The article observes that the media has, in general, ignored CSR transparency and that CSR reporting should be done for stakeholders, not the media. Those who do publicise their CSR reports may find the results more damaging then helpful. They use Ford's attempt to gain publicity as a prime example of what can go wrong.
In May 2000, Ford released their first ever 'corporate citizenship report' which stated that their popular sport utility vehicle (SUV) was both environmentally unfriendly and dangerous to small car drivers. The candinness of the report was called shocking by some, and Ford used the report to obtain positive media coverage, and gave Ford's chairman, William Ford, the chance to promote his image of a 'green' executive. The article described him as enjoying the attention and said he was eager to discuss the reports openeness with the media. The report even earned Ford some praise from environmentalists.
Ford followed up this report with their 2001 report which again was very open and honest about their struggles to be environmentally friendly, and the environmental goals they were striving to reach. In 2002 however, Ford was in a different situation from the previous two years. The company was facing large financial problems which was affecting their ability to contribute to becoming greener. In May, they announced that their CSR report would be delayed by two months and environmental groups began to call William Ford an environmental poseur. Criticism continued when Ford finally released the report and announced that due to their financial problems their environmental initiatives were to be put on hold, which immediately became a huge story in the media.
This case study illustrates that once a company makes a public statement the public will hold them accountable for it. The public will punish a company that says something only because it is what they believe the public wants to hear. In my opinion, this case study proves that motivation does matter. Ford was motivated by gaining positive publicity, not by a desire to address environmental issues. The media picked up on this and rather then improving their image, Ford, in fact, hurt it.
6 comments:
I think that the public as well as the media is getting wiser to the use of CSR as just a publicity stunt. Ford should've known better than to publicize their report just to gain more coverage. I mean their sales are hurting as it is and I think the fact that they produced a report just for looks would make a consumer lose trust in them, therefore dropping their sales even lower. I think that Ford would have been better off if they really did focus on a CSR aspect like the motor emissions, which would have made them come off as being trustworthy and environmentally conscious.
Hi Emily,
I think that most of companies support community just for PR. Some companies use CSR to improve their images. In the same hand, they for sure get benefit from their grantees. CSR is a good PR tactic.
Business must restrain itself from taking away, by its PR activities, what it offers through corporate responsibility and philanthropy.
I definitely not think that CSR is just a publicity stunt. Although I do recognize the potential benefits a CSR programme can have for a company’s image and reputation, I think it is important to remember that a corporation is not just about profit, but is also about people. There is this perception of corporations that they are “evil” and that all they care about is making profit, however, what people tend to forget is that corporations are made up by people. People like you and me who wants to do something good for other people. To make my point clearer, if I could choose between working in a corporation that is not involved in any CSR initiatives, and a corporate with an integrated CSR policy, I would without doubt go for the latter. A company that is socially responsible is an attractive workplace. The society has changed; the public expects more from corporations now than 20 years ago. They expect corporations to be socially responsible, ergo, CSR is more about recognizing and responding to societal changes and changing public expectations as oppose to just being a PR stunt.
I agree with Moeen, that most companies have their own sorts of ways to use PR. Like for example, in my opinion the reasons why some companies use CSR is to bring competition, enhance their brand image, increase sales, etc. Most companies benefit from CSR. CSR is a good for the company as it can enhance the companies reputation. CSR is more about what the people want and even topics under the CSR are expanding. I also believe that CSR continues to be commitment by any business to behave ethically and it contributes to economic development while improving the quality of life of the workforce and their families as well of the local community and society at large.
In my last debate, I had to defend the motion that CSR is just a PR stunt...Well, I think that it's usually true, many companies have produced a CSR report right after being criticised by the public. Moreover, these reports have been very popular among companies and many wonder if these are sincere or just 'window dressing'...If you take the example of tobacco companies which produce CSR, isn't it just contradictory? When you are socially responsible it means that you shouldn't harm society, and they sell products that will kill people...Is it socially responsible?
CSR brings many benefits to a company, it can enhance reputation, attract more supporters and boost sales. Therefore, the best thing to do for a company is to adopt one of these programmes. Although, I am sure that there are some good people out there who are doing it sincerely, and having this kind of programmes can only benefit society.
Today, its very difficult to know if a company is genuinely engaging in CSR because they want to or because of outside pressures. My opinion is that some companies, having learnt lessons in the past engage in CSR because they want to contribute back to the communities who 'invest' in them. Somerville sums up this view, when he argues the point that corporate social responsibility involves the idea that businesses are being proactive not only in its relationship with a range of social actors but also doing more than just to avoid moral rules.
Post a Comment