Distribution Network
Content
It’s sensible to be wary of public relations in CSR, but naïve to think you can do without it, says Kate Nicholas
‘It’s just a public relations tactic’ must be one of the most disheartening – and frequent – indictments to be thrown at companies engaging in corporate social responsibility. CSR reports, for example, are often dismissed as ‘PR fig leaves’ and a triumph of style over substance. So it’s hardly surprising that many non-governmental organizations and some CSR professionals have such a well developed aversion to corporate public relations. Even the UK’s former CSR minister, Stephen Timms, called for corporate responsibility to be kept away from PR in case pure intentions were tainted by spin.
But is this really fair on PR? Ironically, PR does have an image problem. But the everyday reality is far more complex than the media leads us to believe. PR involves communications across a broad range of interested parties, from investors to employees, consumer groups to government advisers. And public relations officers also wield considerable influence within an organization; an increasing number of corporate communications directors are on the board, advising companies on how to respond to public and shareholder concerns.
All of which means that, unless you believe in corporate altruism, overlooking the contribution of communicators is somewhat naïve. Conversion to CSR tends to involve a Damascene moment when either the company realizes that being perceived as ethical will provide a competitive advantage, or the penny drops that its appalling record on the environment and human rights poses a real threat to its reputation – and by default share price, sales and staff retention. In both cases the rationale for commitment requires that CSR policies be communicated.
It is also highly unrealistic to presume that just because a company chooses not to deal with the media on a particular issue, the subject will pass below a journalist’s radar. A steady stream of CSR reports has alerted editors that there is a rich editorial seam to be mined in corporate ethics. And with 24/7 news channels and online news services to feed, journalists are on the lookout for any chink in the facade of corporate responsibility. In fact, the media seems even more cynical about CSR roles than PR. The Sunday Telegraph was recently angered by the fact that ‘non-jobs’ in the CSR department at the BBC were not affected by cutbacks.
All of this isn’t to say that CSR is just PR – far from it. Even most corporate communicators would tell you that it isn’t a good idea to place CSR in their department – or any other single department for that matter.
All the PR in the world won’t help a company with dubious ethics, but if PR professionals and communications are taken out of the picture, it’s highly likely that far fewer companies will see the benefit or urgency of changing their ways.
Kate Nicholas is associate publisher and former editor-in-chief of PRWeek.
‘It’s just a public relations tactic’ must be one of the most disheartening – and frequent – indictments to be thrown at companies engaging in corporate social responsibility. CSR reports, for example, are often dismissed as ‘PR fig leaves’ and a triumph of style over substance. So it’s hardly surprising that many non-governmental organizations and some CSR professionals have such a well developed aversion to corporate public relations. Even the UK’s former CSR minister, Stephen Timms, called for corporate responsibility to be kept away from PR in case pure intentions were tainted by spin.
But is this really fair on PR? Ironically, PR does have an image problem. But the everyday reality is far more complex than the media leads us to believe. PR involves communications across a broad range of interested parties, from investors to employees, consumer groups to government advisers. And public relations officers also wield considerable influence within an organization; an increasing number of corporate communications directors are on the board, advising companies on how to respond to public and shareholder concerns.
All of which means that, unless you believe in corporate altruism, overlooking the contribution of communicators is somewhat naïve. Conversion to CSR tends to involve a Damascene moment when either the company realizes that being perceived as ethical will provide a competitive advantage, or the penny drops that its appalling record on the environment and human rights poses a real threat to its reputation – and by default share price, sales and staff retention. In both cases the rationale for commitment requires that CSR policies be communicated.
It is also highly unrealistic to presume that just because a company chooses not to deal with the media on a particular issue, the subject will pass below a journalist’s radar. A steady stream of CSR reports has alerted editors that there is a rich editorial seam to be mined in corporate ethics. And with 24/7 news channels and online news services to feed, journalists are on the lookout for any chink in the facade of corporate responsibility. In fact, the media seems even more cynical about CSR roles than PR. The Sunday Telegraph was recently angered by the fact that ‘non-jobs’ in the CSR department at the BBC were not affected by cutbacks.
All of this isn’t to say that CSR is just PR – far from it. Even most corporate communicators would tell you that it isn’t a good idea to place CSR in their department – or any other single department for that matter.
All the PR in the world won’t help a company with dubious ethics, but if PR professionals and communications are taken out of the picture, it’s highly likely that far fewer companies will see the benefit or urgency of changing their ways.
Kate Nicholas is associate publisher and former editor-in-chief of PRWeek.
Super Featured
No
Featured
No