Reaching More Responsible Communications

a conversation with peter knight


CG: Among the stories various companies tell to the marketplace, are ones about their corporate responsibility (CR), social responsibility, sustainability and citizenship. But many of these are laden with masses of data or top-heavy with detail, does this make sense?

PK: Data is important because it differentiates hard performance from soft assurances. But more vitally important to many groups is the nature and quality of the [top-line] corporate narrative. Because these people want to read the stories that are told [by and] about the company, not concentrate on all the metrics and supporting detail.

CG: Most of the reporting and messaging that’s done looks largely backward, like annuals do, at prior-year performance. But couldn't they do more heavy-lifting, both for themselves and for their audiences? Especially by being more, and more meaningfully – not just lightly – forward looking.

PK: Yes. A lot of companies have a big opportunity to use a CR report to show and discuss [for stakeholders] their road map for taking the business toward a higher plane of responsibility…and profitability.

It's a powerful but underused platform, one that could be far better leveraged to convey the company narrative; from its management to its vision. In a way that can go beyond [the limitations of] what’s possible with often hidebound and jargon-filled annual reports.

CG: What role should designers of CR reports, sites and other communications play beyond making content look and lay out well?

PK: It depends on the medium for the given messages, whether that’s on paper or the web or something in between, like PDFs. But regardless, good design is imperative. And, it must always be done with the understanding it’s just a tool to help convey information successfully, and not an end in itself. It should support but never trump the content.

Designers need, as well, to look carefully at each audience and each medium involved, and figure out the right visual styling for each. Because it can vary widely. Some audiences, for instance, are only interested in data and not in pictures.

Designers can also add value by helping clients define and differentiate the needs of given audiences, and by recommending the right channels to reach each of them.

CG: You believe the practice of communicating CR is still too immature. Why? And what growth agent is needed to mature it and improve all these stories and messages?

PK: Only when CR is taken more seriously by a large majority of the more important stakeholders in companies; only when they demand this kind of content – as I'm sure they will in time – will the whole exercise evolve. Right now, for most, this messaging is only a nice-to-have not a must-have.

As for improving these communications, my advice is look to an inspiration like George Orwell: stick to fundamentals. Write simply. Be direct. Be brave. Be adventurous.

CG: So why isn't the ‘Orwell Approach’ in wide use? If it would make companies’ stories of their responsibility all the more engaging and impactful?

PK: Because so many companies are spineless when it comes to corporate communications. They're terrified of breaking the mold. They benchmark furiously. Never want to step out of the fold. They retreat into soft assurances and old shibboleths, where they feel safe. That’s the tragedy of most forms of corporate communications.

CG: Paging the brave and adventurous out there...we need you.

CG: What useful things can companies, and the design, marketing and other consultants assisting them, learn or borrow from the corporate responsibility realm, to enlighten other parts of their business narratives?

PK: Talking straight. Corporate responsibility stories demand it, even though those who practice this straightforwardness are still in the minority. There's no question every company would benefit by it.

In addition to this, recognize that “negative” topics can actually enhance [through contrast and balance] the positive elements of a story.

CG: Do you also believe companies have a ‘responsibility’ to tell their audiences richer and more dynamic stories, ones aligned with readers’ needs? Versus giving people vacuum-sealed presentations that miss a sense of active listening [by the company], or lack the feeling of a desired kind of "conversation" or running dialogue happening between the lines.

PK: Some companies want to be more engaging. You can see this in the corporate responsibility blogs by McDonald’s, Intel, Sun Microsystems and others. But these are early days, and these blogs are suitably sanitized. Unfortunately, the willingness to put forward edgy, engaging stories -- even though it would be welcome and beneficial -- is outweighed by the perceived risk of litigation.

CG: How far away are we from truly enlightened or at least more enlightened stories in this area?

PK: Very far away. Especially since the dysfunctional economy is making it more difficult for companies to behave with integrity. Maybe the economic change we're going through will catalyze business to align its values more closely with those of society.

That said, never before has integrity been so high up on the scale of need than it is today.

CG: And I would add, never before has the integrity of companies’ stories themselves, and telling those stories more responsibly, been more important – to everyone on the receiving end.

Thanks, Peter, for your good thoughts.



Peter Knight is President of Context America, a leading corporate responsibility communications group, that advises some of the world’s most well-known businesses on CR strategy and content, www.econtext.co.uk He is also a former UK Environmental Journalist of the Year, and was a regular contributor to the Financial Times in the 1990s and 80s.


Colin Goedecke
www.tenowls.com
www.linkedin.com/in/colingoedecke