Outrage-proofing a brand in the age of cancel culture

Companies, just like people, have multiple reputations. How you perceive someone might be very different from how someone else sees the same person, and the same applies to companies. Factory workers might see their company differently than their back-office colleagues. And what customers think of a particular company in China might be worlds apart from what its customers in the US think. And perceptions aren't set in stone. They shift over time and also fluctuate in their significance to the company. Companies must track and address these changes if they are going to effectively manage stakeholder perceptions and the strength of their corporate brand. As companies pursue growth, they must make tough calls and trade-offs that will impact their reputations. Time, money, and personnel are finite resources, and companies often need help with competing priorities that require balancing.

Overlaying this process, there is a growing expectation from stakeholders for companies to take a stand on social issues. Such expectations differ depending on geography. What matters in Asia will differ from what matters in Europe or the Americas. For example, in Asia, education, health, social services, and housing are high-priority issues for many stakeholders. However, in Western markets, advocacy regarding equity-related topics such as gender, race, and sexual orientation are joining many others as priorities for both internal and external stakeholders, and companies are often being challenged to take positions that can impact their reputations. Additionally, multinational companies can no longer operate in geographical silos. Decisions taken in one part of the world will impact their reputation in another location. This highlights the tricky terrain these companies must navigate if they wish to say something in one market but stay quiet in another.

No company can tackle every social issue, but operating in a vacuum isn't an option either—especially when it comes to issues that directly affect your industry. If you're going to speak up and take a stance, ask yourself: do we really understand how our different stakeholders see this issue? Does our stance match up with our values, our actions, and how we do business every day? Having clear, honest answers to these questions can be the difference between being applauded or being targeted for criticism. And if you stay silent? Be prepared to explain why.

Having a clear framework of purpose, values, and mission provides an important foundation for companies to decide which issues to support and why they don't support others. The companies that handle these challenges best will be those who have a clear understanding of their purpose and how their support for an issue reflects a critical element of the corporate DNA. Companies have a duty to their shareholders to provide a return on investment, but they also have a duty to their other stakeholders, including their local communities, to act in a purposeful way that results in value beyond net profit.

Social issues can elicit varied and intense opinions. As referenced earlier, the perspective of one stakeholder group often will not reflect the views of others. It is especially crucial to consider employees who can be passionate advocates for the company. It should never be assumed that the company automatically has the support of its employees. In any meaningful development or issue, they deserve to be informed of the company’s position and how that position impacts them. Employees who feel alienated by the company's actions can cause significant reputational harm. Employee empowerment, and in some cases activism, is on the rise around the world. Companies need to ensure that such communication is a two-way street; they also have to be prepared to listen to the concerns of employees.  If their messages don't move their employees, then efforts to take them to external stakeholders are bound to be problematic.

With that said, companies must consider the views of all stakeholders when deciding whether or not to speak out. It is crucial not to make knee-jerk reactions to a spike in online noise about a particular issue. Noise does not always equate to reputational damage. It's important that a thoughtful and considered assessment is required to ensure that any stakeholder opinion on the subject is underpinned by substance rather than the result of amplification online.

When a decision is made, it is not just about speaking up; rather, it’s about the actions the business is taking, including aligning its operations and practices to the issue in question. The company must decide how far it is willing to contribute to progress and the nature of its role. This might be limited to amplifying awareness, creating alliances to combat the issue, or even taking a form of activism.

As I write in the conclusion of my new book, Reputations of Value, “If a company has a strong understanding of its purpose and values, if it makes decisions in an informed and thoughtful manner if it does not shy away from difficult issues but rather tackles them with integrity, and if it can communicate its progress towards making a positive impact on those it touches, then its reputations should be of great value indeed.”

Stephen Thomas is the principal of TAVO Advisory, where he works with clients on matters relating to reputation, trust and stakeholder engagement. Previously, he was the head of brand and communications at AIA Group for nine years.