RICHARD BUTLER
Many readers of Tasmanian Times will appreciate the term and deliverables of Corporate Social Responsibility and Corporate Good Citizenship.
For those who may not be as familiar with it (perhaps in view of its relative lightness in Tasmania) it is the strategic engagement by a corporate enterprise in an area of common interest within a community for the benefit of both.
These areas of focus can include a place or event or process and the benefit of the activity is aimed at providing opportunities for community further development – often well outside the enterprise sphere of operation.
The positioning of the activity – (whether it be the provision of resources, executives on secondment, access to corporate facilities, products or money) does not create significant value UNLESS the company displays a level of integrity in its day to day conduct and normal business operations. It is delicate and can be fraught. After September 11, many companies contributed substantially to help. McDonalds turned up each day and provided free lunches in their thousands. Then it made an ad telling eveyone how good it was. McDonalds later apologised for attempting to cash in on its strategic generosity – and in doing so had really undone any value it may have created by its initial gesture.
Being loved as an enterprise isnt rocket science, yet it is the corporate holy grail. In his book “LOVEMARKS – THE FUTURE BEYOND BRANDS” Advertising CEO Kevin Roberts examines the next development from brands to super-brands to Lovemarks – where the consumer has such an affinity with a brand it has wide and deep value. But perceived Value begets perceived Value. No value gets nothing. A highly creative ad strategist might see the extent of negative passion as being an opportunity for Gunns – however the issues to address do not lie inside the community. Rarely has the conduct activity and government relationship of an enterprise so sullied its public perception. This isnt just a few defective staff, some kind of quality assurance issue or a lethargic call centre. This goes from the stratosphere to the centre of the earth. If you dont believe me – go ask someone in Rowella, in Hillwood, or Deviot, Exeter or Gravely Beach.
A gift from a thief, no matter how well wrapped, is always going to be a gift from a thief. A gift from a leader, no matter how large or small has the capacity to reflect a perceived value far greater than its kind.
More and more as communities develop in maturity, value is seen by the entire conduct and emotional maturity of the enterprise concerned. Corporate Social Responsibility is completely different to sponsorship. Sponsorship is far more direct – it provides money in return for exposure and promotion of one kind or another. When a sponsorship agreement is considered by an enterprise – it has a direct business model created to test and evaluate the proposed deal. It recent economic times – it would be very rare that a sponsorship does not return more benefits than if the enterprise could achieve independently from the sponsee.
For example – providing a local footy club with 10 grand and in return receive naming rights, speaking engagements, access to member mailing lists, club member discounts, signage on the ground, means that the providing business gets to effectively buy and enhance its commercial networks. 10 grand well spent should return at least 20 grand or more as a direct consequence of a smart investment. And so it should – and everyone should be happy. But it isnt leadership – its not about values based conduct – its a deal.
Things become complex when the conduct and perceived values of the sponsoring enterprise is not considered to be aligned with the community or event it seeks to support. For example – a few years ago a legal brothel sponsored a V8 Supercar Race team and it was widely discussed that this brought a different dimension to family participation considered so important to the sport.
In any relationship – the power of the relationship is usually held by the person who cares about the relationship the least. Where 2 parties join there is an anticipation that the combined values and conduct from both will produce something greater than if they remain separate.
The current consequences arising from Rugby players – group sex, glassing, drugs and stimulant drinks, rage events, allegations of rape – all contribute to the devaluation of the value of that sporting code – and this will also be reflected in the willingness of sponsors to remain as sponsors – or to re main paying the premium. So in that sense its a 2 way street – and everyone must perform at peak conduct AT ALL TIMES to increase value for all. Why would anyone want to be involved with a Rugby team is beyond me at this time.
So now Im sure you can see where this is progressing.
Recently Greg L’Strange observed that Gunns would not continue opening its cheque books for local activities ( Gunns sponsorships are not secure, says L’Estrange ). Fair enough Greg. Unless Gunns is supported it no longer will support. As if Gunns contribution of shareholder and government subsidised funds is gifted anyway. I wondered at the extent of the value of Gunns non commercial donations into the Valley/ State and what the calculated return on investment would be. I very much doubt that a publicly listed company donates shareholder money to a community without there being a commercial model sitting behind it that makes it strategically or commercially useful to do so.
In that sense – if the removal of any Gunns contribution is based on a company strategy to off-set anti mill sentiment/ or encourage supporters to become more vocal – its a calculated strategy. It remains welded to a revenue generating model. It may also be that the sponsorships have been found to be ‘duds’ by the new CEO direction and the removal of dud sponsorships and non returning donations can be made neater if its blamed on anti mill sentiment. L’Strange just might be cleaning up commercially silly decisions made in the past. Apparently there were one or two.
Whatever.
If Gunns were valued and if their leadership conduct was inspirational in the Tamar Valley and beyond, a great deal of the current mess would not be present. (The issues are not singularly Gunns caused, and the state government needs to step up and face some issues as well. Dont hold your breath.)
Im sure in the quietness and relative privacy of their offices many executives can now see the PR nightmare and messy entangled web of emotions their leadership so perfectly produced. Its up there (although at this stage on a significantly lower set of consequences) with the PR mess Ford created by once deciding to continue to sell an R.V with improper tyres on the knowledge that the insurance pay-out to victims of tyre caused accidents was less cost to the company than a global model recall. The truth in the end, always floats up.
Some observed Gunns walked from the RPDC with all the adolescent petulance of a young McEnroe (except he never walked out of anything) – but Gunns were observed in the RPDC process as long as it went their way. Walking was a huge mistake. One couldnt have done a better hatchet job on them if they tried. A kind of self immolation. If things were bad before then – they were dreadful afterward.
Gunns enjoy the protection of Section 11 of the Pulp Mill Assessment Act and remain eerily silent on providing comment on their views of the act. The same act which removes the rights of the citizens within the Tamar Valley – and the same citizens in whose company it wishes to be welcome. Whilst Gunns stands inactive under the shadow of PMAA Section 11 it stands like a 15 year old boy who has just had a hand-shandy from a 20 year old woman. He didnt have to do anything – and he sure isnt about to do anything to mess up future opportunities.
If Gunns were serious about generational perception-management, and not just a little pink vanilla icing here or there (like that really pathetic little green book) – it would freeze all of its superfluous promotions and activities and just get on doing the business of showing exemplary conduct. But not on Gunns terms – but on the values of the broader community. It would assume the role and position of the citizens around it. It would contribute values based leadership, not the commercial conduct of an enterprise surrounded. It would enable itself to as vulnerable as all citizens. It would speak out against injustices – even if that injustice provided it with a strategic advantage. It would seek to fix things that it saw were wrong. It would show conscience, not just football club signage. And with regards to its stance on PMAA Section 11 – if the law could not be changed in the short term – it would publicly reflect on its unfairness to the community, and it would show an empathy and a considered engagement with those the act provides protection from. Gunns would do this and in so start to become the equal it wants to be seen – which is some distance from where it stands now as a state sponsored power. One that creates a class system in Tasmania – where it is the single and only FIRST CLASS, and everyone else is SECOND CLASS with compromised rights.
L’Strange can lament the community issues, the poor perception and a deep desire to be valued.
But he also knows that value is not something to be provided when asked. He should know that value is earned – and in fact is earned when at first self is valued, conduct is valued, leadership is shown consistently day in, day out round the clock – in the way EVERYONE in the enterprise delivers its conduct both at, and away from commercial endeavour. Then one doesnt need to threaten sponsorship withdrawal. Then – the public work hard to reflect that value in spades.
SO where does this leave L’Strange ? A tough gig for anyone, by anyone’s standards.
I’d start Greg, by denouncing PMAA Section 11. I’d look the residents of that beautiful, passionate wonderful valley in the eyes and I’d start agreeing with them on the things that they are dis-advantaged by. If your proposed mill is so good – actively lobby for the removal of the protective mechanisms Gunns enjoys. And Id encourage the reconvening of the RPDC. If you achieved that you’d be about half a % of the way to where you need to be.
Until then, discussing how Gunns community isolation and how it might walk from its sponsorships is no more or less like walking from the RPDC. In short it shows nothing less than unless Gunns gets what it wants, it walks.
