of the “speaker” and the “listener.” Alozie (2005) argues that mass media artifacts, both traditional and modern, are sponsored and produced by multinationals and Western governments. Delwich (2004) states that some view the internet and World Wide Web as a mean of cultural imperialism, which threatens the independent cultural space of non-Western cultures.  Indeed, the most commonly used language of the internet is English. In 2011, 57% of all website contents were written in English. Qvortrup (2001), however, argues that while the internet is dominated by the English language, it is not a testimony that the culture expressed though the language is dominant in determining influence.  Conversely, he argues, that while the internet for some is synonymous of a public-sphere where global citizens meet, it is in fact the opposite; namely a separation of the public-sphere into specific areas of interests and opinions, dubbed “sub-spheres,” which does not in fact promote global communication, but rather separates the public into clusters based on interests and opinions.



The fourth and final argument holds that the extent to which the internet has contributed to globalization can be determined by its contribution to trade and cross-border production. Indeed, the term “globalization” was coined in the 1980s as an effect of the technological advances that made it quicker and easier to complete international transactions, taking international trade and the outsourcing of manufacture to a whole new level. While the internet does make the process of sharing ideas and concepts easier; thought to contribute to entrepreneurship and innovation; neither time nor the introduction of the internet has helped bridge the gap between rich and poor. Instead, it has contributed to widen the gap between rich and poor, increasing inequality in most countries.  However, that the internet remains a tool of citizen empowerment, democratization and global involvement of countries worldwide, is a testimony that is widely supported. In 2011, for example, the UN called for all countries to put in place a broadband strategy, with a target of seeing 60% of people in the developed world online and 50% of people in the developing countries, online by 2015. Moreover, in 2010, UNESCO in collaboration with the ITU established the Broadband Commission for Digital Development, as part of the UN efforts to meet the Millennium Development Goals, highlighting that broadband is as essential a tool to development. However, that globalization is indeed not at all “global,” and that the relationship between the term and global media outlets including the internet and the World Wide Web, is a tool for the West to exercise its use of ‘soft power’ to promote its political and economical interests, is also widely supported. Global media systems are oftentimes considered to be a form of cultural imperialism and the internet widely criticized for contributing to the Westernization or Americanization of global societies. However, while media ownership and control has historically been owned and dominated by Western elite nations, who, through technology attempted to set the communication agenda as a means to expand capitalism, a form of ‘oriental globalization’ is now increasingly coming to the surface. For example, while English is indeed the most widely used language of the internet; Chinese is the second largest language of online-communication, with other non European languages also increasing their online dominance. As a result, it is only to be anticipated that as largely populated countries such as China and India become more and more integrated into the global market, changes to the communication and media industries will affect a decline of the English language’s online-dominance. Moreover, while other media types such as radio, TV or newspapers communicate a one-way message, the beauty of the internet is that it allows for the blossoming of thoughts in a method of cross-communication through independent thought and the sharing of ideas. 


And what does all this mean? 

Like a snowball rolling down a steep hill, globalization is gathering more and more momentum. The growth of globalization and the internet and World Wide Web, rather than having affected one another, has in fact shaped one another, and will continue to do so. Globalization and the internet alike, is more complex than a governments’ role in international business, or its policies to protect religious, political, cultural or moral values. Globalization is happening regardless of governments and goes beyond both politics and economics. However, the global economy of today’s society makes it more important than ever to understand people who are different than ourselves; and while being united through the internet and World Wide Web can assist to unite us, ultimately, it is the people themselves who should be united, if we are to create a truly globalized world. 

A Thought On the Development of Corporate Social Responsibility

In the process of writing a paper which focuses on the development on corporate social responsibility (CSR), I stumbled across a journal article by Theodore Levitt from 1958 called "the Dangers of Social Responsibility." In it he questions: “are top executives being taken in by pretty words and soft ideas? Are they letting the country in for a nightmare return to feudalism by forgetting they must be businessmen first, last, and almost always?”  

This made me laugh but it also made me think. 

Levitt argues that businessmen should not concern themselves with social responsibility, and that corporate welfare only makes good sense if it makes good economic sense. The article explains that business managers should allow the government to take care of general welfare, so that businesses can take care of the material aspects of welfare and continue with its money making goal. 

Is CSR much different today?

Contemporary consumers rarely question the effectiveness of CSR, often placing equal trust in governments and corporations whilst expecting the market to self-regulate. However, this is rarely the case. Though the concept of CSR has blossomed for at least the good part of half a century, the reality of CSR in practise has rarely evolved.The only difference is that corporations have become better at concealing it: CSR in itself has become a mini-industry. 

So, what does that mean from a PR perspective? As long as the CSR lifestyle consumer segment continues having faith in CSR and buying into it, corporations will continue investing in it and that's where the money is. And maybe "faith" is the real challenge for PRO's: upholding the reputation of CSR as corporate philanthropy, in itself. 

Hello 2012!

2011 flew by faster than any of the other years I have lived, and as always in the last two decades, technology had no problem keeping up.

Quite a few changes took place in the world of social media. If you think you are having trouble keeping up, have a look at this chart.

Bad planning or deliberate attempt to create publicity?

A Dove advert accused of racist messages which has been spread across the internet today, demonstrates just how easy it is to gain bad publicity. 

One can hardly be surprised over the accusation. Personally, I understood two messages from the advert:

·         Dove body wash will make you lighter

·         Dove body wash will make you thinner   

Dove has however denied the claims with a public statement stating that "All three women are intended to demonstrate the ‘after’ product benefit... The ad is intended to illustrate the benefits of using Dove VisibleCare Body Wash, by making skin visibly more beautiful in just one week." The company also addressed the apparent misunderstanding on their Facebook site, encouraging fans to share their thoughts about the advertisement.  

This is not the only PR misdemeanor the company has encountered. Only in 2008 was Dove accused of destroying rain-forests in Indonesia, and just last year the company was criticized for a "not so real beauty" model description for their Real Beauty Campaign. 

Dove knows its market and many will argue that the advert was an honest mistake with no intention of causing offence. From a PR perspective, however, the advert has brought more interest to Dove than any other of their recent campaigns, with no long-term damage done to the company.

Bad planning or deliberate attempt to create publicity? I will leave you to judge that.

Why FTSE 100 companies are falling behind on digital comms

Today’s public relations professionals build most of their relationships online. The emergence of social media and public relations’ management of its tools, has provided a whole new sphere for relationship management. Building trustworthy and transparent exchange relationships is now more important than ever. Social media is used every day to communicate with customers, respond to questions, or to publicise clients. Social networking sites such as Facebook and LinkedIn, blogging sites such as Blogger, and micro-blogging sites such as Twitter have become a crucial part of the PR toolkit.

Strange as it is, however, though there is little to no evidence that embracing social media should offer anything but benefits, the majority of FTSE 100 companies have still not fully engaged in the use of social media activities. Small companies, on the other hand, are readily engaging with their stakeholders online.

Radley Yelder, a London based communications company, found that sixty of the FTSE100 companies did not display their link to social media sites on their homepage, despite engaging in at least one of the major sites.  Moreover, they identified that only twenty-nine of the companies had a corporate page on Facebook. Of these, only sixteen of the active Facebook users actually updated their profiles with fresh content weekly; and just nineteen attempted to actively engage with their page audiences.  Why the larger companies are not as willing to engage with their stakeholders online could have several explanations.

Perhaps, budgets and timings do not allow the PR personnel to actively engage with their stakeholders online...

Or could it be that the larger companies are not really committed to engage in open and transparent dialogue?

Making Social Media History: William, Kate and Osama Bin Laden

What striking feature does William, Kate and Osama Bin Laden have in common?


Yes, they have all been married. Yes, they are all world famous.Yes, they are all religious.Yes, they are all passionate about world affairs.Yes, they all have famous friends.Yes, they're all fans of head-wear.Yes, they are all keen to avoid journalists.Yes, they have all hired people under them to carry out the dirty work.Yes, they all have armed bodyguards.Yes, they have all featured on condom covers.


However, non of the above is the correct answer to my question.


According to US magazine ADweek, the marriage of William and Kate and the death of Osama Bin Laden had one striking similarity: they were massive live news events that were extensively followed online, crushing all previous records.


Lost me at the condom covers? Have a look at this and this.


On the day of Osama's death, there were over two million online references to his name online. The Royal Wedding alone, had just under 1.9 million mentions. Osama attracted more online attention overall and both were subject to massive amounts of tweets; the Royal Wedding  beating Osama with 240,000.


The Royal Wedding, however, could not beat how the news of Osama's death was spread. Just as many of us remeber where we were when we heard about the World Trade Centre attack, many will remember where they were when they heard about the death of Osama Bin Laden.


For many, that place was on Twitter.


It has been reported that it all began when Donald Rumsfeld’s former chief of staff, Keith Urban tweeted: “So I’m told by a reputable person they have killed Osama bin Laden. Hot damn.” Another less famous person, however, became the real Twitter sensation at the breaking of the Osama news.


What does William, Kate, Osama Bin Laden and an unknown Pakistani IT consultant have in common?


Yes, I have just added another person to the equation. He does not feature on a condom cover, has no famous friends, no armed bodyguards and has to do the dirty work all by himself.


Sohaib Athar aka @reallyvirtual, is an IT consultant living in Abbottabad, Pakistan.


Just like William, Kate and Osama, Sohaib made social media history, using Twitter to share what he heard as helicopters swooping down on a compound.


His first Tweet read:  "Helicopter hovering above Abbottabad at 1am (is a rare event).” At the time, Sohaib only had around 750 followers and used Twitter to chat with people about news, his family, technology and politics. After Obama's announcement on Sunday, just 24 hours later, he was broadcasting his thoughts to 86,000 followers.


Moral of the story? While it took traditional news media such as CNN a while to verify and report the death of Osama Bin Laden,  the news was already widely talked about on social media networks such as Twitter. 


You don't have to be royal or a terrorist  to make social media history. All it takes, is to be at the right place, at the right time- and to write about it.  


Recommended: The Art of Breaking News on Social Media