Checklist for CSR

As Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is increasingly drifting from its moral and ethical base, I have proposed a checklist for communicators to use when reviewing the validity of CSR strategies.

The historic reason for CSR activities being developed by organizations was recognition of their role in society. From the 1950s onwards, forward-looking businesses accepted that their purpose was not only to make a profit but did so in order to improve society.

“CSR” is now frequently used as a marketing ploy with little relationship to “doing good”. It’s becoming another form of ‘greenwashing’ where a patina of social engagement is wrapped around product and service marketing. Even the graphic symbols of CSR frequently show the world being saved and green shoots rising from coins, which are gross over-statements.

The 10-point checklist calls on communicators and executives to ensure that motives for CSR are clear and honorable; that policies and activities are created by consultation; that there is a commitment to CSR, not just a short-term advantage; and resources are in place, along with governance, to make sure policies stay on track.

•       Motives? Is something being hidden?

•       Dialogue before CSR policies are announced?

•       Employees and other stakeholders involved?

•       Long-term commitment or short-term advantage?

•       Mutually beneficial outcomes or ‘licence to operate’?

•       Resources to implement?

•       Senior management “owns” the policies? Or a functional task?

•       CSR governance structure?

•       How will ‘value’ and ‘benefit’ be assessed?

•       Is the policy ethical? Can you live with it?

CSR, Corporate Responsibility and Sustainability are valuable concepts and actions that bring business closer to society. I hope the checklist will aid formation of CSR actions that benefit everyone – management, employees and communities.

The checklist was launched at the Middle East Public Relations Association Symposium in Dubai on March 20 and will be presented in Australia at a public lecture to be held at Macquarie University on Thursday April 10.

Memo to Rob Flaherty

It’s been announced that Rob Flaherty, CEO of the Ketchum PR consultancy group, is be keynote speaker at AMEC’s European Summit on Measurement in June. According to Ketchum’s PR Newswire message, he will be calling for “unified effort to establish measurement as key tool”.

I don’t know Rob but have met his predecessors David Drobis and Ray Kotcher. I have a lot of time for the consultancy’s immensely likeable European CEO, David Gallagher who, like me, is a former PRCA chairman. There are lots of very able people at Ketchum, so this “memo to Rob” is offered collegially.

Having researched the history and practice of PR measurement and evaluation since 1992, this issue comes around again and again. Nothing new is said and PR people continue not to evaluate.

I have delved recently into the International Public Relations Association (IPRA) archive which starts in 1953 and am planning to write a paper on the practice topics that appear decade after decade. For industry leaders who think they have a new insight to offer: forget it, it has probably been said ten times before. There is little institutional memory in the business.

For Rob’s address to the Madrid jamboree, here is a timeline about PR measurement and evaluation (see also Watson, 2012).

1905/6: The Publicity Bureau of Boston, which Scott Cutlip says was the first PR agency in the US, developed the ‘Barometer’. It was a researched guide to the attitudes and interests of newspaper editors to help with accurate placement of editorial material.

1920s onwards: AVEs and multipliers start to be used in press agentry and publicity work in the US. They continue to this day.

1928 to mid-1940s: Arthur W. Page uses extensive opinion research to shape AT&T’s communications, public relations and customer-facing behaviours.

1950s onwards: Cutlip and Center’s PII (Preparation, Implementation, Impact) model of PR planning and measurement appears in the still-published Effective Public Relations. Generations of PR practitioners have been taught PII.

1977: James Grunig, in association with AT&T, starts continuing academic research into measurement and evaluation. This leads to a flowering of research and publication that continues to now.

1990: Glenn Broom and David Dozier publish the still-excellent Using Research in Public Relations, which has been used extensively around the world.

1993: Walter Lindenmann, who worked for H&K and Ketchum, introduces his Three-Step Yardstick of Outputs, Out-take and Outcome. It has become the standard terminology of public relations measurement.

Late 1990s: The three-year-long 'Proof' campaign to promote best practice in PR planning, research and evaluation is launched in PR Week (UK) in collaboration with PRCA and the-then IPR (now CIPR).

2010: The Barcelona Principles, a benchmark statement of existing practices, is launched by AMEC and supported by PR organisations widely.

My case is that practitioners have been offered well-developed methods of PR measurement and evaluation from at least the late 1970s onwards. In 2008, a paper by Anne Gregory and me reviewed the range of methodology and called for practitioners to use it. No further basic research was needed, we said. There were no knowledge barriers; it was time to borrow Nike’s theme and for PR people to “just do it”.

There have been innumerable books written and industry initiatives conducted, but there is still very low take-up by practitioners. Only recently, a Ragan survey found that around two-thirds of US practitioners had not heard of the Barcelona Principles. So it’s not methods that are needed, it is for practitioners to open their minds and change their behaviours.

So Rob, when you stand on the Madrid platform with your “roadmap on the future of PR”, please propose that practitioners take their own futures in their hands and apply the PR measurement and evaluation methods that have been around for decades. They are well-proven.

Best wishes, TOM


Here’s some reading to help you prepare the paper

Broom, G.M. & Dozier, D.M. (1990). Using research in public relations. Englewood Cliff, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Gregory, A., & Watson, T., (2008). Defining the gap between research and practice in public relations programme evaluation – towards a new research agenda. Journal of Marketing Communications, 14(5), 337-350.

Lindenmann, W.K. (2006). Public relations research for planning and evaluation. Gainesville, FL: Institute for Public Relations. Available from: http://www.instituteforpr.org/topics/pr-research-for-planning-and-evaluation/ 

Watson, T. (2012). The evolution of public relations measurement and evaluation. Public Relations Review, 38(3), 390-398. DOI:10.1016/j.pubrev.2011.12.1018.

ROE may be more accurate than ROI

I was interested in Andrew Smith’s post on CIPR's Conversations blog (March 22) about Oliver Blanchard’s book Social Media ROI. However, both blogger and book shared same old misunderstanding of Return on Investment (ROI)'s application to PR.

Through 2011 and 2012, there was a three-nation debate about whether ROI was appropriate for public relations or not. It was carried out by PR academics and practitioners in Germany, UK and US.

[It is available on the IPR’s website (http://www.instituteforpr.org/) and academic research is online at PRism journal, (http://www.prismjournal.org/vol8_1.html).

At its heart was the contention by Prof Ansgar Zerfass (Leipzig University, Germany) and me that practitioners mis-apply ROI to their disadvantage. In 2011 we undertook a Europe-wide study of practitioners’ understanding and usage of the ROI concept.

The sample of more than 2000 responses showed wide national variations but generally, practitioners had very loose, inaccurate views of ROI’s application. These very different to classic definitions of the term as a ratio of monetary value created, divided by the costs incurred and multiplied by 100.

Where PR folks get it wrong, is that unlike a business ROI which related to capital expenditure over time, their ROI fail to account for all costs, don’t have a hard-edged financial objective and rely on estimates and not accountancy. So what their figures are not recognisable as a ‘return on the capital employed’. They are guesses which are not related to the specific financial management term.

In most cases, intangible results of public relations activity did not lead to financial outcomes. This is especially relevant in governmental and non-profit organisational communication even though there are attempts to employ "ROI" in those fields.

Our conclusion was that ROI was an inappropriate term for public relations measurement and evaluation. This conclusion was supported by the eminent PR theorist Prof James E. Grunig who wrote that he would “cease and desist” from using ROI in the public relations context.

In the US, Prof Don Stacks of Miami University contends that, rather than creating a PR-ROI, the practice should consider a Return on Expectations (ROE) measurement which could cover both financial and non-financial situations. He has published on this recently. His case is worth considering.

PR's future: Sing along with Tammy Wynette

Ten days ago, I posted on the PR Moment blog calling for a divorce between publicity/PR and strategic communication #. This blog reviews 10 responses which came from the UK, USA, Canada and Sweden and a separate poll of PR Moment readers.
Also, that well-known Northumbrian blogger Stephen Waddington penned a response on the PR Moment blog with the catchy title of “Elementary my dear Watson”. I was honoured!

What surprised me was the consensus for the admittedly difficult to achieve “PR divorce” proposal. Several respondents were in some form of complete agreement. I needed an extra glass of wine to cope with the shock.

Nick Grant referred to the PR=Publicity problem as the ’elephant in the room’, while Craig Fleisher and Fraser Likely commented that there is a trend to a separate strategic communication practice and body of knowledge already.

Even the 26% level of support for the split, shown in the PR Moment poll, was a plus. PR research over many years has found that more than 80% of practitioner effort goes on media relations and publicity. So 74% rejection is a positive trend, and was predicted by Canadian commentator Fraser Likely.

It will be a Long March for change, so what next?

- Unhook strategic communication from Marcoms at all levels. As suggested before, encourage publicity and Marcoms practitioners to form their own associations or link to CIM (marketing professional bodies). As Jesper Falkheimer noted, this is already happening in Scandinavia.

- Bring together online resources about best practice and theory in strategic communication and make them accessible to managers. There are already academic journals and leading texts in the field, as well as conferences.

- In the interim, demand that PR bodies give more recognition to strategic communication in their awards; the standard of many awards is woefully poor because if their focus on junk data and public (a point made by Fraser Likely)

- Starting with the Global Alliance, get it to drop ’public relations’ from its title and focus more on the 'communication management'. This would encourage PR bodies to reorganise and retitle towards strategic communication. For instance, the Institute of Public Relations (IPR) could become the Institute for Strategic Communication, as that is the overwhelming theme of its work.

So let's sing along with Tammy Wynette for “D-I-V-O-R-C-E” for strategic communication from Marcoms/Publicity. (But not in our private lives).   # http://blog.prmoment.com/brand-publicity-and-strategic-communications-are-two-different-professions-says-bournemouth-universitys-prof-tom-watson/  

Valid and Reliable? Why PR experts may be wrong

This is a difficult blog to write. It has the potential to upset some really committed folks who put a lot of time into thinking about public relations. However, it has the possibility for a very positive outcome.

Some practitioners are kind enough to give guest lectures to students. Others (some the same people) write blogs. A few commit themselves to writing 250-300 pages of a book, and the publishing grind that goes with it. They are good people. And it’s almost a ‘golden age’ of expert practitioners contributing to PR and corpcomms development in the UK.

But they are missing out on two vital concepts that could make their commentaries and books even more valuable. They are ‘valid’ and ‘reliable’ which are key components for producing best practice and theory that can really advise practitioners and make PR more effective.

Here are some examples of the type of commentary and “theorising” that comes unstuck. The first was a challenge to Jim’s Grunig’s concept of “symmetrical communications” which is based wholly on anecdotes and personal observation. The Grunig concept is not without challenge in the academic world but case studies and structured research are applied, not anecdotes and assertions.

The second was a set of “brainstormed” set of six descriptions of communications operations prepared by a PR organisation without any evidence there had been any preparatory study (this is not a new topic) or consistent research method applied. Neither of these assertions has “validity” or “reliability” for application in either practice or theory. They may be insightful but are just informed guesses.

Why is theory valuable for PR? Essentially, it aids prediction: “A sound theory is the conceptual foundation for reliable knowledge; theories help us to explain and predict phenomena of interest to us and, therefore, to make intelligent practical decisions” (Frankfort-Nachmias & Nachmias 1992). The outcomes of applied theory are organization, explanation, prediction and greater control of the situation. All these factors help practitioners build campaigns and programmes which are more likely to achieve their objectives because they are built on a valid, reliable base.

Can practitioners develop commentary and assertions into theory? Yes they can, and it’s very productive. In Australia, evaluation expert and commentator Jim Macnamara developed high-standard academic research skills and is now a widely quoted expert (and latterly a professor). Another approach is the research partnership of Chicago consultancy boss Lou Williams and San Diego professor David Dozier who for many years have researched best practice in internal communications. Their work is highly rated. In the US, practice research is fostered by the Institute for Public Relations (see its excellent www.instituteforpr.org) which gets industry backing for the type of robust research that practitioners look up to.

In the UK, is it time for industry to support continuing research into practice by creating an equivalent to the Institute for Public Relations? Partnerships, with some funding, between academic and the PR experts will produce enduring results. I hope so because there is so much energy and enthusiasm to be applied that could result in ‘valid and reliable’ outcomes for the PR sector.

Educating for Complexity - the best way forward for PR education?

The US-based Commission on Public Relations Education (Commpred) recently produced a report on standards for Master’s degrees in PR. Titled “Educating for Complexity”, it discusses two models of degrees – Professional Graduate and Academic Graduate - in terms of their outcomes and curricula. This post summarises the findings but detail can be found in the report: http://www.commpred.org/educatingforcomplexity/

1)    Professional Master’s program

“teaches the nuances of public relations and management techniques as well as leadership, business and communication skills … (it will provide)

·         An appreciation for the importance of globalization, entrepreneurship and technology in today’s business environment

·         An understanding of the interactions of the key functional aspects of an organization

·         An understanding of the role of communication in society and the ethical challenges of global public relations

·         Well-developed leadership skills and understanding of business

·         An understanding of, and the skills necessary to participate in, effective teamwork

·         Improved critical thinking and problem-solving skills

·         Social science research and evaluation knowledge and skills

·         Cutting edge communication management abilities

2)    Academic Master’s program

“build(s) on the same outcomes of a professional master’s program … (with) additional understanding of theory and social science methods so that (students) will be prepared to enter doctoral programs”. The additional outcomes would be:

·         Thorough knowledge of public relations theories and principles

·         Advanced critical thinking skills

·         Social science research skills to test new theories

·         Skills to work in applied public relations research

·         Skills to teach undergraduate public relations

·         Preparation to enter and succeed in public relations doctoral programs

However, the report found that employers:

·         Emphasized “characteristics of applicants” when hiring rather than knowledge or skills

·         Considered the Master’s degree was preparation for entry level jobs but expected professional experience (internships, etc) in addition to the degree

·         Tended to hire people who understand the management of public relations and not just its tactics

·         “Although they stress the need for writing skills, advanced positions on public relations involved setting strategy based on understanding of client needs, the client’s competition and the specific business settings. Because of this, they continued to express preferences for hiring people with degrees in the humanities and business and/or seeking people with “intellectual capabilities, leadership potential, that would make them ‘critical thinkers’ and ‘creative and innovative’.”

·         Called for a better brand for graduate PR education

Master’s degree core curriculum

Five curriculum areas should form the core of the two models of PR Master’s programs

·         Strategic public relations management

·         Basic business principles and processes

·         Communication/public relations theory and research methods

·         Global influences on the practice of public relations

·         Ethics

The Commpred report gives more detail on the content of each of these elements. After completing the core units, students would a make a “fork in the road” choice of either the Professional or Academic program.

For the Professional path, they would undertake

·         Courses in areas of PR specialization, e.g. healthcare promotion, sports PR, etc or units from other academic programs which align with PR and communications studies.

·         An internship or “co-operative education experience” for those without a UG degree or professional experience prior to study; or a more advanced experience for students who are already working professionals.

For the Academic path, in preparation for doctoral studies, they would undertake:

·         Additional research courses

·         A thesis

The report is soundly researched and written by experts but is it really what the PR industry wants and universities can provide?

What’s missing? My suggestion is that it is a very corporatist in its outlook and hasn’t taken on board the impact of social media and PR 2.0.

The Melbourne Mandate – another missed opportunity?

The major outcome of the World Public Relations Forum in Melbourne (November 18-20) is to be the ‘Melbourne Mandate’, a four-page document that is presented as “A call for action for new areas of value in public relations and communication management”.

I have been sent a late consultation draft for review. Overall, there's nothing offensive in it but it has a limited perspective. There is much Excellence Theory crossed with relationship management and CSR but also some ethical relativism that could be eliminated by stronger statements.

http://www.globalalliancepr.org/website/page/melbourne-mandate

My research over 20 years has found that (a) 75-80% of PR practitioners are essentially one-way communicators, either performing an informational or a publicity/marketing "PR" roles and (b) there are many ethical dilemmas that face younger practitioners, which PR codes of conduct and practice overlook.

The model on which the Mandate is based is essentially that of the senior corporate communicator who has the ear of senior management or, in a limited number of cases, is a member of the management team (the Grunigian "dominant coalition"). It doesn’t address the bulk of junior and mid-level practitioners who make up GA's 160,000 members.

 There has been much discussion over the past 20 years ranging from Harold Burson to Jim Grunig to Derina Holtzhausen about the PR practitioner at the centre of the business, its "conscience" or in Holtzhausen's model, a post-modern activist who is the advocate of voices and stakeholders (internal and external) to senior management.

The Mandate "sort-of" positions the PR practitioner as a credible intermediary but it is primarily to achieve the organisation's aims. For example, it says PR practitioners have a mandate to "help leaders best communicate these beliefs to inspire stakeholders to follow, support, or change behaviour".  But, where is the fundamental imperative to ‘bring organisations and stakeholders together to create mutual benefit'? I'd prefer to see the PR practitioner more clearly positioned as the activist intermediary.

I consider the Mandate needs absolute values to be expressed, such as 'PR practitioners will tell the truth in all personal and written communication (Ivy Lee stated this in 1906 but never really delivered on it) and 'they have the imperative to do good and create mutual benefit throughout their working lives.'

There are weasel words expressed, such as "be guardians of the organization's character and values" (but what if it is a rapacious corporate raider?) and "build trust through enduring and respectful relationships with internal and external relationships".

I have hinted at relativism, e.g. the promotion of organisational values that are dubious. Many CEOs, for example, still adhere to the Milton Friedman and Martin Wolf views of CSR that the company's prime responsibility is to its shareholders, whilst operating within laws and regulations. That may be unfashionable in PR/Corpcomms but it is widely held. The Mandate could be reads as if it endorses that view, which could also be the "authentic organisation", beloved of the Arthur W. Page Society.

There should be another imperative that managers will not use their power to distort the ethical compass of junior staff by asking them to undertake activities or prepare communication which they know are not truthful. When students come back from placements or as young graduates speak with me and colleagues, we are often disappointed that employers put pressure on them to "gild the lily" or to engage in unethical practices (e.g. write fake consumer feedback on websites), with the implied pressure that "it's my way or the highway". Either do what you're told or get another job. This is rife.

 As for the bulk of practitioners who engage in publicity activities, the Mandate should be saying that "communication on behalf of employers, clients and brands should not over-state the value of products and services that distorts the expectations of consumers and other stakeholders."

 My final thought is that the Mandate should be openly discussing the impact of social media upon organisations, PR practitioners and communications practices. There are elements such as the emphasis on relationships, the "culture of listening and engagement" but social media has changed the rules. As we all know, the notion of control (if it ever existed) over communication has gone forever. That means that transparency and ethical behaviour are not optional but central to the organisational 'licence to operate' and credibility.

 In summary, the Mandate needs to be shortened, made ethically tighter and more explicitly expressed. It also needs to have a commitment from GA members that it will be enforced. I have reviewed the IPRA archive and found that from 1965 when its Code of Athens ethical statement was adopted to 2002, there were no actions against members. 37 years and no unethical behaviour? It appears to have been talk and nothing more. The Mandate should aim to avoid a similar fate.

Welcome to FiftyOneZeroOne

This blog is the successor to DummySpit, my WordPress blog that was started in 2007. It will comment on public relations, history, politics and Winchester.

Why FiftyOneZeroOne? It's geographical as Winchester, where I live is 51N, 1W when latitude and longitude are taken into account. I've lived here for nearly 35 years, so it's now "where I am from", although I doubt I'll ever become a Wintonian.

So keep in touch and I look forward to your comments and dialogue.