Executives ignore sociopolitical debates at
their own peril. – Second of two installments
Blurring boundaries between responsibilities
and laws
It is increasingly unclear who should provide
basic social services (eg, pensions, public-health
services, school infrastructure), regulate business
and personal behavior (eg, self-regulation vs
government oversight), and be accountable for
protecting rights, public goods, and resources.
What it means for business (selected
examples):
- Responsibility for obesity shifting
from individuals to companies in food and beverage
sectors
- Provision of insurance benefits shifting
from employer to employee
Since 1990, more than 100,000 new citizens'
groups have been established around the world. Even
in China, a country not known for freedom of political
expression, the number of social protests increased
from just under 10,000 in 1993 to more than 58,000
in 2003.1 The balance of power has shifted in favor
of individuals and small single-issue groups
increasingly armed with tools and tactics that can
easily be deployed through the Internet. Trust in
nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), citizens'
groups, and online information sources has risen as
inexorably as faith in business—Enron, WorldCom—
has declined.
Management's slow reaction
Large organizations must shift their thinking in
this area. Typically, businesses are taken by surprise
when faced with negative press and stakeholder
pressure. After all, they provide plenty of benefits to
society—products of good quality or low prices—and
employ vast numbers of people. Yet the rising tide of
expectations means that companies must now strive
to anticipate and understand those expectations and
to embed them in their business strategy.
In the banking industry, for example, money
center banks have been caught out by higher
expectations. Criticized for making loans to
companies that damage the environment, several
have now pledged, in different ways, to restrict their
lending and underwriting for industrial projects that
would have an adverse environmental impact. These
moves were largely reactions to protests coordinated
by the Rainforest Action Network.
Companies are often on the defensive because
CEOs and others in the top team find it difficult to
wield what Harvard's Joseph Nye calls "soft forms of
power"2 or to deal with players, such as NGOs, that
trade in emotional arguments. By comparison with
the hard skills and in-depth knowledge of most senior
executives, sociopolitical issues require
statesmanship, the fostering of relationships with
stakeholders, and the nurturing of assets that could
be called "reputational." Irritatingly for many
executives, the arguments of pressure groups are
frequently low on evidence. Furthermore, estimating
the impact of most sociopolitical trends on corporate
value requires executives to make assumptions and
test sensitivities that MBA textbooks generally don't
discuss.
How to manage these forces
We believe that the case for adopting a
wholeheartedly strategic approach to the
sociopolitical agenda is threefold. First, these forces
can alter an industry's landscape in fundamental
ways. In pharmaceuticals, for instance, social
concerns about the cost and safety of the industry's
products, as well as access to them, have made the
regulatory environment tougher during the past
decade. CEOs should take part in the debate so that
they, their employees, and their investors have a
stable set of rules.
Second, the immediate financial and longer-term
reputational impact of social issues that backfire can
be enormous. Ask Monsanto, which lost significant
market value in the backlash against genetically
modified organisms (GMOs) in the European Union, or
ExxonMobil, whose cleanup costs for the Exxon
Valdez oil spill amounted to $2 billion—on top of $5
billion in lawsuits.
Finally, new product or market strategies can
emerge from changing social and political forces.
Toyota Motor's success with the Prius can be
attributed to a growing interest in environmentally
friendly products. Unilever's innovative product
offerings in developing countries, such as its Wheel
detergent brand in India, were a response to the
unmet needs of lower-income consumers there.
At the practical level, a company can take a
number of steps aimed at making its approach to
sociopolitical issues more strategic. It can
develop "radar" systems to anticipate future risks and
opportunities, master the range of options available
for dealing with them, engage in the external debate,
and ensure that the entire organization takes part in
a coherent and forceful way.
Develop reliable radar
Sociopolitical issues and regulatory shifts may
appear to come out of the blue. But the success of
savvy newcomers such as Whole Foods Market
confirms the fact that companies can indeed spot
new trends and that early-warning signs of imminent
change are plentiful. Not all issues, of course, evolve
in a way that changes the social contract.
Nonetheless, an early awareness of the concerns of
NGOs and stakeholders enables companies to join and
shape the debate before it turns against them—or at
least to prepare themselves for turbulence ahead.
Businesses that end up publicly fighting their
stakeholders can well damage the brand or destroy
the morale of their employees; much better to
engage in a minor strategic foray than to be forced
into a full-scale war.
In fact, our survey suggests that executives
already know that they need to anticipate social
pressure much more successfully. In our view, they
should use systematic methods, including trusted
techniques such as economic analysis and scenario
planning, to evaluate the strategic impact of
sociopolitical trends. If companies had tracked topics
such as the obesity debate in the media, they would
have become aware that reports on those issues
were appearing more and more frequently in the mid-
1990s. But volume alone isn't a sufficient guide. New
evidence from, say, a well-respected academic can
quickly change the dynamics of an argument. The
obesity debate is one of those that took a significant
turn during the 1990s. We can measure the change
by following articles in the New York Times (Exhibit
3): blame for the problem shifted from individuals
(overeating, lack of exercise) to "environmental"
causes, including corporate marketing. The new
outlook was at least in part the result of research by
Harvard's Walter Willett showing a link between
childhood obesity and the marketing of junk food.
Large-scale problems generally start as small
regional ones before Western NGOs champion
them
Local antennae are also vital. Large-scale
problems generally start as small regional issues
before they are championed by larger, typically
Western NGOs that have the clout and media
contacts to launch global campaigns. The triggers
are often practices—for example, working conditions
that are below Western standards or "facilitation
payments" to local government officials—that seem
acceptable in some countries but not others. These
practices may have a detrimental effect on corporate
reputations when activists highlight and replay them
for a global audience. What's more, the damage will
be done notwithstanding any ethical policies that
may have been promulgated throughout a business.
Most companies become aware of the risks only at
this late stage, when their direct stakeholders have
already started to change their behavior. Mapping
the landscape of different stakeholders is therefore
important for a company's sociopolitical radar
system. An understanding of the influence of various
groups, their agendas, and their level of activism is a
vital first step before a company chooses the best
partners for its socio-political strategy.
Companies should aggregate this information to
identify where they are most at risk and the
economic implications of potential actions by
stakeholders—particularly when they face a number
of issues all at once. To evaluate what's at stake,
companies must scan the whole value chain, looking,
for example, at the way they source raw materials
and make and sell their products. They should
develop potential future scenarios that take into
account the reaction of competitors, shifts in
consumer patterns, and the possibility of litigation
and regulation. Governments, for instance, may
ultimately regulate the sale of fast food in schools
through legislation or enhanced nutritional
requirements for any foods sold in them (this issue is
currently under debate in the California legislature).
Alternatively, the success of several class action
lawsuits could force the food and beverage industry
to negotiate multiyear settlements. At the consumer
level, educational campaigns and articles in the
media will likely promote healthier options for food.
Place strategic bets
Armed with a more solid approach to the
management of social issues, companies can not only
reduce the risk to their reputations by anticipating
new regulations but also create value by making the
most of social and political shifts.
Indeed, companies should place bets on
opportunities that emerge from their radar-tracking
activities. Toyota's Prius is an example: the car's
initial success puts the company in a position to
move hybrid technology toward profitability faster
than its competitors can as well as to augment its
reputation by helping to address environmental
issues—even if the jury is still out on the
technology's effectiveness. GE's ecomagination
initiative, reinforcing the company's commitment to
clean products and reduced emissions, is a relatively
low-cost, low-risk way of anticipating products and
services that might be built on the back of emerging
sociopolitical trends.
In general, more uncertain circumstances warrant
a broad set of strategic options, and less uncertain
circumstances warrant more narrow ones. To cope
with emerging sociopolitical issues, we would expect
companies to use a wide range of small investments
that should be culled and narrowed as the issues
move further into the explicit social contract with
business. Given the unpredictable way socioeconomic
trends develop, a strategy using a portfolio of
initiatives is particularly relevant.3
Participate in the external debate
CEOs should also be prepared to take the lead in
socioeconomic debates that could alter the structure
of their industries and the rules of engagement in the
long term. Business, in essence, involves a series of
complex and continually evolving social trade-offs. In
the power sector, the goals of low prices, energy
security, and environmental friendliness are in
permanent tension. So are the affordability of drugs,
product safety, and innovation in pharmaceuticals.
Business leaders need to raise the public's
understanding of these unavoidable trade-offs.
The seminal 1997 speech of John Browne, BP's
CEO, on global climate change—when he promised
that BP would become an active, concerned
participant in dealing with the problem of global
warming—was notable as the first time a
multinational corporation (other than a reinsurance
company) had joined the emerging consensus on the
topic. Bruce Bodaken, of Blue Shield of California,
was the first health plan CEO to offer a proposal
specifically for universal health coverage in his state.
To reduce uncertainty for all players, including
investors, businesses need stable guidelines about
the future evolution of their industries. An analogy
can be made with the technological shifts that occur
before industries adopt common standards. Industry
leaders are in a strong position to ensure that a
rational, evidence-based discussion of social and
political trade-offs takes place. Without such a
discussion the social contract remains unpredictable,
investors suffer, and the social benefits of finding
appropriate solutions are deferred.
Like any strategic shift, calls for change in the
social contract involve a degree of risk. But if a
company could be seen to have any responsibility for
causing a sociopolitical problem, change is a no-
regrets move, particularly for an industry leader that
has the scale to alter the market. In some cases,
change can confer a clear strategic advantage: for
example, after the "blood diamonds" campaign,4 De
Beers helped to develop a global certification system
that enabled it to charge a premium for diamonds
mined in conflict-free areas. Few companies get
involved in a sociopolitical debate at the stage when
they might be at risk for being ahead of the curve.
The prevalent risk is not getting involved early
enough.
Collaborate, cooperate
Many sociopolitical issues are intractable and
can't be resolved by a single company or even an
industry. The most successful companies see beyond
competitive rivalries and look for collaborative ways
both to meet social concerns and to find new ways
for industries to create value. The difficulty is
knowing when to work with others and when to go it
alone.
Working across different organizations with
different cultures can be time consuming and slow
moving; Nike and other branded marketers took
seven years to establish the Fair Labor Association
to strengthen labor rights in the supply chain.
Industry associations often lack the capabilities to
tackle broad issues across a sector, as well as the
power to mobilize enough support. That's why CEOs
of mining companies recently set up a new body,
separate from the existing industry association (the
International Council on Mining & Metals), to take on
the sociopolitical issues facing them.
Coca-Cola and PepsiCo have benefited from a
common approach to marketing to children under 12:
both have a clear policy not to market their core
carbonated soft drinks to this group. For other
collaborative efforts, the attractions are the
potential revenue upside and the ability to share
costs. As a rule, companies should consider
responding on their own if they think they can
capture the first-mover advantage (as BP did in
acknowledging the dangers of global warming), if
they are a target, or if a collective approach is too
difficult or costly. Collaboration can be attractive if
the stakeholders regard all companies as equally
culpable, if regulation is imposed on an entire
industry, or if isolated, individual action would clearly
destroy value.
and coordinate
As our survey indicates, most business
executives expect CEOs to take the lead in managing
the corporate sociopolitical agenda. What's more
important, though, is how well companies integrate
such issues not just into the making of strategy but
also across all dimensions of the business (Exhibit 4).
A piecemeal approach runs the risk of misalignment—
a CEO saying one thing, the rest of the company
failing to translate these fine intentions into practical
action. A company whose external-communications
strategy emphasizes the search for more
environmentally friendly products and processes, for
example, probably won't make much headway if the
company's government and regulatory functions are
simultaneously fighting limits on carbon dioxide
emissions.
Without a CEO's personal involvement, sensitivity
to the sociopolitical agenda probably won't become
embedded in an organization's culture and values.
Neither will organizational coordination—always
difficult to achieve across different divisions and
functions—for the CEO plays a vital role
orchestrating departments (such as PR, legal,
regulation, and marketing) that ordinarily wouldn't
act in concert. When CEOs such as BP's John Browne
and GE's Jeff Immelt show their personal
commitment, the response from stakeholders is
remarkably positive.
Sociopolitical trends will increasingly affect the
strategic freedom of companies, which just can't
ignore the rising tide of expectations resulting from
these trends and the power and influence of the
stakeholders who mobilize around them. For
stakeholders, companies are, in many ways, already
agents of social change and must become much more
deliberate in understanding the way they affect
society. Businesses that follow the approach we
outline and proactively understand and engage with
social issues will benefit most. They will be better
able to shape the social contract and to identify
ways of creating value from the opportunities and
risks arising from sociopolitical issues.
Source: McKinsey & Company, 2006