Tag-Archive for ◊ corporate responsiblity ◊

• Sunday, June 20th, 2010
BP should exemplify the need for businesses to have "insurance policies" for their corporate processes.

BP should exemplify the need for businesses to have "insurance policies" for their corporate processes.

A few days ago, I was talking with a journalist about my insights of corporate reputations in light of the BP fiasco.

Certainly, there are many people who would subscribe that all it takes is one chink in the armor to knock a company like BP and its people down–and we all know there are people lining up at the door.  Tony Heyward has become corporate America’s latest addition to America’s Most Wanted.  If things weren’t bad enough, Heyward’s attendance at a yacht race has the PR people swimming uphill yet again (uh, Tony, unless your yacht is solar-powered I wouldn’t be going to these sorts of events anytime soon–word to the wise).

Just as we hear about consumers needing insurance policies for when they become disabled or hurt, companies need to think about the types of insurance available to them to protect themselves.  In honor of Heyward’s latest snafu, following are some suggested options for companies to consider when “insuring their safety”:

  • “Long-term care”–What happens when a company and/or its employees need to stop work for extended periods of time?  How are internal processes handled such that work disruption is minimized?
  • “Whole life insurance”–Companies should offer self-imposed fire drills about how to handle a catastrophe before it happens.  From my vantage point, I am surprised at how much BP is “winging it” as opposed to following an established set of protocols. As a result, they are digging themselves a deeper hole from which to climb.
  • “Disability”–A comprehensive review of policies and procedures is in order for any company to protect itself from internal issues which could hamper the company making money in either the short- or long-term.What other types of policies are out there?
• Tuesday, June 15th, 2010

Could the "what's old is new again" idea work for BP?

Could the "what's old is new again" idea work for BP?

Back in September 2008, I published a post about where I thought this big idea called sustainability was headed.  Green had been pushed way too far, and I had suggested that “green” get a makeover.

I didn’t think that the makeover would come at the expense of a PR disaster such as that which faces BP.  But I had to smile when I saw the following post from the June 15 FAST COMPANY electronic newsletter that cited how badly green has been tarnished.  The author, a noted brand strategist, suggested that BP go back to AMOCO and move away from green toward blue.

While I would love to say that smart minds think alike, it does speak to a bigger issue–how does a company evolve from a crisis with its brand or icon leading the way?

When has a company emerged from a crisis with a new identity?  I am interested in your feedback.

• Wednesday, January 23rd, 2008

The calendar says January; no more 2007 holiday parties, gift baskets–and traditional reflections and prognostications about business and commerce.

Whether you work for a Fortune 500 company or a small mom-and-pop shop, executives are tirelessly and feverishly working on how to improve their position in the marketplace. In my attempt to plan ahead, I cleaned my desk in the hope I can keep things neat, tidy and simple.

But who would have thought that a simple task would develop a primer for how to manage through the tumult of corporate performance?

Tape Theory Applied

Looking through the annals of corporate history, there are several stories of companies trying to accomplish more than their core competencies. In an ever-growing attempt to please shareholders and corporate boards, executives have sought acquisitions of brands, companies or processes in an attempt to maximize business processes, only to find that it makes more business sense to have these companies act individually.

I’m not here to argue which mergers or divestitures make more sense than others.

But I would contend that simplicity and focus should be the key deliverables for businesses everywhere, especially during a time when several companies have divested themselves from what truly sets them apart from their peers.

I have tried to subscribe to this message by looking at a roll of tape. It’s amazing what you can learn from a collection of plastic and adhesive sitting in a sea of simulated wood cabinet. But this “tape theory” could stick to a lot of companies making the choice on how they want to evolve their business models:

Transparent tape is just that—transparent. There is nothing to hide from this kind of tape. The adhesive, the plastic, even the product in which keeps the tape in place is clear. There is no hidden agenda or deliverable—I know what I am paying for.

Tape sets an expectation—it will stick. There aren’t too many products which hold themselves accountable for their actions like tape. You don’t buy tape with the expectation that it doesn’t adhere to something or keep something together. There is an implied knowledge that one knows what he/she is getting when the product is in use. How many companies can say that?

There are other tape types in my drawer, but this one sets the tone for the others. At the time this article was written, there have been countless rumors about GE selling its NBC unit because of the fit amongst its other business units. Conglomerated companies often have vague “About Us” statements when talking about what they do; that lack of clarity is a beacon that changes are on the horizon. When a company has focus, it can communicate its core competencies without long sentences or corporate hyperbole.

Such is the case with transparent tape—masking tape, duct tape and colored tape all have specific functions, but they all drive back to the core deliverable of the product category.

When you have a good product with good systems to back it up, everyone wants to know how to do it. Richard Drew—the 3M engineer who invented the world’s first transparent cellophane adhesive tape in the 1800s[1]—and his peers defined a new category. Once word got out about it, other companies tried to copy the process, but 3M defined the standard that others followed.

It’s a practice which still follows suit today. There are several companies which attempt to do many things, but what value is truly derived from being all things to all people? By continuously working on the things which made you good in the first place, there will always be a new opportunity for innovation, provided you can find those people within in your company to champion the cause.

I don’t have all of the answers to solve corporate performance or improve productivity. But imagine what can be accomplished if we keep our eyes on the prize which we know we can obtain?

Maybe it’s time for all of us to clean our desks more often.