Tag Archives: stakeholder communications

Are We Moving Forward? The State of Play for CSR in the Middle East (Part One)

Posted on by
2
This report aimed to uncover insights into how CSR is both perceived and practised in the region (image source: The National)

Corporate Social Responsibility… What is it exactly, and what are organizations doing about it? The UAE-based PR agency Cicero & Bernay Public Relations teamed up with research firm YouGov to understand opinions about the subject across the Gulf, in Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon.

The methodology was simple. The research team surveyed 219 C-suite executives from the UAE, KSA, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman, Jordan, Lebanon, and Egypt. The respondents included decision-makers in key sectors, including aviation,
automotive, banking and finance, construction and real estate, healthcare, and transport (importantly, it doesn’t mention if companies were private or semi-government). Data was collected online. The survey was 16 questions long, and the survey was undertaken in either English or Arabic. The pie charts below detail the industry type and country.

Now, let’s start with the big question. How many executives understand what CSR is? The picture here is mixed, with executives in the UAE claiming they know what CSR is, and those in the Gulf outside of the UAE and Saudi Arabia saying they don’t know what CSR is. I’m always a little wary of do you/don’t you questions, as people will often claim knowledge they don’t have (for example, ask anyone if they recycle – no one will say no). What would be fascinating is to compare these sample numbers with global samples, to contrast awareness levels with other regions.

Do Executives Understand CSR?

Moving on, the survey asks how well do you understand CSR. Most respondents say they understand the concept fairly well, with only the UAE having a majority saying they understand CSR very well. There may be a couple of reasons for this. The most obvious may be the number of multinationals (MNCs) based in the UAE. The survey doesn’t mention if executives are from MNCs, but even if they’re not, it may be the influence of MNCs on the regional landscape. It could also be executives overplaying how much they really know.

Defining What CSR Is, And Isn’t

The third question refers to statements to help define what CSR is that respondents either agree or disagree with. CSR is defined here is a traditional sense, in terms of donations (this would fit into what happens on the ground). However, executives don’t feel that CSR should involve companies “making some sacrifices”, and CSR may not have any link to good moral values. The majority of executives also believe that CSR is part of a reputation-building strategy, and that companies should get involved in specific issues (I rarely see this happening). Executives mainly believe that they should be CSR-certified (this is an interesting response, as there’s so few CSR certifications locally). Statement seven is a bizarre one, about CSR being a trade barrier enacted by Western companies – while the majority seem to say they believe this here, country breakdown percentages are much lower, so I assume there’s some data error here. And finally, most executives believe that the primary social responsibility is to make as much profit as possible – I bet their shareholders are proud of this.

Trust and Organizations

The fourth area of focus is on the trust bump a brand can get from engaging in CSR. There’s a general consensus that socially responsible brands are much more trusted than those that are not.

Likewise, there’s a belief among the majority of those surveyed that socially responsible companies can charge a premium for their products or services. And 55 percent said they would not buy a product from a socially irresponsible company. The same sentiments are also reflected in a further question about choosing socially responsible brands over others – the majority of respondents in every country said they’d do this. Finally, most executives said they’d advise friends or family to buy products and services from a socially responsible company. While this information is eye-opening, it begs the question as to why more companies aren’t more engaged in CSR if they see it as a major reputational benefit for their brands that both allows for increased profits and growth with socially-conscious consumers (we’ll get onto that later on, in section two).

Who Is Doing What Regarding CSR?

Now we move on what what people know about who is doing CSR, and where. In the UAE at least, there seems to be an awareness of which countries and which companies are doing CSR (as a country, the UAE has been especially active in developing national CSR programs). In Saudi there’s a higher awareness of which companies are active in CSR. The UAE is seen as the most active country, with 53% of respondents saying the country is the most active in CSR, followed by Saudi at 17% and Egypt at 10%.

That’s it for this post. I’ll write more tomorrow, including on employer branding and also the pandemic’s impact on CSR.

What can Brexit tell us about the importance of listening to communications

Posted on by
Reply

Was the Brexit vote a result of politicians not listening to voters? And what does this mean for us communicators? (image source: Asda.com)

For many, the events of last week were a shock of the greatest magnitude. The vote for Britain to leave the European Union wasn’t foreseen, even by the pollsters, those professionals whose vocation it is to use real-time data to build a picture of how the mass population will vote. Even the Exit camp had foreseen a narrow defeat.

Much of the post-event analysis has asked why people voted for Brexit and how everyone misunderstood the public mood. Reporting has focused on those areas of England in the North which have suffered as a result of the closure of heavy industries in the 1980s. One theory as to why more Brits voted for Brexit than for Bremain would seem to be, “we’ve suffered for years, and you haven’t listened. This is our rejection of Westminster and the politics in London.”

It’s an interesting observation, especially when one considers that the areas which pushed to leave the EU received fewer immigrants and received the most aid from the European Union. The idea that the electorate punished the politicians for failing to listen is a compelling one, and it offers a reminder to all organizations that listening to their stakeholders is key to success.

By listening and understanding the views of these groups, be they the public, consumers, customers, or members, organizations can better represent those they wish to engage with and talk to. Organizations, particularly those which aim to speak on behalf of a certain constituency, should comprehend that they can only lead through having the needs of their members at heart, and building trust through asking their stakeholders what is important to them.

The example is no different in our region, where organizations are often led top-down and executives rarely interact with their members or stakeholder groups. If Brexit proves anything to us communicators, it is that we must be the link between those on the inside and others on the outside, to develop and provide the means for these groups to talk to each other and for differing opinions to be heard in an environment which is conducive to understanding. There was little of this in evidence among many Brexit voters, not just during the campaign but for years prior to the vote.

As a recap, active listening helps to improves mutual understanding and trust and enables the listener to receive and accurately interpret the speaker’s message. Active listening doesn’t just help with building trust and respect, but it also helps to reduce tension, encourage information sharing and creates an environment that promote collaboration and problem solving. It’s key to communications and is a skill that a good communicator should possess and practice.

Conversely, organizations who don’t listen end up becoming irrelevant, and serve no purpose than to fulfill the wishes of their management rather than those which they aim to represent.

There’s much more to talk about when it comes to communications and Brexit, including the use of positive and negative messaging to influence voter outcomes and why those areas with the most to lose in terms of EU funding voted for Brexit. There was obviously a disconnect between the politicians and voters on the Bremain side, which wasn’t the case with the Brexit politicians. However, as we’re only just at the beginning of this story, I’ll save that post for another occasion.