Publications
Partners
THANKS to the proliferation of digital media platforms, particularly social media, and the real-time access that they provide us to developments in our world, we now live in a world of activists.
Brand followers and customers, the media, civil society groupings of all kinds, local communities, human and environmental rights groups and, increasingly, lone-ranger online rights-watchers with a huge following from across national borders, all play the role of big brother over corporate and government behaviour.
Some of these groupings are formally established as such and others quickly come together when issues arise and disband after they’ve achieved their objectives.
But, what does it take for the activities of such groups and individuals to make a difference and impact positively on the conduct of corporations and governments? In the list of required ingredients for success are strategy and context. In terms of context, we refer to the social, the political, the legal, the moral, etc.
Let us start with the case of BDS SA. In recent weeks, we have seen how the Boycott, Divest, and Sanctions campaign tried – and so far failed – to stop Woolworths [JSE:WHL] from importing pretzels, figs and pomegranates from Israel.
READ: The three Woolworths products causing the boycott
In its defence, Woolworths stated that it has a wide range of customers to satisfy, and that these come from all faiths, cultures and beliefs. It went on to say that none of the few products – less than 1% of its imports - it brings in from Israel come from occupied territories, and that its international sourcing policy complies with government guidelines on importing products from Israel and the Middle-East.
READ: Attempt to resolve Woolworths boycott
The BDS campaign against Woolworths managed to obtain a lot of media coverage for itself, not all of it favourable to its cause. If that is all they wanted, then the campaign can be said to have succeeded. However if, on the other hand, they had hoped to stop Woolworths from importing goods from Israel and to dent Israeli exports to South Africa, the campaign was a massive failure.
In terms of strategy, the BDS campaign went for the wrong target. Supposing that they have very limited resources at their disposal, the concentration of these meagre resources on making noise in front of Woolworths stores was the wrong way go.
They should have used their access to trade unions and other left-wing groupings to influence government to review its trade policy with Israel. In the meantime, Woolworths shares have continued to climb in value and trading is as good as ever. While the BDS efforts get mentioned as a footnote in reports, they haven’t significantly impacted reputation where it matters.
There are many other activist campaigns targeted at Woolworths all the time. These range from concerns about claims on its food range and clothing packages (free range; gluten free; use of restrictive pig stalls by its meat suppliers; the sourcing of palm oil; the use of super thin models to promote its fashion range, etc.) to sourcing approaches and guidelines.
Does deforestation result from the activities of its suppliers? Do rivers in faraway countries get polluted during the processing of textiles that end up making the garments we buy from it and other clothing retailers? Such battles with activist lone-rangers and groups of all kinds are silently fought and negotiated on line all the time.
READ: Fashion industry unravelled: who made your clothes?
The retailer manages to protect its robust corporate reputation because it is aware of the issues that matter to its core customers and it constantly engages them on such issues.
Another example is that of Green Peace and other environmental groups opposed to nuclear power. It is now known that despite the Chernobyl disaster (Ukraine, 1986) – often quoted ad nauseam - the Two Miles Island partial nuclear meltdown (USA, 1979), and Fukushima Daiichi disaster (Japan, 2011), South Africa has announced that it will go ahead and invest in additional nuclear power generation. While these groupings had hoped to scare the South African government into reversing this decision, a lot of their rhetoric has been based on scare tactics and arguments that are bereft of scientific fact.
Claims have been made about all fauna and flora around proposed sites being destroyed (there is a thriving nature reserve around Koeberg Nuclear Power Station); and that Fukushima was a nuclear accident, whereas the truth is that the Japanese disaster originated in a Tsunami that occurred elsewhere, with resultant massive waters travelling for hundreds of miles before overwhelming the nuclear power station.
Despite the solid argument about the huge, often hard to predict costs of nuclear power new build - especially given persistent socio-economic inequalities in a country like South Africa – the strategy of these antinuclear groupings is wrong because it is often based on misleading information.
Rights groups have a role to play in keeping the conduct of companies and governments in check; but they cannot do so effectively if they fail to do their homework before acting.
* Solly Moeng is brand reputation management adviser and CEO of strategic corporate communications consultancy DonValley.
