Parliamone

Cosa ne pensiamo - la diseguaglianza sociale cresce

2020-01-20T06:27:00.003-08:00

"In Italia l'1% più ricco detiene quanto il 70% della popolazione. A pagare il prezzo più alto sono donne e giovani. Oltre il 30% dei ragazzi guadagna oggi meno di 800 euro lordi al mese mentre il 23% degli under 29 versa in condizioni di povertà lavorativa. Crescono gli abbandoni scolastici: peggio di noi solo Spagna e Romania"

Ma vi sembra davvero che questo sistema capitalistico funzioni?
Non credete che sia l'ora di cambiare, drasticamente?

"Ce lo ricorda puntuale come ogni anno Oxfam alla vigilia del meeting annuale del World economic Forum a Davos.

I Paperoni di Forbes son sempre lì. In 2153, forti di un patrimonio di 2.019 miliardi (dati di metà 2019), vantano una ricchezza superiore a quella complessiva di 4,6 miliardi di persone, circa il 60% della popolazione mondiale.

Negli ultimi tre decenni la crescita economica su scala globale che pur c'è stata, non ha avuto affatto un carattere inclusivo. Reddito e ricchezza salivano, ma si fermavano al top della piramide" (fonte Repubblica)

In sostanza, i poveri rimangono poveri, i redditi medi vanno verso la povertà, i ricchi - invece - diventano sempre più ricchi. E mettono i poveri l'uno contro l'altro.

Se non vogliamo più questo per noi e per i nostri figli, bisogna cambiare.
Bisogna capovolgere questo sistema.
Bisogna AUDERE.

Cosa ne pensiamo del Green Deal Europeo

2020-01-20T01:50:00.003-08:00

Di questi giorni la notizia che è stato varato un piano, chiamato il Green Deal Europeo, che avrebbe la buona intenzione di investire, all'interno dei Paesi UE, ben 1000 miliardi di euro in 10 anni.

L'informazione: A cosa serviranno questi soldi?
Per combattere il cambiamento climatico. L’Unione europea vuole raggiungere la neutralità carbonica entro il 2050, ovvero per quella data l’UE vuole arrivare a un equilibrio tra le emissioni di CO2 e l’assorbimento di carbonio. Si tratta di una necessità per riuscire a contenere l’innalzamento del riscaldamento globale entro la soglia di 1,5° dai livelli pre-industriali.
La prima tappa è il 2030: entro tale data bisognerà ridurre le emissioni dei gas serra del 40% rispetto ai livelli del 1990.
Come afferma il Corriere della Sera nel suo articolo, per raggiungere questo target è necessario trasformare l’economia europea, abbandonando le fonti fossili e incentivando la produzione di energia da fonti rinnovabili oltre che promuovere un’economia circolare.
Correttamente aggiunge che questa transizione non è solo energetica ma anche sociale perché comporterà in alcune regioni più dipendenti dal carbone e dalle fonti fossili dei grandi cambiamenti a livello sociale: motivo per cui è stato istituito il Just Transition Fund, il fondo per una "giusta" transazione.

Le nostre considerazioni
PRO:

Al di là di ogni ragionevole dubbio che si possa avere sull'efficacia di questo piano, va comunque premiata la buona volontà e l'impegno a essere leader nel cambiamento

L'UE sta praticamente chiedendo a tutti gli stati membri di COLLABORARE, di mettersi insieme per IL BENE DEL PIANETA.
E non per una migliore crescita, per abbattere l'inflazione, per incrementare l'occupazione, per risanare i bilanci....NO.

Qui ci troviamo davanti ad un cambio di passo nella leadership europea di portata epocale. Ursula von der Leyen, presidente della Commissione UE, sta provando a dare finalmente un senso alla nostra unione europea, stimolandola a farla diventare un'unione di europei.
Si passa dallo stato-nazione in una geopolitica basata sulla competizione in un gioco a somma zero ad una politica di collaborazione, dove ciascuno fa la propria parte per il bene comune. WOW.

CONTRO:

Il piano vuole rappresentare una "spintarella", neanche troppo decisa, verso una rivoluzione, un cambiamento delle fondamenta della società produttiva che si basa sulla seconda rivoluzione industriale, ossia sulle fonti combustibili fossili (carbone, petrolio). Tutto per il bene comune. Perdonate lo scetticismo ma, nell'Europa degli individualismi attuale, ci sembra poco probabile che ciò accada.

Il Green deal Europeo non è paragonabile al New Deal di Roosevelt: quest'ultimo avveniva in uno Stato pineamente sovrano e con tutti gli strumenti a disposizione per implementarlo.

Noi siamo dell'opinione che cambiamenti di questa portata richiedano un cambio di testa, di paradigma, una politica nuova che vede protagonista attivo il cittadino e la sua comunità e non organi ed apparati e onorevoli dei quali non si sa nulla e continuano ad assorbire soldi che sarebbero meglio spesi a livello locale. Serve uno STATO PRESENTE e non uno Stato fantasma come quello di oggi.

Lo Stato, la collettività, il pubblico hanno il compito di assicurare il benessere dei cittadini, ed è giusto che intervengano nell'economia per farlo. Una regola vera sempre e particolarmente importante in periodi di crisi.

Infine: no obblighi di decarbonizzazione, no stop alla nuova produzione di combustibili fossili, nessun piano per diminuire la morsa dei principali contribuenti di CO2 (carne bovina, trasporti, costruzioni) e obiettivi disallineati con la scienza. Nessun riferimento concreto all'economia circolare, nessun problema rifiuti (scompaiono nel Green Deal?)...insomma nessuna novità. Sembra la solita pillolina con lo zucchero.

IN CONCLUSIONE

C'è un'importante questione sociale da risolvere per poter passare ad un'economia "nuova" e se questo non è ben pianificato, salta tutto. L'Europa può dare una direzione ma non ha gli strumenti adatti per imporre il cambiamento, specie se si rifiuta di togliere quel cappio al collo che sono le regole sul deficit. Se così è, se si vuole davvero cambiare, bisogna avere persone nuove, senza compromessi, che abbiano il coraggio di scrivere regole nuove e che abbiano gli strumenti e il tempo per applicarle.

Bisogna AUDERE.

Audere - Perché tutto questo?

2019-12-18T05:57:00.001-08:00

Perchè vogliamo provare a cambiare?

Per cercare qualcosa di nuovo e migliore!

Un buon punto di partenza è chiedersi perché l'attuale sistema di economia politica stia fallendo così ampiamente. Dal punto di vista ambientale, la risposta è che le caratteristiche chiave del sistema lavorano insieme per produrre una realtà altamente distruttiva.

Un impegno indiscusso in tutta la società per la crescita economica a quasi tutti i costi;
Potenti interessi aziendali il cui obiettivo primario è quello di crescere generando profitto, incluso il profitto dall'evitare i costi ambientali che creano
La replica di tecnologie progettate con scarso rispetto per l'ambiente;
Mercati che non riescono sistematicamente a riconoscere i costi ambientali se non corretti dal governo; governi subordinati agli interessi corporativi e all'imperativo di crescita;
Consumismo dilagante spinto da una dipendenza dalla novità e dalla pubblicità sofisticata di obsolescenza programmata;
L'attività economica ora così ampia su scala che i suoi impatti alterano le operazioni biofisiche fondamentali del pianeta

Tutte queste cose contribuiscono a creare un'economia mondiale in continua crescita ma che sta minando la capacità del pianeta di sostenere la vita. E ciò non va per niente bene.

Questa realtà ambientale è fortemente connessa alla crescente disuguaglianza sociale e all'erosione della democrazia e del controllo popolare.

Solo una potente nuova realtà democratica può AUDERE a guidare e regolare l'economia per fini ambientali e sociali, e solo una società che è coesa ed equa è suscettibile di affrontare pienamente sfide condivise come l'ambiente.

Sfortunatamente, oggi viviamo e lavoriamo in un sistema di economia politica che si preoccupa profondamente dei profitti e della crescita e che si preoccupa della società e del mondo naturale principalmente nella misura in cui è necessario farlo. Basta guardare al mondo finanziario: dall'accordo di Parigi ad oggi, le 33 banche più grandi al mondo hanno investito 1.900 miliardi di dollari in fonti fossili. Alla faccia delle rinnovabili.

Spetta quindi a noi come cittadini OSARE (AUDERE) ed iniettare valori di equità, solidarietà e sostenibilità in questo sistema e il governo è il veicolo principale che abbiamo per raggiungere questo obiettivo.

La definizione delle priorità della crescita economica e dei valori economici è alla base dei fallimenti sistemici e delle conseguenti crisi che il sistema capitalista sta vivendo. Oggi, l'attuale orientamento politico sostiene che il percorso per un maggiore benessere è quello di crescere ed espandere l'economia. Produttività, salari, profitti, borsa, occupazione e consumi devono aumentare. Questo imperativo di crescita vince su tutto il resto. Può minare le famiglie, i posti di lavoro, le comunità, l'ambiente e un senso del luogo e della continuità perché è affermato con fiducia e ampiamente creduto che la crescita valga il prezzo che deve essere pagato per essa.

Ma ciò non va per niente bene.

La crescita economica può essere la religione secolare del mondo, ma, per gran parte del mondo, è un dio che sta fallendo, sotto-performando e, per quelli nelle società benestanti, sta creando più problemi di quanti ne stia risolvendo.

Il continuo impulso a far crescere l'economia nel complesso mina le comunità e l'ambiente, alimenta una spietata ricerca internazionale di energia e altre risorse, non riesce a generare i lavori necessari, è schiavo di un consumismo imposto dai programmi di obsolescenza programmata. Tutto appesantito da un livello di sfiducia e di insoddisfazione come mai prima.

Audere - è tempo di tanta irragionevolezza civica

2019-12-18T05:48:00.002-08:00

Premessa

Se l'attuale sistema di economia politica “capitalistica” funzionasse bene, non ci sarebbe bisogno di metterlo in discussione o cercare un cambiamento fondamentale. Ma non è così.

Alla domanda su quali dovrebbero essere gli obiettivi chiave della vita economica, molti risponderebbero: "il benessere individuale e sociale, una democrazia migliore e la qualità ambientale". Se così è, l'economia politica di oggi sta fallendo.

È un fallimento che raggiunge molte sfere della vita nazionale: economica, sociale, politica e ambientale. In effetti, si può dire che il sistema sia in crisi in ognuna di queste quattro aree.

Il momento per OSARE (AUDERE) un cambiamento fondamentale è sottolineato soprattutto dall'urgenza delle condizioni ambientali. Gli scienziati hanno stimato che abbiamo appena 11 anni per trasformare il sistema energetico mondiale, prima che l’incremento della temperatura inneschi reazioni climatiche estreme a catena.

E chi sarà a sopportarne le conseguenze? Principalmente chi sta messo peggio, chi è socialmente svantaggiato o escluso. Come è infatti stato confermato dall'andamento del COP25, dove i ricchi hanno deciso di dare qualche soldo in più ai poveri in cambio dell'indulgenza ad inquinare in maniera indiscriminata e killer.

Per questo la nostra campagna ha due imperativi morali:

L’IMPERATIVO MORALE di affrontare il tema del cambiamento climatico, mettendolo al centro di ogni area della politica, dall’immigrazione al commercio alla politica estera ed ogni altro aspetto della politica del paese e dell’Unione Europea. L'ambiente al centro e non più l'uomo, perchè senza diritto alla sopravvivenza della Natura non ci saranno presto più i diritti umani;

L’IMPERATIVO MORALE di rimettere in gioco una quantità sempre crescente di persone alle quali questo modello capitalista e democratico ha tolto tutto o quasi. Non vogliamo la migliore democrazia che il denaro possa comprare: vogliamo una democrazia inclusiva che coinvolga i cittadini nelle scelte che impattano le loro comunità.

Ethics in Finance

2011-09-27T09:43:00.000-07:00

Two things to consider watching this video.

1) These are traders. Overpayed, with no ethics.
2) Goldman Sachs has a great reputation uh?

Enjoy.....

The magic word is "social collaboration"

2011-09-26T00:31:00.000-07:00

I keep on thinking how can we achieve a bigger social impact than today.
Charities and NGOs are working hard but yet...what they're doing is not even enough to keep a billion of people away from suffering from starvation, homelessness, some of the most common deseases which turn out to be fatal for them.
There must be a way to do more.
And the more I think about this issue, the more I'm convinced that to reduce such social plague we must align the institutions with big money to people needs. I mean not NGOs or even States, but companies.

Simply, it's not just enough that each of them contributes to whatever social cause. We must convince them that this is one of those cases when joining forces achieves a much better result than the single individual forces put together.

We must find a way to achieve "social collaboration", to help companies to look at the whole "social space" not as a big competition but as a big collaboration environment, where the big picture will help to get better results.

There are plenty of ways to get to this point and some enlightened companies have already begun. Check here.

But it's also about us. What do we do for this.
In our little living space we have a role in our society, some working in others advising companies. Let's bring this "collaboration movement" into the small, medium or big organisations, let's challenge the status quo, let's make them understand that helping others, committing to this, is not just "good conscience" but also a strategic long term advantage.

With some likely profits in mind, perhaps boards may change their view and reach out their suppliers to start a real and committed social project.
Am I wrong?

Socially Responsible Investments: is there a market?

2011-09-10T07:00:00.000-07:00

I was attending a nice event last week about the ESG market, with well renowned speakers from Goldman Sachs, Unicredit and BoA.
It was very well moderated by Reuters who provided the attendees with a nice piece of research.
Anyway, I found this really interesting study from EUROSIF, which I think it's worth sharing.

"The UK is widely acknowledged as a global leader in sustainable and responsible finance. Its dynamic cluster of sustainable and responsible investment expertise is spread across a range of institutions, including asset managers, investment consultants, investment banks and independent research houses. It was a pioneer in carbon trading and is now a key centre for the carbon markets". (Follows here)

A new lesson from the oil spill

2011-08-22T10:32:00.000-07:00

It happened again. Damn. Looks like it's a period of spills. Waste.

This one is not even comparable to what happened in the Gulf of Mexico, but it's quite significant for the North Sea environment. It's been interesting though to follow the press coverage about this for various reasons:
- the second big oil spill in little more than a year
- the second UK company (even though now it's mostly in the NL)
- the second time people face such environmental tragedy
- the first time social media have an history in reporting such news
Now how it worked?

The Guardian was definitely the most active on this front. A live report documenting day-by-day the spill and a significant social media coverage on both Twitter and Facebook.
But apart from this, this spill was quite silent. Not really a great chaos around it.

Do you think it's because an incredibly efficient PR Department at Shell or because North Sea is not as important as Gulf of Mexico?
Or is there any other reason?

I can't give an answer yet, but you're welcome to help me on this!

Is it Google+...a little too much social?

2011-07-18T01:40:00.000-07:00

I've just come accross this article, which little shocked me.
Then I went to check terms and conditions about this brand-new social network and my concerns grew even more.

About privacy, about the data you're giving to Google in exchange ffor the use of its free tools.

First. Google+. Has it a breach?
As you probably know, Google+ organizes members and their connections to each other with “Circles.” This way you can post something to a specific Circle instead of the world at large. The issue seems to be that when you post something to a Circle, any receiving members can repost it with varying levels of privacy, up to and including “totally public.” Alright, so that’s a little disconcerting, but you should be able to turn reposting off, right? You can, but only after the post in question has been published — and you have to do it for each, individual post.

Second. Terms and conditions. They say:

You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. This license is for the sole purpose of enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the Services and may be revoked for certain Services as defined in the Additional Terms of those Services.

On the surface, it seems rather innocuous, intended merely to give Google permission to transmit your data across various networks onto all sorts of mobile devices. However, Google demands extremely broad rights from users. Under what circumstances would you sign a contract giving someone such free range with your intellectual property?

Plus, have a read at this really nice HBR article

Reputation in Financial Services

2011-07-14T08:47:00.000-07:00

On the 29^th of June, I’ve been to a very interesting conference, “Reputation in Financial Services”, well organised by Communicate magazine.

I was quite curious to attend as financial services has been – after oil – the most battered sector in terms of trust, reputation…in a nutshell, credibility.

Even though the initial scepticism, I must say that the excellent quality of the speakers almost convinced me that something is changing in the way financial services now approach their customers. I mean, less cash cows and more human beings.

To whom speak about passions, values, love. It sounds cheesy but consider this: as the study by Uffindell pointed out, Apple has been able to create a relationship with their customers based on “love and passion”.

Jillian Fransen, Barclays Bank

Banks, on the other side, are struggling to invite their customers for a “romantic dinner”. Financial sectors customers indeed seems to constantly looking for the best deal and for them is not really problematic to jump from one bank to another. Banks need to become “sexy & accountable”, and I have to say that banks, in this case, are the only entities to be blamed for this customers’ attitude.

ING was very inspirational: Adrian Simpson, Head of UK Corporate Comms at ING, has outlined the necessity to build a new paradigm in the sector, based on new values.

Mike Tyrrell, SRI Connect

Banks and financial institutions need to start listening their customers and understanding their real needs and values in this current difficult contingency that the entire world is living. Banks have a responsibility in the community. ING seems to be pretty careful about this topic and his innovation about the use of social media is a clear testimonial.

Personally, I thought that Adrian’s commitment and enthusiasm to topic was pretty interesting to hear. It looked like the sector has started actively to look for new solutions in line with the most innovative consumer trends.

Mr Simpson has obviously underlined also the critical role of CSR as a tool to engage, internally and externally the stakeholders of his company. “ING has the responsibility to do good” has said. The vision he outlined for ING confirmed that acting responsibly would pay off not just in reputation but also in a greater satisfaction of employees that would be likely to be more productive.

By looking back at Social Media, Adrian has suggested also their importance in their current CSR activities. “We love to speak to our public about our Social Commitment and we would like to engage them in our day by day results”.

Interesting indeed.

Interesting session has been also the one run by Rob Challis from Tangent Synergy about to what extent CSR can be useful to increase the corporate reputation level. Rob has underlined the importance for each company to understand the non-financial risk factors that could undermine corporate performance.

A big thanks to Liz Foggitt, author of these great shots and to Alberto Campora for his indispensable contribution!

Is nuclear the only alternative? A view from The Economist

2011-06-24T09:36:00.000-07:00

On Thursday this week, I’ve been to the Economist UK Energy conference which included some of the most prominent personalities in the world of energy.

CEOs from Centrica, RWE power, Johnson Mathhey together with several academics, helped us all to understand where UK is going in order to cope with the ever increasing demand of energy and if there’s a real alternative today to nuclear power.

I will post later on new interesting videos, in the meantime check this out

Trust and marketing

2011-06-12T03:27:00.000-07:00

Hi all,

I found this very interesting article on Business Respect, which makes a very good point about the misuse of trust and the marketing intelligence when about campaigning to peers.
Very interesting.

"The language of trust is, as far as I can see, the common language between marketers and corporate social responsibility teams. By and large, they have very different perspectives on the dynamics of business but the one thing they will agree on – if you lose trust, your job just got a lot harder.

So one of the core skills of either group, therefore, should be to understand how to build trust with key constituencies. One problem. Trust is not a fixed reference point – a reliable outcome from a set of practiced techniques. It changes and evolves over time.

For instance, the latest version of the Edelman Trust Barometer suggests that there have been significant shifts in who trusts whom since the last one. The headlines tend to focus on how much business is trusted, how much government is trusted and so on.

One of the things I found most remarkable was this: Over the last year people's trust in their friends as a source of information or recommendations has dropped dramatically – from 45 percent in 2009 to 25 percent in 2010.

Let's put aside the suspicion that our most reliable friends have deserted us en mass during the last year and focus on what this means.

It means that the revolution of online social networking – and the engagement by marketers of the same – has had an effect – and not the one that was generally anticipated.

Companies such as Amazon pioneered the use of peer–recommendation, by introducing customer reviews of products. Then came Facebook where you gathered about yourself the online expressions of your closest trusted friends.

And marketers came to understand that the language of trust worked best through people we know and like. So they started aiming to utilise approaches that would get people recommending their experiences to those friends. They focused on things they could use to 'go viral'. The focused on ideas that would spread.

The result has been the same as any where a previously strong technique has been widely adopted, imitated and exploited – diminishing returns.

Now, suddenly, people are finding that their friends are just as susceptible as they themselves are – and that their recommendations don't always hold true. So trust is going down.

Yet another triumph for the world of marketing.

Marketers are already responding by saying that they shouldn't rely too heavily on peer to peer marketing as its power is reducing. There doesn't seem to be any particular reflection on the causal chain there, though.

The so–called blogosphere doesn't score well, either, by the way. Trust in information from blogs and other free–content sources like Wikipedia is very low – below 22 percent trust information from these sources.

That is only realistic. But as with all things, there will be individual sources that become more highly trusted than others over time. You might think, therefore, that trust in traditional media is on the rise. Since we have become disillusioned with the self–appointed commentators (what, me?) and our rather gullible friends, we are probably ready to pay for news we can trust again.

Nope. Trust in media companies is still on the way down. TV news plummeted 20 points. Newspapers by 14 points.

It's interesting, because most 'social media gurus' (and there seem to be thousands of self–appointed gurus – but at least a few are widely respected) tend to argue that businesses need to engage in social media as a way to build trust. They have to be "part of the conversation" on Twitter and on blogs. They should be responding, and promoting their message – in an authentic fashion – through those channels.

And yet it could be that it is the increasing number of companies doing precisely that which is resulting in this growing lack of trust.

The point is that you have to be aware of the action – reaction cycle when it comes to building trust. Ultimately, the ability to build trust doesn't depend so much on which channels you use, but whether you show that you genuinely care about the outcomes you have on people, and show yourself to be trustworthy by delivering on your promises.

What you do changes the nature of the thing you do it to.

If you take something, like 'hours spent on training', which is generally an indicator of good things happening – and then you make it into a target, it changes the nature of the thing. Suddenly, people have an incentive to create new training courses to clock up those all–important brownie points, and after a while you realise that you're capturing the quantity of training, not the quality of outcome.

So it is here. Engage with social media, and you are part of the process that is changing social media.

It's not a problem so long as you look after people and deliver on your promises. Unfortunately, the majority of marketing engagement with social media either does not pass this test or, at the very least, is not perceived to pass this test.

Too late now. The well is poisoned – at least in part.

By the way, trust in NGOs continues to rise. Why? Surely in part because they are seen as being motivated by the common good, and even though some of them may engage with companies they haven't yet been co–opted as a channel for marketing – cause marketing (a minority sport) notwithstanding.

This might make for a fascinating conversation between CSR teams and marketing teams, by the way. "

Is birth control the ultimate strategy to save the planet?

2011-05-17T01:44:00.000-07:00

I know this could be thought-provoking but...
The Eastern part of the world is quickly gaining ground in terms of wealth, increased and better lifestyle, higher spending consumption...but it's not just the few hundred millions of the Western Europe or the North America...here it's about billions.
Nowadays we're sucking up about 1.5x the resources of the planet...to figure out how it could be when those billions increase their lifestyle up to Western standards...well...either makes me shiver or think like a catastrophist.
Have a read to this article I found in the Guardian and let me know what you think...comments are open just below this post.

In the meantime, enjoy this one...

CSR strategy: where are we?

2011-04-15T06:37:00.000-07:00

I took the lead from an interesting book from Wayne Visser, to make a step back in what I'm currently doing and think "where we stand".
Sometimes too often, living the corporate life like it is the centre of the universe or living our mission as CSR officers just as employees and not as people leading the change from within, makes us go like those poor horses with their eyes blinded. Missing completely the target.

Your comments are welcome, either here or on linkedin!

So...where are you?

1. Defensive CSR

The Age of Greed is characterised by Defensive CSR in which all corporate sustainability and responsibility practices – which are typically limited - are undertaken only if and when it can be shown that shareholder value will be protected as a result. Hence, employee volunteer programmes (which show evidence of improved staff motivation, commitment and productivity) are not uncommon, nor are expenditures (for example in pollution controls) which are seen to fend off regulation or avoid fines and penalties.

2. Charitable CSR

Charitable CSR in the Age of Philanthropy is where a company supports various social and environmental causes through donations and sponsorships, typically administered through a Foundation, Trust or Chairman’s Fund and aimed at empowering community groups or civil society organisations.

3. Promotional CSR

Promotional CSR in the Age of Misdirection is what happens when corporate sustainability and responsibility is seen mainly as a public relations opportunity to enhance the brand, image and reputation of the company. Promotional CSR may draw on the practices of Charitable and Strategic CSR and turn them into PR spin, which is often characterised as ‘greenwash’.

4. Strategic CSR

Strategic CSR, emerging from the Age of Management, means relating CSR activities to the company’s core business (e.g. Coca-Cola and water management), often through adherence to CSR codes and implementation of social and environmental management systems, which typically involve cycles of CSR policy development, goal and target setting, programme implementation, auditing and reporting.

5. Systemic CSR

Systemic CSR in the Age of Responsibility focuses its activities on identifying and tackling the root causes of our present unsustainability and irresponsibility, typically through innovating business models, revolutionising their processes, products and services and lobbying for progressive national and international policies.

If you want more...just have a look at this (even if it's not the most interesting piece of video in the world I must admit...!)

Share the change, share the value

2011-03-26T11:12:00.000-07:00

The capitalist system is under siege. In recent years business increasingly has been viewed as a major cause of social, environmental, and economic problems. Companies are widely perceived to be prospering at the expense of the broader community.

Even worse, the more business has begun to embrace corporate responsibility, the more it has been blamed for society’s failures. The legitimacy of business has fallen to levels not seen in recent history. This diminished trust in business leads political leaders to set policies that undermine competitiveness and sap economic growth. Business is caught in a vicious circle.

A big part of the problem lies with companies themselves, which remain trapped in an outdated approach to value creation that has emerged over the past few decades. They continue to view value creation narrowly, optimizing short-term financial performance in a bubble while missing the most important customer needs and ignoring the broader influences that determine their longer-term success.
How else could companies overlook the well-being of their customers, the depletion of natural resources vital to their businesses, the viability of key suppliers, or the economic distress of the communities in which they produce and sell? How else could companies think that simply shifting activities to locations with ever lower wages was a sustainable “solution” to competitive challenges?

Government and civil society have often exacerbated the problem by attempting to address social weaknesses at the expense of business. The presumed trade-offs between economic efficiency and social progress have been institutionalized in decades of policy choices.

Companies must take the lead in bringing business and society back together. The recognition is there among sophisticated business and thought leaders, and promising elements of a new model are emerging. Yet we still lack an overall framework for guiding these efforts, and most companies remain stuck in a “social responsibility” mind-set in which societal issues are at the periphery, not the core.

The solution lies in the principle of shared value, which involves creating economic value in a way that also creates value for society by addressing its needs and challenges. Businesses must reconnect company success with social progress.

Shared value is not social responsibility, philanthropy, or even sustainability, but a new way to achieve economic success. It is not on the margin of what companies do but at the center.
We believe that it can give rise to the next major transformation of business thinking. And something is already happening (www.watchfyi.tv).

Are consumers buying sustainability? (part II)

2011-03-10T10:59:00.000-08:00

In my previous post I spoke about why the consumer social agenda is so important. But what I'm now following up is the main concept that drives people's behaviour. It's ETHICS.

And due to the importance of such a value and its place in the "consumer mindset", an ignorance of ethical behaviour can be catastrophic for a company and its brand. Take Nike for example: in the 1990s news emerged that the sports equipment manufacturer was using child labour in the developing world to produce a range of footballs. A public campaign exploded – and this was before the days of widespread Internet use, viral communications and social networking – that caused the discerning public to boycott Nike goods and the activist public to demonstrate outside its retail outlets. Sales for Nike goods dropped away, and the share price tumbled, elucidating uncomfortable questions from the sports company’s institutional investors.

It still took time for Nike’s reputation, and share price to recover.

And today the relevance of such social and environmental issues is as strong as never before. Are consumers buying sustainability?

Yes, and in increasing numbers. Consumers are buying it, both notionally andat the tills. Mainstream awareness and concern exists and behaviours are changing. Consumers want to act and buy more sustainably, but are restricted by three key barriers – high price; confusion and lack of trust; and availability of alternatives.
What’s the result then? People are changing lifestyle and behaviours.

Today’s consumers know, and care more about what they buy, how it is made, what it is made from, how far it travels and how it is packaged. The way consumers gather and share information has also changed; they are empowered and linked as never before by the internet. Information can spread globally in an instant. The consequences of being found to be operating unethically, or in an environmentally unfriendly manner, as said in my previous post, can be damaging and long-term.

Some might argue the hype will exceed the reality in the short term. However, rather as the internet is revolutionizing retail, sustainability is an issue which will change the world.
Retail and consumer goods companies need to prepare now.

(written with John Foster)

Why consumers’ social agenda is so important

2011-03-01T05:25:00.000-08:00

Each year the world’s biggest corporations spend billions of dollars on trying to improve their public image.

They do this through a number of different channels which include traditional public relations, corporate communications and elements of advertising and marketing. A more recent discipline in the creation of a positive public image has been CSR, or corporate social responsibility reporting. CSR reporting is becoming more and more significant as corporations are increasingly trying to portray themselves as responsible global citizens and at a micro level part of the communities in which they operate.

A whole new CSR industry has sprung up and CSR executives are increasingly becoming involved in varied aspects of internal communications, human resources, public relations, advertising, corporate governance, marketing and corporate communications across all facets of a firm’s operations and in the geographic regions where it does business.
CSR has arisen for a number of reasons.
In some industries there are regulatory reasons why a company has to report its CSR activities, such as in the extractive industries, nuclear industry, chemicals and pharmaceuticals. In others, a corporation has to update its customers on its CSR activity because of the nature of its business, such as registered charities and NGOs.

But in many cases companies used to do CSR reporting as it makes good business sense. But things ar changing now.
This is it: as the developed world has become increasingly consumerist and most of the necessities of life – food, water, heating and shelter – have become a given ‘right’ in these societies, consumers now make lifestyle choices about their purchases, not just necessity purchases.
Other factors become important in the purchase mechanism:

• Health: the rise of highly priced organic foods –> before the mid-twentieth century, almost all foods were organic and almost all of the people in the world grew it themselves out of necessity;

• Service: what is the difference between one high street bank and another? They all offer often the same products, all with very similar rates and features. But now banks compete for custom on ‘service’, hence the millions of dollars they are spending in advertising to create a human, friendly, local face and prove they are not cold financial institutions, but caring, considerate, supportive partners; and

• Status: which explains why Nike or Adidas can get away with selling fundamentally the same shoe as a non-name brand for three times the price. In many cases the Nike and non-brand shoe have been assembled in the same factory in the developing world with the same materials.

• Reputation: this is an increasingly important feature, which is currently conditioning the purchasing behaviour of consumers. Thanks to social networks, their voices can be heard and shared at an incredible pace, impacting directly on a brand and thus making people protagonists of their "living space".

(to be continued)
(written together with John Foster)

This is useful...

2011-02-17T06:59:00.000-08:00

Warren Buffett's best advice

2011-02-08T23:50:00.000-08:00

This 2 minutes video says a lot about what's important

in business and in life

check it out!

Brand reputation: Toyota's back

2011-01-27T09:50:00.000-08:00

It looks like Toyota likes to hit the headlines with these ongoing cars recalls....I'm really beginning to think that this is a proper marketing strategy!!!

I extracted this declaration from The Guardian as it is very insightful:

Jon Williams, managing director of Toyota GB, said: "We are committed to putting the customer first and have a total focus on the quality of all our products. We will liaise with our customers to carry out the repair procedures as efficiently as possible, with minimal disruption."

When I read this statement I ask myself:

- is it "quality" to produce a car, which is only 80% ok, running the risk to cause damages to those who buy it? Would it be better to check before selling or enhance the controlling dept as this is not the first recall you're doing?

- minimal disruption: yet, there is disruption. We'll do it for free: of course.

Am I willing to buy a Toyota? The brand the guarantees reliability, safety? Maybe I'll think twice when I'll look their advertising and their brand promises.

"Brand-new": stories of presumed new brands

2011-01-18T09:19:00.000-08:00

It’s a case history. A success story, to be taught at business administration schools. I’m talking about the internet strategy, created and implemented by David Plouffle, CMO to Barack Obama, who was able to engage via an online multimedia marketing campaign millions of people during the Presidential Elections in 2009.

Lots of gratitude for him, glory and White House for Obama.

The more I read this story, the more I realise how much the world has changed. Such a thing wouldn’t be possible nor even conceivable, only 3 or 4 years ago. The role digital media had in creating, enhancing and positioning a brand is bright clear.

Nowadays, the business world is suddenly finding itself submerged in a communication context that has radically changed over a small timescale. Radicalism and rapidity: two attributes able to confuse – and frighten – many PR managers and communication agencies who are navigating this new framework without the appropriate skills to deal with the new media.

There is still the “one-way-communication” mindset in most of the companies, where they pretend to announce to the audience what they want to say but then they aren’t interested to hear what audience wants to tell back. In the financial industry, this mindset is even more evident. And pathetic. Because this behaviour, due to lack of knowledge on one side and to fear on the other, will only achieve to the company an ongoing erosion – in the long run - of the competitive advantage of the business. But it’s “long term” and we know how invisible this turns to be into the everyday business practice.

Since social networks came to the front row, every business is now strongly responsible for every thing it says or does. It’s the consumer agenda which sets the values, not the corporate comms. And values speak and engage through the brand.

The brand is today the meeting point between people’s expectations and companies’ promises. Its value depends on how much they fit together.

To show this, let’s take, as an example, BP – Beyond Petroleum.

Ten years ago, the company started an ambitious rebranding program, which wanted to communicate the openness to new and more ecological projects in order to live in a better world which could reduce the amount of oil burned. A massive offline and online communication effort, focused on environment, and a rich agenda of CSR events/investments contributed to give value to the promise. Beyond Petroleum, indeed.

But how solid was this rebranding strategy? How much importance was then placed on maintaining the promise? How much efforts to deal and engage with customers? What has recently happened in Mexico, leaves us...thoughtful.

The oil spill in Gulf of Mexico simply tells us that the promises contained in the “Beyond Petroleum” brand were not maintained; that BP was still heavily “British Petroleum” more than anything else.

The explosion happened on the 20th of April.

Obviously, BP couldn’t imagine how devastating the accident was going to be, even though there were signs that it was going to get very serious indeed. Maybe acting on the upcoming concern could have been bubbling the importance of the accident, or perhaps it could have damaged the profits, the CEO and set lawsuits with shareholders for inadequate action. But a well-timed corporate action – managed by a carefully thought crisis management plan – could have shown sensibility and care for the environmental issue that was so prominently brought up in corporate news and advertising.

It could have maintained the promise the brand was claiming.

Looking at the facts, it’s an easy deduction to say that those US$4 billions, spent rebranding the company in these years, trying to erase the legacy of a tremendous accident happened in Texas in 2005 and which caused the death of 5 people, have vanished in just few days.

3 days after the accident, CEO Tony Hayward released the first communication and the first interview happened only two weeks after.

Once again, a huge mistake. First the lack of a crisis management plan, second the lack of media strategy.

The information is nowadays so fast and ongoing that is impossible for the board of whatever company to establish timeframes, to hide the news like it happened in the communist regimes.

Because there are gossips, spontaneous journalists, tourists, environmentalists, people who live there...and who is wired. They are all stakeholders of companies, like BP. They are all able to spread the news via Facebook, Youtube, Twitter and the likes.

Tweets, Facebook pages and comments, Linkedin discussions, blogs – some of them real mass influencers – fill the information gap left by the company and they are very effective in doing this. In those very same days, where BP was reticent to disclose, the company lost billions of market capitalization on the Stock Exchange. It’s so useless to hide behind a finger.

Maybe learning from this experience, BP implemented an online strategy whose aim was to influence and not to engage. They bought sponsored links which appeared on Google and Yahoo when you taped “oil spill”

Those links redirect you to a BP page where the company explained its version of the facts and where it championed its efforts to deal with the disaster.

It’s quite clear from the abstract showed in the image, that this is a “corporate communication”, not even willing to try to engage with the stakeholders, to collaborate with them.

Social media understood this very quickly and within days they bombarded BP through a subsequent Twitter account and a Facebook page (500.000 people) supporting the “boycott BP” tagline.

Apparently, BP learned again the lesson, and after a couple of months, it implemented a different communication strategy, aimed at people also in the imagines used throughout the website.

This is a new communication and branding era folks: there’s lots to understand and lots to do. Very quickly.

“Brand-new”: storie di nuovi brand o presunti tali*

2010-12-29T07:13:00.000-08:00

E' oramai un caso che fa scuola, una success story da raccontare ai nuovi corsi di economia aziendale. Sto parlando della strategia creata ed implementata da David Plouffle, CMO dello staff di Barack Obama, in grado di sensibilizzare milioni di persone attraverso un'attenta, pensata e magistralmente eseguita, campagna di marketing multimediale durante le elezioni presidenziali americane. Tantissimi premi e riconoscimenti per lui, la Casa Bianca per Obama.

Più leggo la sua success story, più mi sembra evidente di come il mondo sia cambiato. Una cosa del genere non sarebbe mai venuta alla ribalta, o forse non sarebbe stata nemmeno possibile, anche solo 4 anni fa. L'importanza del ruolo assunto dai digital media nel creare un'icona, un “brand” (o riposizionarlo), è sotto gli occhi di tutti.

Oggi le aziende, di qualunque settore, si trovano in un contesto comunicativo che è cambiato velocemente in modo radicale. Due attributi in grado di far girare la testa – e spaventare – molti PR manager ed agenzie di comunicazione ancora impreparate a dialogare strategicamente con i nuovi media.

Il mondo corporate è ancorato a paradigmi di comunicazione di vecchio stampo, la c.d. “one-way communication”, io comunico quello che voglio ma non voglio sentire che cosa ne pensi. Nel mondo della finanza questa è ancora più pronunciato.

E patetico.

Ma con questo atteggiamento statico, dovuto a lacune cognitive da un lato e paura dall'altro, l'unico risultato che si ottiene è la continua erosione del vantaggio competitivo della propria azienda, un danno di medio-lungo periodo ancora invisibile ai più.

Nel mondo in cui oggi viviamo, ogni azienda è fortemente responsabilizzata per ogni cosa che dice e fa e non più secondo una scala di valori “imposta” o “corporate”, ma secondo un'agenda decisa dal consumatore. Che ingaggia il dialogo con questa attraverso il brand.

Sempre più, il brand è infatti il punto d'incontro tra i desiderata, le preoccupazioni ed i valori dei consumatori ed il commitment dell'azienda nel farvi fronte in maniera appropriata.

Prendiamo, per esempio, il caso, esemplare, di BP.

Dieci anni fa, la società ha avviato un progetto ambizioso di rebranding, il quale rifletteva l'intenzione di esplorare nuove idee e possibilità per vivere in un mondo che potesse fare a meno del petrolio. Una comunicazione massiccia sui media tradizionali ed un sito web ricco di documentazioni sull'impegno ambientalista della società, contribuivano a dare sostanza alla promessa.

Una società che ha speso “billions” in rebranding, utilizzando campagne sui new media, giocando sulle iniziali del proprio marchio (BP, da British Petroleum, a Beyond Petroleum, cavaliere della protezione ambientale), ridisegnandolo, arricchendolo di attributi “verdi” a completamento di una fitta agenda di CSR (corporate social responsibility, ndr) rivelatasi col senno del poi con delle grosse lacune in termini di consistenza.

Quanto tuttavia era in verità solida tale strategia di rebranding, quanta attenzione era stata piazzata davvero nel mantenere le promesse del nuovo brand, quanta sostanza per dialogare davvero con i consumatori? I fatti accaduti ci fanno venire quantomeno qualche perlessità.

La drammatica esplosione nel Golfo del Messico ha reso evidente che le promesse contenute nel brand “Beyond Petroleum” non sono state mantenute, ma che BP è ancora fortemente British Petroleum.

L'incidente si è verificato il 20 di Aprile.

Ovviamente BP poteva non sapere da subito la portata dell'evento, che tuttavia rapidamente si era dimostrato essere molto serio. Agire sulla preoccupazione del momento avrebbe potuto gonfiare un avvenimento che magari poteva essere invece di portata molto ridotta, avrebbe potuto minare i profitti, la posizione del CEO, causare contrasti interni e cause con gli shareholders. Ma tale tempestiva azione - attraverso un sapiente e “preparato” crisis communication management - avrebbe dimostrato attenzione e sensibilità verso la tematica ambientale sbandierata nelle comunicazioni corporate e nell'advertising. Avrebbe mantenuto la promessa contenuta nel brand.

L'analisi dei fatti ci dice in maniera chiara che quei 4.000 miliardi di dollari spesi nel rebranding e quegli anni di lavoro passati a cancellare l'eredità dell'incidente accaduto in Texas nel 2005 e costato la vita a 15 persone, sono sfumati in solo pochi giorni.

Vale dunque la pena correre questo rischio e rischiare di compromettere sia il faticoso lavoro di anni sia la reputazione sul mercato? Non ho idea di quale sia stato il processo decisionale o la strategia dietro la scelta finale ma, ancora una volta, i fatti ci dicono che la risposta di BP a tale domanda fatidica è stato un “sì”.

Solo 3 giorni dopo, infatti, il CEO Tony Hayward ha rilasciato la prima comunicazione sull'accadimento e rilasciato la prima intervista pubblica ben due settimane dopo.

Immagino che tale intervallo di tempo sia stato necessario non tanto per capire l'entità di uno dei peggiori disastri ecologici che memoria ricordi, ma utile per preparare - da parte del board - un piano di “crisis management” per l'evento.

Ancora una volta, un gravissimo errore. Dopo la mancata sensibilizzazione ambientale, la mancata comprensione delle sensibilizzazione mediatica. La velocità delle comunicazioni oggi è tale che non è più possibile per il board dettare i tempi delle stesse, non è più possibile “coprire” l'informazione stile regime comunista.

Perché ci sono le indiscrezioni, ci sono i giornalisti improvvisati, i curiosi, gli ambientalisti, la gente del posto...tutti ugualmente stakeholders della BP e di qualunque azienda, tutti ugualmente in grado di far sentire la propria voce attraverso i vari Facebook, Youtube, Twitter e via discorrendo.

E non so se sia peggio aggravare una situazione di crisi – dimostrandosi comunque attenti – o lasciare spazio alle indiscrezioni, alle speculazioni in un mondo multimediale dove un quarto di ipotesi speculativa diventa una teoria, anzi, un'evidenza che si autoalimenta a valanga. I messaggi su Twitter, i commenti e le pagine su Facebook, le discussioni sui gruppi di Linkedin, i post di tantissimi blog – alcuni dei quali veri e propri mass influencers – colmano il vuoto lasciato dall'informazione corporate e si dimostrano molto efficaci. In quegli stessi giorni di assenza di informazione da parte di BP, la società ha perso diversi “billions” di capitalizzazione in Borsa. A dimostrazione che le informazioni oggi sono disponibili ovunque e da svariate fonti. Inutile nascondersi dietro un dito.

Successivamente, BP ha cercato di utilizzare internet per comunicare, con una strategia eccellente nella progettazione ma poco efficace nell'implementazione, almeno in fase iniziale. BP, nel tentativo di recuperare un po' della reputazione persa in questi mesi, ha infatti comprato da Google e da Yahoo! i link sponsorizzati che appaiono su questi motori di ricerca quando si cerca il termine “oil spill”

Questi link ci portano direttamente alla pagina che BP ha costruito per spiegare la propria versione dei fatti e far luce su quanto si stia impegnando per porvi rimedio.

Sebbene l'impegno sia apprezzabile, è molto evidente dal testo sopra riportato, come sia una “corporate communication”, e non si cerchi invece il dialogo con il lettore, non si usi un tono dimesso e penitente, non si cerchi la collaborazione della gente. Esattamente quello cui dovrebbe puntare un sito internet, specie se sottoposto alla ente d'ingrandimento dei social media.

Che inevitabilmente hanno preso d'assalto questo tentativo, buono solo nelle intenzioni. Un account su Twitter ha preso di mira in maniera sarcastica gli sforzi comunicativi della società, su Facebook mezzo milione di persone si sono associate alla pagina “boicottiamo BP”, e via discorrendo. Una lezione che la società ha appreso, a giudicare dalla nuova modalità comunicativa usata recentemente e che vediamo illustrata:

E' evidente, dall'analisi di questo caso, come la portata del cambiamento dettato da internet e dall'abilitazione dei consumatori nel portare alla ribalta tematiche sensibili, ha di fatto creato una nuova era di comunicazione e di branding: una nuova era nella quale c'è ancora molto da capire e tanto, tanto da fare.

Christian Liistro

*Articolo apparso su "Pubblicità Italia", numero di Ottobre 2010.

Social marketing...these are really great chaps!

2010-09-07T01:16:00.000-07:00

In my first post, last week, we spoke about the post crisis marketing trends, how constantly and more intensely they are focusing on the “person”, on the comprehension of his/her behaviour, values and priorities.

This has brought to light again the importance of the social marketing, one of the many specialist areas of the marketing discipline, keener on human progress/social good through the push of positive/healthy behaviours, more than on the pure sales efforts. I think many of us have in mind the Government sponsored ads displayed on TV about alcohol, driving carefully, HIV…well, that’s it, but that’s just the bottom line of social marketing.

But social marketing ain’t all just about communication. It’s a complex world of strategies and tactics with the main purpose to achieve a strong change in everyday lifestyle or habits. If you think at the specific audience these marketers want to talk to, it’s then easy to understand how tough is the challenge: disadvantaged or socially troubled people, who are that part of our reality we often don’t see but that dramatically need the change, that need a message of hope and help; people who sometimes are very troubled just because of the pressures they receive in their own everyday environment, which prevent and defeat the will of change.

But data from the Research and Information magazine, show us how successful these campaigns are.

And this only should lead us, “normal marketers” to ask ourselves questions, in order to understand the expertise of these social professionals and comprehend their tactics on one side and the attention they pay to the community on the other side.

Because these are the experts of the behavioural change, the “graal” holders for a strong and powerful brand, which becomes to be credible, accepted and trusted in everyday relationships within a specific community.

Not convinced? Then have a ride on Youtube, in search of their works, and check the effects on yourself.

UK bike - campaign
Alcohol campaign
HIV campaign
HIV campaign (2)

I think it’s quite clear the importance these strategies have in today’s and tomorrow’s world: social topics are very important, in UK like elsewhere, and especially in the financial markets where apparently there’s not a clear and deep comprehension on what is important to the community....

The push towards a world where it’s stakeholders’ and not just shareholders’ interests that matters is everyday stronger, the evidence of such a world where people – even if not represented in the companys’ annual meetings – can bring power to brand or destroy it, according to how well the company comply with social good and profit, is becoming a reality, day by day.

It’s very interesting to see how this shift in blurring the line between ‘social marketing’ and ‘social media marketing’, how the once defined line between the two disciplines is now blurred, leading to a brand new definition of “social marketing,”, something that has not been written yet.

But this is another story; I’ll go through it next week.

Have your say chaps!!!

Marketing trends: The day after

2010-08-26T07:55:00.000-07:00

Marketing has changed. And it won’t be the same again. The current ongoing crisis has dragged down everything, including those shiny big marketing budgets that were the joy of many marketers.

During these long and, unfortunately, ongoing years of budget cutting activities, marketers faced 2 different phases: the first, waiting for the storm to clear quickly and the business to be once more BAU - “business as usual”; the second, much more productive, the phase of frustration and back-to-the-bone practices, when we suddenly realize that nothing will be the same.

What happened to companies as well as consumers is something unique, a once-in-a-lifetime event (hopefully!) that has dramatically changed the rules of the game: no more unconditional trust to businesses, financial businesses especially, and that strong leadership business culture that once used to inspire respect, transparency and trust, has completely disappeared, gone.

In this catastrophic setting, marketers began to look for new ways to convey their messages to the wider public, be it B2C or B2B makes no difference since – and this is the first real awakening – we just discovered that they are all people.

In such an uncertain landscape, I think there are some trends that will be important in the next future in order to give effectiveness to the marketing efforts – especially working through the main asset of marketing, ie the brand – and that can be essential part of the strategic marketing mix.

1. The social revolution

In the recent years, marketing has mostly been technology driven, trying to unravel the secrets of web 2.0 and include them into the marketing strategy. This digging into the darkness of the web, has allowed many marketers to gather quite a big experience on how to use it and to get on the social networks bandwagon quite soon. All of it, has given rise to new marketing instruments, like social brands or the virtual focus group communities, useful to get onboard the new audience that lives most on their social life online.

2. Rethinking the marketing model

On average, according to a research from Procter & Gamble, the insight marketing budget is made by data crunching activities by 80% and only by 20% by innovation and creativity. An astonishing budget mix that must be reviewed, in a world that is becoming every day less static and in a society which is becoming even more “confessional”, revealing many personal data and preferences like never before. When businesses understand this, marketing will be able to gear itself properly, becoming a fundamental change agent into a “learning organisation”

3. Creative collaboration

Remember how valuable the “collaboration approach” is. Take The Office of Fair Trading for example. It developed a web-based community platform instead of polling people and then spending energies on the data aggregation.
The community exposed the participants to responses from others after initial qualitative interviews. The resulting discussion and collaboration between the respondents meant that the final report suggested new issues and trends that could only have been determined by the community-based discussion
Community-based discussion is nowadays a systemic marketing tool that can be used on a global scale with much reduced costs. To get an insight has never been so easy.

4. Social responsibility is the new pillar of businesses

Before it was just a “joke”, an exercise of good will and charity. Today is about the success of a business. This is the first time ever, when being socially responsible or socially mindful has become to be such an overarching critical success factor. A company’s business is not anymore developed in an abstract world, isolated from the community where it lives and thrives. It must consider itself now as an important part of it, and marketers have now to challenge this “new environment” in order to find a way to engage properly with the people. A “new environment”, where transparency, trust and reputation have become the new businesses’ (and brands’) values.