What struck me most about the Murdoch inquisition was the ebb and flow, not of conversation but of trust, within News International and News Corporation.
Of course that should be a necessary and reciprocal part of any business, but that’s only really possible when accompanied with information. And whilst trust may have been given and received freely within the organisation, information clearly wasn’t.
So is it appropriate for senior management to have blind trust in its employees?
Much of an organisation’s culture and value system comes from the top. It’s the heads that set the company’s moral compass and dictate what is and is not acceptable and expected behaviour. Leaders can only really lead effectively by example. And if their practice is to give blind trust then this will filter down the organisation and arguably focus line management on the output, and not necessarily the methodologies involved, or their associated ethical implications.
I guess it’s more myopic trust really, but it’s certainly a facet of many businesses’ management ethos and is one that is damaging, and in the current climate intolerable and unsustainable.
The basis of trust is information. And its dissemination should be shaped by ethically-sound codes of practice, which are shared, embedded and policed. Such codes should articulate the acceptable behaviours staff can employ to meet the business objectives. Enshrining the company’s stated values and ethics in codes and guidelines, sets the moral standard throughout the business.
But trust and information also need opportunity. Staff must have ample opportunity to discuss and raise issues regarding trust and ethics as a course of day-to-day business. The organisational culture must accommodate and encourage this if a truly trustworthy and trusted company is desired.
I’m not sure I believe blind trust really exists in the business environment. Wilful blindness on the other hand is a topic I’ve blogged about before http://ethicsandmarketing.blogspot.com/2011_01_01_archive.html.
So I guess for me the bottom line is if you think you’ve got an issue, trust your instincts and test your ethics.
Sunday, July 31, 2011
Monday, May 23, 2011
Is it time for Ronald to hang up his overalls?
Yet another complaint against McDonald’s in the US http://www.lettertomcdonalds.org/ . This time in the form of a letter from hundreds of health professionals asking that Ronald McDonald no longer be used as a tool to market junk food to children.
But one of the most interesting points in the letter is the comment that urges McDonalds to lead the way in affecting change in the industry. I agree. Because the business world needs leaders and challengers. Without them, businesses can justify irresponsible behaviour as ‘normal business practice’. And its ubiquity, especially in the absence of legal restrictions, can render it acceptable.
I tell my kids that sometimes the right thing to do, is the hard thing to do. This certainly holds true in business. I’ve argued in previous blogs (http://ethicsandmarketing.blogspot.com/2010/08/are-your-ethics-hunky-dory.html) and articles (http://www.adworld.ie/features/read/?id=677b9306-7667-4146-aa06-1bef94a35b64) that just because a brand can, doesn’t mean it should. Sometimes not doing something, even if it’s going to make the business money, is actually the right thing to do.
This letter, joins the long line of other protests, requests and pleas – all increasing in desperation. And I truly despair that the growing tumult regarding data, statistics and professional insight around childhood obesity is still falling on deaf brands.
Brands may nod and appear to hear what’s being said. But in reality few actually listen. And even fewer pro-actively share the burden of collective responsibility.
But one of the most interesting points in the letter is the comment that urges McDonalds to lead the way in affecting change in the industry. I agree. Because the business world needs leaders and challengers. Without them, businesses can justify irresponsible behaviour as ‘normal business practice’. And its ubiquity, especially in the absence of legal restrictions, can render it acceptable.
I tell my kids that sometimes the right thing to do, is the hard thing to do. This certainly holds true in business. I’ve argued in previous blogs (http://ethicsandmarketing.blogspot.com/2010/08/are-your-ethics-hunky-dory.html) and articles (http://www.adworld.ie/features/read/?id=677b9306-7667-4146-aa06-1bef94a35b64) that just because a brand can, doesn’t mean it should. Sometimes not doing something, even if it’s going to make the business money, is actually the right thing to do.
This letter, joins the long line of other protests, requests and pleas – all increasing in desperation. And I truly despair that the growing tumult regarding data, statistics and professional insight around childhood obesity is still falling on deaf brands.
Brands may nod and appear to hear what’s being said. But in reality few actually listen. And even fewer pro-actively share the burden of collective responsibility.
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
A RESPONSIBLE MOVEMENT - FLAGGED ON CONSUMER RIGHTS DAY
We may be up to our oxters in a recession but there’s some green shoots of responsible recovery in evidence.
I’ve blogged and tweeted various brands’ individual activities in this regard, but am today heartened to see industry-wide moves. Especially as they’re all the more important being announced on Consumer Rights Day:
Today March 15th in the UK, more than 150 brands have signed up to the government’s “Responsibility Deal” http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publichealth/Publichealthresponsibilitydeal/index.htm This is about food and drink brands embracing the increasing view that companies need to act responsibly, whether they’re legally obliged to do so or not. This is about taking collective responsibility and an individual moral position, on improving consumer health.
Although announced today, some of the product promises have, in reality, been a while in the making. Brands have long recognised the consumer movement away from less healthy options, so arguably this is a move motivated as much by market and profit as morals. But to be fair, the actions regarding displaying calories on menus and labeling changes, indicate a clear leaning towards greater transparency. And something I’ve long called for – better consumer education and information.
Also the brands’ commitment to increase physical activity in the workplace and improve workplace health is inspiring. This is about implementing ethics throughout the value chain and taking responsibility for employees’ health as well as consumers.
With regard to the drinks industry, it’s now promising to ensure advertising is not within a certain radius of schools http://www.marketingweek.co.uk/sectors/food-and-drink/alcohol-industry-to-ban-school-ads/3024393 Again this shows a shift in the industry’s mindset, building on what it has already created - a recognisable and cognisant responsibility towards young vulnerable consumers.
In isolation each activity by each brand might seem quite discrete. But when collated, these show a distinct directional shift… I guess you could say the industry is taking a leaf out of its own advertising campaign and living the Change4Life message.
I’ve blogged and tweeted various brands’ individual activities in this regard, but am today heartened to see industry-wide moves. Especially as they’re all the more important being announced on Consumer Rights Day:
Today March 15th in the UK, more than 150 brands have signed up to the government’s “Responsibility Deal” http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publichealth/Publichealthresponsibilitydeal/index.htm This is about food and drink brands embracing the increasing view that companies need to act responsibly, whether they’re legally obliged to do so or not. This is about taking collective responsibility and an individual moral position, on improving consumer health.
Although announced today, some of the product promises have, in reality, been a while in the making. Brands have long recognised the consumer movement away from less healthy options, so arguably this is a move motivated as much by market and profit as morals. But to be fair, the actions regarding displaying calories on menus and labeling changes, indicate a clear leaning towards greater transparency. And something I’ve long called for – better consumer education and information.
Also the brands’ commitment to increase physical activity in the workplace and improve workplace health is inspiring. This is about implementing ethics throughout the value chain and taking responsibility for employees’ health as well as consumers.
With regard to the drinks industry, it’s now promising to ensure advertising is not within a certain radius of schools http://www.marketingweek.co.uk/sectors/food-and-drink/alcohol-industry-to-ban-school-ads/3024393 Again this shows a shift in the industry’s mindset, building on what it has already created - a recognisable and cognisant responsibility towards young vulnerable consumers.
In isolation each activity by each brand might seem quite discrete. But when collated, these show a distinct directional shift… I guess you could say the industry is taking a leaf out of its own advertising campaign and living the Change4Life message.
Saturday, January 8, 2011
Can innocent guilt exist?
As Newstalk’s George Hook rightly observed (26/11/2010) to talk about ethical business behaviour implies that there is unethical business behaviour - which of course there is. But is this ever excusable?
Of course a brand accused of any immoral wrongdoing would be quick to defend itself on some ground, but could one such ground be ignorance, or perhaps even innocence?
For the Conservative Party’s Children’s Taskforce, I interviewed a global food brand’s marketing director regarding its website’s inappropriate content for children, and he claimed to be unaware of the brand’s online activity. Admittedly, the bigger the brand the greater the challenge to be aware of all aspects of its marketing, but isn’t that one to which a senior manager must rise?
The much publicised Nike story of many years ago is a case in point: Senior managers at the time claimed to be unaware of the full extent of their suppliers’ questionable ethical behaviour. They quickly discovered that ignorance was not bliss, and that everything along the brand’s value and supply chains was applicable to, and impacted on, their business and their bottom line. Nike’s stated innocence of their suppliers’ guilt, at the time held little sway amongst consumers and it is a lesson well learnt by one of the world’s leading and most successful brands.
The role of marketing within an organisation means its tentacles should reach every aspect of the business. Where it may be difficult for its controller to be cognisant in detail, of all marketing-related activity, it is at least advisable to have best practices articulated, updated and embedded within the organisation.
Of course codes, contracts and committees can’t guarantee behaviour. But they at least show an intent, signal an expectation, and importantly layout an agenda for a pre-emptive discussion. All of which endorse a brand’s ethical position and clearly signpost that stance to partners, suppliers and stakeholders.
This blog’s wordcount is only the tip of the iceberg regarding this debate, but my ultimate conclusion is not so much that innocent guilt exists, but that guilty innocence is unacceptable and inadvisable for any marketer in this day and age.
Of course a brand accused of any immoral wrongdoing would be quick to defend itself on some ground, but could one such ground be ignorance, or perhaps even innocence?
For the Conservative Party’s Children’s Taskforce, I interviewed a global food brand’s marketing director regarding its website’s inappropriate content for children, and he claimed to be unaware of the brand’s online activity. Admittedly, the bigger the brand the greater the challenge to be aware of all aspects of its marketing, but isn’t that one to which a senior manager must rise?
The much publicised Nike story of many years ago is a case in point: Senior managers at the time claimed to be unaware of the full extent of their suppliers’ questionable ethical behaviour. They quickly discovered that ignorance was not bliss, and that everything along the brand’s value and supply chains was applicable to, and impacted on, their business and their bottom line. Nike’s stated innocence of their suppliers’ guilt, at the time held little sway amongst consumers and it is a lesson well learnt by one of the world’s leading and most successful brands.
The role of marketing within an organisation means its tentacles should reach every aspect of the business. Where it may be difficult for its controller to be cognisant in detail, of all marketing-related activity, it is at least advisable to have best practices articulated, updated and embedded within the organisation.
Of course codes, contracts and committees can’t guarantee behaviour. But they at least show an intent, signal an expectation, and importantly layout an agenda for a pre-emptive discussion. All of which endorse a brand’s ethical position and clearly signpost that stance to partners, suppliers and stakeholders.
This blog’s wordcount is only the tip of the iceberg regarding this debate, but my ultimate conclusion is not so much that innocent guilt exists, but that guilty innocence is unacceptable and inadvisable for any marketer in this day and age.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)