Creating Effective Dialogue About Corporate Social Responsibility

Large companies with corporate social responsibility (CSR) policies in place are not always trusted or believed. How can companies address this communication challenge? One common strategy is to disseminate a great deal of information — everything from detailed CSR reports to overviews of your initiatives — on the Web and on popular social networks. The goal is transparency about your CSR activities.

But even proactive, transparent CSR communications often ignore the issues about which stakeholders are most curious. Moreover, stakeholders sometimes believe corporations communicate opportunistically about CSR commitments. Pushing CSR-related communications messages at the public can foment mistrust and foster indifference. People do not seem to pay much attention to information disseminated by companies. For example, a CSR branding study conducted in 2010 by the market research company Penn Schoen Berland, in conjunction with the public relations and communications firm Burson-Marsteller, found that only 11% of U.S. adults recalled having heard CSR communication from any company in the previous year, and only 13% had read about a company’s CSR agenda on a corporate website.

Given the poor payoff of CSR communications strategies, some companies choose to believe that actions speak louder than words. They strive to do good rather than to expend resources talking about their efforts. Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc., a quick-service restaurant chain based in Denver, Colorado, has never published a CSR report. The company has instead built its reputation for social responsibility on policies such as using antibiotic-free meat. When Bloomberg Businessweek asked Chipotle’s spokesperson why the company had never issued a CSR report, he replied that the company would rather invest in taking action than in talking about it.

What’s the best way for a company to take concrete actions? One way is through strategic partnerships in the nonprofit and NGO (nongovernmental organization) community. But these partnerships are not without risks. For every company like Intel Corp. — whose work with community solutions programs in Africa has been well received — there are companies whose efforts are perceived as mercenary.

How can companies counter negative perceptions of their CSR efforts — and discover what kinds of collaborations and conversations stakeholders want to engage in? And how can companies start addressing the CSR topics that are truly relevant to stakeholders?

Seeking answers to these questions, we interviewed 70 representatives of key stakeholders in the joined worlds of CSR and business: NGOs, financial analysts, media, institutional actors, experts in business ethics, and employees. We asked their opinions about how corporations known for their commitment to CSR might involve them in their CSR programs. Next, we analyzed the practices of 95 companies scoring high on 33 CSR-related indices.

Most of the companies we studied rely on several methods for fostering online dialogue with stakeholders about CSR. But the majority of these methods are not successful. Stakeholders do not participate in the dialogue as companies expect — mainly because it’s the corporations who are setting the agenda. “Even when organizations claim they have a conversation with stakeholders about key CSR issues, they are actually just having conversations about the things [the companies] decide to have conversations about,” noted one of our respondents. Hence, stakeholders feel that the dialogue is too confined — more like a monologue to a captive audience.

From our research, we developed four suggestions for engaging in a credible CSR dialogue with your stakeholders:

1. Cultivate a balance between controlling and cocreating the dialogue.

Stakeholders reject dialogues controlled by corporations; they welcome dialogues allowing them to express their opinions. Engaging stakeholders means you’ll have to strike a balance between controlling the conversation and allowing the stakeholders to cocreate the conversation through methods such as crowdsourced dialogues, which we describe below.

Many companies rely too heavily on what we call a directed dialogue. For example, the corporation may produce a video about a project in which one of its CSR partners answers questions or comments only on specific parts of the project. Thus, the company has complete control over what is said. Dissent is not allowed. How can any stakeholder feel as if this is a genuine, two-way conversation?

A second method, which we call the open-script dialogue, allows only a few, selected outside participants. As opposed to what happens in a directed dialogue, here the company confers to those selected participants some degree of control over the interaction. One example is when an outside participant produces online videos about the company’s CSR efforts — or appears in the videos as a third party moderating the discussion or asking questions. In this way, the script of the dialogue is open to some degree of spontaneity; dissent may have its place. This, however, does not happen often. Companies often choose to engage only with like-minded participants.

By contrast, what we call a moderated dialogue takes place through online forums or social media. All users may freely participate, without having to register or become a member to gain access. The company invites users to debate specific topics and moderates the discussions. Anyone interested in discussing a particular topic under consideration (for example, sustainable cities) may participate. However, the conversation does not get published in real time. Users are only allowed to answer questions proposed by the corporation. In addition, the corporation decides which subjects shall be discussed. For all of these reasons — and because the corporations filter every opinion about every subject — dissent in moderated dialogues is very rare.

Unlike a moderated dialogue, a crowdsourced dialogue allows participants outside the company to choose the topics. Third-party CSR organizations often host crowdsourced dialogues, proposing the topic and leading the discussion. Dissent, whether in the form of different points of view or criticism of a company’s current policies and practices, is allowed.

2. Work with stakeholders to address their concerns.

Two of the four cocreation processes described above — open-script dialogue and crowdsourced dialogue — allow legitimate dissent to emerge. This means that the corporations using those methods are open to changing, or at least welcoming debate about, their CSR policies. But how should a corporation manage dissent once it arises? Our research indicated that the only reasonable thing to do is to address the root causes of stakeholders’ concerns. The best way to do this is to invest in projects that are cocreated with them from the beginning.

For example, we found that the Paris-based food company Danone — an excellent generator of open-script dialogue — is active in cocreating social businesses with its stakeholders. These projects generally take place in a local community. Nonprofit partners generally propose the projects and work in collaboration with Danone at every phase.

Danone has also demonstrated responsiveness to stakeholders’ concerns. In 2012, after the NGO Greenpeace had criticized the environmental practices of a Danone supplier, Asia Pulp & Paper Group, Danone stopped purchasing from Asia Pulp & Paper and subsequently announced a “forest footprint” policy that included a goal of reducing the deforestation impacts from the company’s supply chain to zero by 2020.

3. Facilitate a practical dialogue that is a learning experience for everyone involved.

Managing CSR communications often means cultivating relationships directly with stakeholders rather than with society as a whole. The only way companies can cultivate these stakeholder relationships is if they demonstrate that they know how to listen, too. One of our research participants explained that what he wanted was to know that he was being heard. “I would like to write to someone and receive a personalized answer to my simple and concrete concern,” he said.

Stakeholders want concrete answers to everyday problems; they want companies to help stakeholders improve their lives and the world they live in. Corporations should revamp their CSR communications to provide useful suggestions for stakeholders who are simply looking for ways to do good in the world and in their communities. Likewise, companies should work as connectors, allowing stakeholders to discover each other and learn from one another.

One corporation doing this well is Alcoa Inc., a leading global company in lightweight metals technology, engineering, and manufacturing. The company created an app that helps its stakeholders — including its own employees — learn about aluminum recycling. The app allows stakeholders to measure their green lifestyle and to ask experts practical questions about recycling.

Another example is Novo Nordisk A/S, a global health care company based in Bagsværd, Denmark, that is known for its leadership in diabetes treatment. Novo Nordisk uses its Twitter account to give voice to anyone who will educate others about Novo Nordisk’s CSR initiatives, including programs for dealing with diabetes in children. Users sometimes get engaged in micro-conversations with Novo Nordisk. Other times, they tweet links to articles educating people about the CSR activities Novo Nordisk is pursuing.

A third example comes from Telefónica S.A., a telecommunications company based in Madrid. RConversa is Telefónica’s digital platform for debating issues that are socially, environmentally, or technologically relevant for society. RConversa works like a third-party knowledge-center website that creates knowledge through conversations about a variety of CSR issues. It is possible to enter ongoing conversations on the site at any point, as there is a timeline that allows you to trace previous discussion threads on the topic. Also, every four or five months, the company posts a summary of each conversation. The platform is highly participative and includes dissenting opinions that foster critical thinking.

4. Create platforms that invite stakeholders to influence the implementation of CSR initiatives.

Stakeholders want companies to be open to new ways of implementing and promoting CSR. They feel that corporations have been setting the agenda for a long time — and not always for the better.

One corporation engaging in this type of dialogue is the Zurich-based reinsurance and insurance company Swiss Re, which runs a digital platform called Open Minds. On the Open Minds platform, Swiss Re invites governments, citizens, and organizations to discuss society’s challenges and to explore solutions.

Another example is Shell Ideas360, an open-competition platform initiated by Shell. Students from universities worldwide are invited to develop game-changing ideas for tackling energy, water, and food issues. Students can think virtually without any limitations and propose futuristic projects that may be difficult to implement but have the potential to change how these social issues are addressed.

The Shell Ideas360 platform is not merely a space to submit projects. It also allows students to find partners (in the form of other students around the world) with whom they can develop their ideas. In addition, it provides an open chat room with experts who can act as coaches. In this way, Shell is correctly placing an emphasis on the CSR challenges, rather than on itself. This type of approach is what stakeholders want to see. As one of our respondents asserted, “The organization shouldn’t place itself first, because attention should be directed to the subjects under discussion.” The big idea here is simple: Companies need to demonstrate their commitment to listening to stakeholders — and to pursuing an authentic and effective dialogue around CSR topics.