When I came home to Belgium on Thursday my dad was telling me about a Sunday trip my family had made to Ypres. They went to visit the Arch which has the names of the war victims on it. As they were walking around my brother saw a wreath of poppies that was put there in name of Leeds Metropolitan University. He recognised the logo from the letters I got back home and pointed it out to the rest of the family.
At first I did not really believe my dad, but when he showed me the pictures I was really amazed. Talk about a university with broad external relations!
It’s a well known fact that companies are getting more and more concerned with CSR (Corporate Sociable Responsibility). This can take many forms, from building playgrounds for the communities they are active in, to providing education for farmers they do business with in third world countries, to being a member of a fairtrade organisation, etc.
But the area that enjoys the most attention is without a doubt the environment… you might say that it is the hot topic of the last few years, and everyone wants to get in on it. All the companies want ‘to do what’s best for the environment’ and try to ‘reduce the polution and global warming’. When reading the CSR programmes of some companies, and in particular those concerning the environment, we would almost be tempted to believe they will save the earth.
Of course all of this needs to be put into perspective. We should always consider the motives of companies conducting environmentally friendly actions or CSR programmes for that matter. When companies are not genuine and are trying to deceive us in making us believe that they are environmentally responsible and this in order to cover up their environmental wrong-doing, than we speak of greenwashing. There are a lot of companies guilty of this ‘crime’. I guess it’s easy to claim you have changed, the hard part is to really change.
For companies greenwashing is a great way of getting positive exposure and measuring themselves a green and clean image. Further more the environment is getting more important, especially over the last few years, not only for the NGO’s, but also for the customers. So for the companies greenwashing is a great new way to market their products. Think profit, profit, profit and think of all those specific target groups they can bombard with their corporate messages through the special CSR or environment programmes and the communication about them.
Of course there is one tricky point that remains… organisations need to be able to live up to the things they claim and promise to their stakeholders. People don’t like to be deceived, so when a company is exposed as being a greenwasher, criticism is not gentle and the company’s reputation is damaged severely. Well known examples of this are Shell, Exxon, BP, LG, … Companies that are being exposed can expect a lot of bad comments and visual output (when following the links you can see some examples of this). In America they even have awards for the ‘greenwashers of the year’.
But what it comes down to is how ethical a company is. Is every company really so unethical? I choose to believe not!
Some organisations are genuinely concerned about the environment or the communities they work with and really try to make an effort to conduct honest CSR.
Some critics say, that it is not possible for a company to conduct CSR without some bit of self-interest. I can see where they are coming from, but I don’t entirely agree. When a company is conducting CSR programmes, they need to communicate about this when they want to be operating as an open and transparent (and therefor reliable) company which is communicating with its stakeholders. Then again, and this is where the critics refer to, by communicating about this they create goodwill towards their company wiht their stakeholders because of the good things they do. So indirectly, by doing good, they get an extra benefit… so you get a win-win win situation for the company. They invest in the CSR programmes and win because they are doing something good for the environment or the communities which they need and they win some more in gaining goodwill and support for their organisation/brand.
So call me sentimental, but I guess the proverb ‘do good, and good will come to you’ is appropriate here.
We all know social media since we get confronted with it almost every single day. Think about Facebook, YouTube, PROpenMic, MSN, blogs, … you name it. This area has been booming over the last years and I think it will still know a big change.
More and more people start to know all these different social media and can work with it since they are *after some trial and error* easy to work with. They are, in the first place, a way to keep in touch with friends, peers or business contacts, but we see that they are also fulfilling the important task of ‘voice of the public’
People can talk about their opinions, thoughts, plans, … through all these media and share this with other people.
In this way this become a powerful stakeholder for organisations to take into account in various ways.
Firstly, when some unsatifsfied customers start to group and put their opinion on the net through social media, they may soon become a powerful threath to your company when they are not heard.
Secondly, when using these social media people are more inclined to look for information including company information since these media are seen to be more honest and upright by most users. They are more open to accepting messages since these new media users see this environment to be something that is filled with peers, somewhere they feel ’safe’ *I won’t start the dcussion about privacy and hacking because that would take us too far*.
Many companies have realised the above and are playing the field. They set up Facebook pages, think of the many pages where you can become a fan of Nutella, Porsche, Duvel,… They put adds on there, make avatars, set up their company in Second Life,… It has become a nice additonal tool for their information/promotional campaigns.
Still, I have to add that sometimes I think it all becomes a bit much… when you are a memeber of MSN, Facebook, Netlog, you write a blog, you’re member of PROpenMic, … it becomes hard to know to what you have to give priority. That’s why I think it might be a good idea for some new media to converge, so users can combine more social media on one place and get a nicer overview of what’s happening.
So to conclude, I guess both parties are benefitting from the use of social media. To companies it is another way of reaching a more targeted audience. The public can use it to make themselves be heard but also to get accross their own messages. NGO’s are taking up these media to promote their organisation and to communicate their messages since they do not always have the means to pay for big promotional campaigns. For them it is an easy, cheap way to reach a large audience.
As an example of an NGO promoting itself I’m putting the link to the YouTube moviefrom the playground I’m working for in summer. They made a video to send around with the subscription e-mail for new co-ordinators to join the organisation this summer.
For my dissertation topic I’m doing a lot of research about communication at EU level. The thing I find really interesting is the EUropean identity. It’s still a very hot and touchy item. Does it or doesn’t it exist?
So far I’ve discovered noone actually knows. One person says yes, the other says no. I guess they’re both right.
We can look at idenity from many angles. First of all we can interpret the EU identity from a political angle. I guess in this case the identity is present. When you take all of the European insitutions, laws, constitution, organisations,… So far so good… easy to communicate about.
But when we start looking at the cultural and more emotional angle of the word identity the tricky part start. We can see that the EU still has a long way to go in this area. The EU is something that is artificially created. It has so many different cultures, people, languages, … bound together that it is difficult to speak of one common identity. And also, can we say that the EU identity can be seen as a synonym for a European identity? What about the countries which are not a member of the EU, but are very much a part of Europe?
I guess we have to take it step by step. There are still very mixed feelings about the EU and acceptance of it in the member states. The dream of having every European citizen call himself ’European’ in the first place and not say his or her country is, acording to me, too far fetched. There will always be a strong national identity present with people which is normal since you grow up in a counrty, experiencing it’s culture and habits. That is what makes it so interesting to travel in Europe, the small differences.
I guess it is up to the EU to make us feel part of a big family and not as little components who happen to have joined the same organisation for economical reasons. I like to see it as a big family… in each family you have a lot of different personalities, but they are still part of one group, there is something that they have in common and binds them, makes them feel they belong somewhere. It is up to the EU to communicate about an identity which is emphasising our equalities without suppressing our differences. As the slogan says: ‘United in diversity’ I think this might be our biggest strength, to be able to be one homogenous whole without losing our own national identity. I think this is something that is very feasible with some efforts informing people about what the EU stands for and what it can mean for its citizens.
So to conclude, I guess a European identity is not possible, there are too many differences among Europeans to be able to talk about that. But I guess an EU identity is feasible in the way I explained, as feeling part of this family with equal goals and interests. But having Europeans say ‘our Vienna’, ‘our Tour Eiffel’ or ‘our Rome’ I think will remain a dream.
Brussels… capital of the EU and home to most of the European Institutions. I guess that is what everyone knows about it. And people in our area may also know that it is one of the biggest lobby markets in the world. I’m not telling you anything new so far. But what if lobbying isn’t just a part of the Brussels’ scene anymore, but Brussels becomes a part of the lobbying scene? Is lobbying taking over??
According to an article I read on the Alter EU website it is: “The report “Secrecy and corporate dominance – a study on the composition and transparency of European Commission Expert Groups” reveals that industry controls a number of the Commission’s most controversial Expert Groups, including advisory groups on issues such as “biotechnology”, “clean coal” and “car emissions”. (www.alter-eu.org, March 25)
The findings of the research show that in a lot of cases these Expert Groups consist for 50% of industry representatives. Also to access more information and details about these Expert Groups the research team bumped into a lot of resistence from the European Commission. The team’s questions, based upon the “access-to-documents” directive, were only vaguely answered or remained unanswered. This goes against the promise that was made by president Barroso to make the Expert Groups’ policy and composition more transparent.
I guess it is normal that the industry tries to be present as much as possible at the source where the decisions for legislation affecting them are made. Especially the “hot issues” industries, i.e. motorindustry, petrochemistry, biotechnology, etc., will be keen on conquering a spot in these Expert Groups since they get thrown a lot their way. And they should get a place in these Expert Groups, since new legislation may affect them in serious ways. They have the right to stand up and lobby for their cause and ask for some understanding for their viewpoints. They can not be seen as islands… these industries have employees, suppliers from other industries, etc. which depend on them for their daily income. This is an important aspect that needs to be taken into account. These industry representatives can also be very useful resources of information on particular issues which the European Commission is confronted with and needs to obtain detailed, professional or inside information about. Big business is of course also a powerful ally and a friend the European Union would like to keep close.
But on the other hand, the European Commission may not forget the main purpose of these Expert Groups: acting in the best interest for the general public, the citizens of the EU. Acting in their interest becomes more difficult when 50% of the Expert Groups consists of people from the industry. They will not put the public’s best interest before the interests of their company. When they are too numerous, it is obvious that they will start to dominate the decision-making process, and for that manner the decisions made by the European Commission and indirectly affect all EU citizens.
So it is very important for the European Commission to keep a healthy balance in the composition of these Expert Groups, maybe by setting up a controlling committee. It is equally important for the European Commission to keep communicating about the Expert Groups openly. Not only to make the process of the decision-making more democratic, but also to insure that everyone can have his/her say in these Expert Groups and every point of view is heard and taken into account. Due to this, as many people as possible benefit from the decisions that are made.
Because in the end… any decision made affects the EU citizens.
