Written by // Paul Argenti
At first mention, the topics of corporate responsibility and social media have seemingly little in common. The former is a recurring topic that emerges every decade or so under a new guise, whether environmental awareness sparked by the Exxon Valdez oil spill of 1989, the phasing out of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in the early 1990s, the introduction of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, or the trend of environmental protectionism sparked by Al Gore’s Nobel Prize-winning 2006 documentary film, An Inconvenient Truth.
The latter, on the other hand, is a still-evolving phenomenon borne out of the perfect storm of technological innovation, accelerating globalization and economic turbulence—not to mention significant revisions to the standards of business communication. However, especially in the context of communication in the modern business environment, corporate responsibility and social media share inextricable similarities—namely, a profound effect on companies’ reputations and, in turn, bottom lines.
Indeed, corporate responsibility (CR)—which, broadly speaking, encompasses the theories and practices of corporate social responsibility, sustainability, corporate citizenship, ethics, issues advocacy, environmentalism and/or community relations—and social media have both made their respective entrées into the business vernacular, but neither are “trends” that will be eradicated by or replaced with something equally fleeting. Rather, corporate leaders must accept their respective significance and then adapt their communication strategies accordingly; their corporate reputations—not to mention their survival—depend on it.
Mutually Inclusive: The Convergence of Corporate Responsibility & Social Media
When considered independently of one another, the arguments in favor of implementing both CR and social media strategies are compelling, especially in terms of defending and enhancing corporate reputations. To begin with, statistically speaking, CR initiatives can shape various constituents’ opinions of/confidence in/support of companies’ products and services (see Sidebar on page x).
At the same time, so do social media initiatives. In fact, recent research confirms that the depth of a company’s engagement in social media can be directly correlated with its financial performance; specifically, those brands that are deeply engaged in social media outperform peers in terms of revenue growth, gross margin growth and net margin growth.
But “engagement” does not simply refer to the ownership of social media platforms. A company might play a passive role in social media, but that doesn’t mean it participates in conversations with its constituents. Participation is a matter of “talking back”—not as a defensive measure, but as part of the exchange of ideas between and among companies and their audiences.
Which brings us to CR and social media’s intertwined relationship. Constituents are more likely to purchase/work for/invest in socially responsibility companies, while, at the same time, the emergence (and subsequent proliferation) of social media platforms like Twitter, blogs and social networks has empowered the very same constituents to trumpet their opinions of these companies to vast audiences. Thus, if a company’s CR commitments influence its investment dollars, recruitment and retention capabilities, and bottom-line results—and if the same company’s constituents can discuss these commitments via social media—then both are of paramount interest to this company’s communication strategy.
But CR and social media’s relationship is symbiotic for reasons beyond this shared interest; executives can use social media platforms to communicate their CR initiatives and, in turn, enhance their reputations, as we will see by the examples presented in the next section. But first, there is another similarity that corporate leaders must understand: CR and social media cannot be presented as campaigns executed over a finite period of time. They must instead be ongoing commitments that grow alongside the organization with no “end date” in sight.
Socializing Responsibility: Communicating CR Initiatives via Online Platforms
Certainly there is more than enough data to prove CR and social media’s respective importance to businesses, but one must also consider the reputational risks that emerge from misusing either activity to engage constituents. In terms of corporate responsibility, that misuse is best described as “greenwashing,” which, according to Wikipedia.org, is “the practice of companies disingenuously spinning their products and policies as environmentally friendly.” Any CR efforts that constituents perceive as greenwashing will have potentially devastating effects on the company’s reputation.
In terms of executives’ misuse of social media, the pitfalls are less cut-and-dry. One possibility is being completely absent in social media conversations, thus increasing the likelihood of missing brewing issues that inevitably develop into full-blown crises. Another option is using social media channels to push one-way corporate messages out to constituents without listening to their reactions. Finally, some executives unintentionally misuse social media by communicating in various platforms before taking the time to identify their constituents and listen to their conversations.
Simply put, corporate leaders must view CR and social media as commitments, not campaigns, and they must be prepared to walk the walk and talk the talk. Once they are, the opportunities to communicate CR initiatives via social media platforms are plentiful:
Online Annual Reports: As the investor community becomes more interested in social responsibility—and as the regulatory environment demands that more attention be paid to environmentally sound practices—financial reporting is increasingly synonymous with sustainability reporting. Plus, thanks to the Global Reporting Initiative’s move to standardize the process of disclosing sustainability performance, companies are becoming more proactive in communicating their CR efforts. Not surprisingly, they are doing so online.
Much like annual reports, sustainability reports communicate financial data, performance metrics, achieved objectives and future goals. With social media, though, this communication can occur more than once a year. In fact, those companies at the forefront of sustainability reporting maintain robust Web sites dedicated to CR. BP’s site, for example, categorizes information by topic (safety, climate change, alternative energy, etc.) for easy navigation, and then positions these issues in the context of larger trends. Plus, the site hosts a “Sustainability Worldwide Map” that allows users to search by location, as well as a charting tool for investors to analyze and filter data based on their specific interests.
Ford and Starbucks’ CR reporting efforts are also Web-centric, and both include a “materiality matrix,” in which information is organized according to its relevance to investors and its current or potential impact on the company.
Social Networks: Social networking platforms like Facebook are ideal for organizing and mobilizing communities around various causes. For example, Western Union launched its “Our World Gives” Facebook campaign in 2008, encouraging users to support charities by rallying their friends around various causes and associated nonprofits, including American Red Cross and UNICEF.
Dell used Facebook to support a contest in 2008, in which participants were asked to submit artwork on the page’s “wall” based on the theme, “What does green mean to you?” The campaign drew more than 7,000 artwork submissions, and more than 1 million users voted for their favorites.
Blogs: As the number of companies that maintain corporate blogs grows, so too does the number of dedicated CR blogs. Take McDonald’s: The company’s roster of blogs includes the “Values in Practice Blog,” which hosts everything from discussion forums and CR-related news, to videos and information surrounding McDonald’s CR mission. The keys to its success—and the success of any CR-centric corporate blog—are transparency communication, authentic engagement and credible commitments.
Crowdsourcing: Crowdsourcing is a neologism describing the practice of outsourcing activities that would usually be performed in-house to the general public, most often through an online forum.
MyStarbucksIdea.com is the quintessential crowdsourcing site. It takes a laissez-faire approach to communication, inviting all constituents to participate in an open exchange of ideas. One of the site’s main areas of discussion is that of “Involvement,” which is dedicated to community building and social responsibility. There, visitors have recommended everything from putting recycling bins in every store to using energy-saving light bulbs.
Twitter: This platform experienced a reported 1,400% increase in users between February 2008 and February 2009, marking a phenomenal rise in popularity. The 140-character limit on “tweet” lengths makes it ideal for communicating concise messages that pack a punch, and a growing number of companies are leveraging it to engage constituents around CR efforts.
In August 2009, Toyota executives developed “Harmony Tweets,” a Twitter campaign launched in conjunction with the 3rd-generation Prius’ debut. Using www.HarmonyTweets.com as a hub, the program shares tweeted updates from charitable organizations and industry leaders, and gives users a platform for submitting their own sustainability-themed tweets. Once again, the open approach to communication, coupled with distinctly “non-marketing” messages, proves to be a driver of success in the social media space.
Closing Thoughts
Ultimately, the reality of today’s challenging business environment mandates companies’ strategic application of both CR and social media to protect and enhance their reputations. As we’ve seen through the research and examples presented in this article, executives can integrate their efforts around both activities to maximize overall business value. After all, the best practices that define success in social media and in CR are one in the same: The key driver is transparent, authentic, and engaging communication with all constituents. While the barrier to entry is low, the price of not participating is quite the opposite.
