For Julien Radart, Managing Partner at akkanto, ‘communication hibernation’ is only justified for a limited period of time. This is because certain issues can also be opportunities to position oneself. Interview.
In societies that are increasingly polarised, particularly by social media, artists, influencers and intellectuals are feeling more and more pressure to take a stand. Is the same true for businesses?
Firstly, it is important to understand that communicating to take a stand is just one of many ways to manage your reputation. Reputation goes far beyond communication and is an end in itself. But managing it is a challenge because the perception that people have of you is not something you can control. Faced with highly polarised views, the reflex of some companies is to take a back seat to avoid any risk. Putting your communications on hold may well be justified. But in a changing world, constantly in flux and saturated with information, you also need to know how to seize opportunities to stand out from the crowd.
So how do you know when to communicate?
By understanding as best as possible what reputation you enjoy, or suffer from, among your stakeholders: customers, employees, the general public, NGOs, competitors, suppliers, neighbours, etc. The first job of a communicator is therefore to listen. From there, you can identify the topics on which, in the eyes of these stakeholders, you have a legitimate voice. You can also understand whether they really expect you to take a position on a particular issue. On all other issues, you may well decide not to comment, even if they are important topics of public debate.
However, there may be different expectations among these stakeholders, including your own employees...
If you decide to take a stand, you must do so with a strong message and be able to prove it in order to be credible. Your actions must be visible, aligned and consistent over time and space. This is true even if societal changes, such as shifts in political majorities, are taking place. A brand that decides to display the LGBTQIA+ flag during Pride Month in one part of the world but not in another is putting itself at risk. This is why so many companies are carefully considering their mission statements, strategies and values – and rightly so.
What are the issues that companies are currently re-examining in terms of their reputation?
There are topics that we thought had completely disappeared, but which have now returned to the forefront. Issues of sovereignty, patriotism and even nationalism, sometimes accompanied by very emotional reactions from stakeholders, can have a significant impact. Some companies are therefore reviewing the way they present their strategy in light of these considerations, whereas just a few years ago, the focus was on sustainability and transition. This is the case, for example, in the energy and food production sectors. Narratives and messages are therefore evolving to better resonate with stakeholders, without fundamentally changing values and strategy.
Is this what explains greenhushing, the fact that companies are talking much less about their sustainability efforts?
In part, yes, but fundamentally, several companies have also realised that they may have over-communicated on the subject. What was the point for a company to boast about sorting its waste? Others have realised that by communicating widely, they were exposing themselves to reactions such as ‘it's never enough’ from certain stakeholders. Without ceasing their efforts, they are now focusing on their actions. They are using more direct and less mainstream means of communication, for example via networks or business federations, to convince people.
After Donald Trump asked companies with US government contracts to abandon their diversity and inclusion programmes, are we now heading towards D&I hushing?
Once again, companies where recruiting talent from diverse backgrounds is an integral part of their strategy and corporate values will find ways to communicate differently. Through their actions rather than by openly displaying their D&I charter. Although, of course, finding such a balance and the right nuances is more complicated for a multinational than for a strictly Belgian company.
We are also seeing increasing questioning of science in public debate. Is this the right time, for example, for pharmaceutical companies to reaffirm their faith in scientific research?
Undoubtedly. But they must be able to do so in an authentic manner when speaking out. And above all, they must do so in a balanced way, avoiding partisan positions that fuel polarisation. Let us not forget that the purpose of a company is to unite rather than divide. This may be different for public bodies or universities, which have more legitimacy in defending certain achievements on these issues.
What role should the company leader play?
In some companies, messages are strongly personified through the CEO. This can be an opportunity when a director is very charismatic. But it can also be a threat. What happens when that person leaves the company? Or if they have to backtrack on certain issues? Or if they go too far in their statements? We all have in mind the example of Elon Musk and his impact on Tesla's reputation, whose sales have fallen partly because of statements made by its leader.