Nick Andrews

My Fleishman Hillard colleague in Brussels, Nick Andrews, has a nice rumination on the desire for many companies to be left alone.  He notes that companies in the throws of some public affairs crisis pine for the indifference of government for what they do.  He brilliantly describes the mindset:

Broadly, this depends on a line of argument which goes something like this. “We’re really important to the (normally global) economy. You don’t really understand what we do because you’re not technical like us. We’re quite capable of self-regulating. We’re really very responsible (no, really). Best to leave us alone.” Whilst I totally understand the attraction of this approach, I have one small issue with it. I’ve never seen it work. Ever.

I am very familiar with this attitude and I agree with Nick that it is utterly self-defeating.  But I do think he underestimates the path from this attitude to ultimate success in the way a company conducts its public affairs program.

The challenge is always to look beyond the immediate crisis, to the positioning opportunity. A positive, solution-oriented, industry-leading point of view, stated passionately, widely and consistently, can only stand organisations in good stead. It puts their opponents on the back foot and shapes the debate. It raises morale internally and galvanizes the sector. After all, they might as well. The one thing we can say with certainty is that they won’t be left alone.

As usual, Nick’s guidance is spot on and companies would be wise to take it.  But I’m reminded of the scene from beginning of Peter Pan when Peter is trying to help the children to fly.  As long as they were simply following Peter’s instructions, they were unsuccessful.  It was only when the “truly believed” that they were lifted off the ground.

So it is with a successful corporate public affairs program.  If it is done because it is something “you have to do” to keep the government at bay or even if it is done because Nick Andrews said so, it will fail in the end.  It is only when a company appreciates the fact that, in the current policy and political environment, companies have responsibilities greater than to provide jobs for their employees, ROI for investors or even good value for customers.  In fact, the broader public now holds companies accountable for larger social goals, like sustainability or humane treatment of their stakeholders, very broadly defined.  It is only when companies embrace these values will they achieve their proper role in society.   Like it or not, corporate leaders are put in the same pot as government leaders.  The general public believes all such elites have failed them in their obsessive search for power or money.  The burden falls on all societal leaders to demonstrate their commitment to the greater good.

And, if they do it right, they might even, in the end, be left alone by government.  Thank so?

Nah!

Thanks to Andrew Sullivan, I’ve come across a great web site with a very sophisticated analysis of events in Iran, called “the newest deal.“  Here’s a sample:

So when word of yesterday’s bloodshed reaches the country’s religious centers – and it surely will in the midst of the chaos that has erupted during the last forty-eight hours – outrage can be expected in Qom. This may soon put Iran’s clerics, both conservative and moderate, in an unenviable position: sacrificing their coveted theocracy in order to salvage their religion’s sanctity. For if it was unclear up until this point, there is surely no way that any clerical scholar of Islam can any longer defend the actions of the Islamic Republic – especially when such actions are committed in Islam’s name, for that matter.

What is happening in Iran seems truly historic. Yet, American media seems strangely oblivious. While they appear late to this realization, at least CNN is devoting the appropriate attention. Meanwhile, on the Today Show, the news at the top of the hour devoted maybe 10 seconds to Iran.

I find this extremely disturbing.  I had believed that China, while generally intolerant of dissent, was not an evil government.  Rather, I saw them as obsessed with order, governing an unruly country of more than a billion people.  On a number of occasions,  the government had responded to public opinion.  I had assumed that, over time, the government would continue to succumb to public pressure and begin to relax the political oppression.

Now, I’m not so sure.  Liu Xiaobo courageous launched the so-called Chapter 08 petition  that called for the end of one-party rule in China. For that, he will apparently spend the next 11 years of his life in prison.  More troubling is the fact that he was sentenced in a one-day trial that was held largely in secret.

At a time when China is becoming much more engaged on the world stage, this behavior does not bode well for the future.

In a fascinating analysis in the official Chinese newspaper, Global Times, the paper concludes that the weakness of Chinese labor unions explains violence that has spread across a number of steel plants.  In two cases, steel executives have been beaten to death by mobs.  Now, steelworkers are taking to the streets to protest the privatization of their plants, which often leads to job losses and various atrocities.  The labor unions have been of no help to the workers.

Here’s one amazing story:

Then there was the case of Zhang Haichao, forced to have his chest opened by surgeons to prove he had a deadly lung disease after his employer refused to provide a certificate showing he had been working in a polluted environment. Not one mention of a trade union has appeared in any media report.

It seems that the unions are not adapting to their new responsibilities under a capitalist economy.  As one analyst notes:

Zhou Yongkun, a professor of Suzhou University in Jiangsu Province, explained in his blog why the trade union under the current economic system is incapable of solving disputes.

“Under the traditional Chinese centrally planned economic system, where the government authority was combined with company management, the right of freedom of association with others was easily considered as an anti-government organization as the trade union was capable of solving disputes between employers and employees,” he said.

“However, under the market economy system, companies are independent from the government in dealing with their management issues and the trade union has transformed into a tool for shareholders.

They have a point about Western coverage.  The belief in the superiority of multi-party democracies is so ingrained in Western thought that it is taken for granted that the Chinese one-party state is a totalitarian dictatorship.  Clearly, the Chinese system has its problems and human rights are often disregarded.  But I am struck with how much political turmoil exists in China.  This ferment does suggest something other than totalitarianism exists in China.

Here are some excerpts from the editorial, which is worth reading in its entirety:

Once something bad happens in China, they simply blame China’s political system. In their eyes, it is inevitable for such a “backward and flawed” political system to have problems. With no change in the system, China and its government can never solve these problems….

….Actually, China’s current political system, in the past decades, has made remarkable achievements in developing the economy, improving the well-being of the Chinese people of all 56 ethnic groups, and promoting the country’s role in the international community. China’s governmental system was the practical choice of the Chinese people and revolutionaries after a long search and struggle….

….Any country, including Western countries, cannot be free of social and ethnic problems in its development. Serious social problems such as racial issues and the high rate of crime are rife in the US and other Western countries…

…It is time for the Western media to take an objective approach toward understanding and explaining China’s problems and changes, one which is less simplistic and more open-minded.