|
About Z/Yen
History
Clients
People
Testimonials
Z/EALOUS
FAQ
Services
Strategy
Intelligence
Systems
SpecialiZm
Change management
Outsourcing
Sectors
Financial services
Technology
Not-for-Profit
Commercial
Public sector
Activities
GFCI
The London Accord
Events
On-line surveys
c
Products
Compliance workstation
Benchmarking
Investment games
PPRISM
PropheZy
VizZy
Knowledge
Books
Articles
Research &
Presentations
Press
Now & Z/Yen
Media coverage
Press releases
Z/Yen imagery
Fun
Photo gallery
Caption competition
Humour
ExtZy
Links
Reading list
Risk/Reward surfing

© The Z/Yen Group of Companies 2008
| |
Professor Michael Mainelli, Executive
Chairman, Z/Yen Limited
Mercers’ School Memorial Professor of Commerce at Gresham College
[An edited version of this article first
appeared as "Measured Governance Returns: Is There Bad Corporate Governance",
The Marketing Leaders, (10 January 2007)]
Is There Bad Corporate Governance?
Cynics call “business ethics” an oxymoron. Yet, while we live in an era
when personal morals are more private and relativistic, our corporations are
expected to be more public about their ethics. We expect corporations to
exhibit corporate social responsibility (CSR). Underneath most CSR lies the
concept of ‘sustainability’, which the Brundtland Report defined in 1987 as,
“development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the
ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”
How can you argue with CSR and sustainability? Well, problems include too much
CSR (so many initiatives), conflicting CSR responses (e.g., NGOs disagreeing on
the worse evil, child labour or poverty) and form over substance (even Enron had
a “Code of Ethics”). David Henderson goes further, arguing forcefully in his
2001 essay “Misguided Virtue: False Notions of Corporate Social Responsibility”
that the burden of CSR on organisations is harming organisations and society.
He notes that CSR objectives are neither well-defined nor free from controversy,
and that many corporations are unconsciously and irresponsibly endorsing
anti-business hostility to the market economy. CSR has the potential to do
real harm. Hostility to CSR is not new. Milton Friedman wrote in
1962:
|
“Few trends could so thoroughly undermine the very
foundations of our free society as the acceptance by corporate
officials of a social responsibility other than to make as much
money for their stockholders as possible. This is a
fundamentally subversive doctrine. If businessmen do have a
social responsibility other than making maximum profits for
stockholders, how are they to know what it is? Can self-selected
private individuals decide what the social interest is?” |
However, there are a number of ways in which organizations might be
rewarded for CSR initiatives, both ‘carrots’ for success and freedom from
‘sticks’. Freedom from ‘sticks’ includes not being subject to NGO attacks,
not having government impositions, not being boycotted from regions or
markets, or not losing key employees with different ethical values.
‘Carrots’ might include good public relations, brand enhancement, access to
contracts with CSR requirements, positive relations with NGOs, attracting
higher-quality staff at lower rates or preferential access to capital.
Attempts to measure CSR benefits are numerous, and inconclusive. One
authoritative review in 2004 by the United Nations Environment Programme
Finance Initiative, working with major global investment banks on 11
studies, concluded that it is too early to prove that CSR leads to superior
performance – “The majority of analysts noted difficulties in comparative
analysis due to the range of reporting practices for environmental, social
and corporate governance risks and opportunities”. But can we measure CSR
cost/benefit at a firm level? If we could measure overall CSR cost/benefit
we could set an appropriate level in marketing for CSR activities using
traditional financial techniques.
Measuring CSR in Marketing
For a senior marketing manager, CSR investment should lead to a demonstrable
increase in shareholder value. Thus, CSR should feature in financial
decision-making models and be subject to cost/benefit approaches.
Paradoxically, if CSR cannot fit into financial models, then the senior
marketing manager’s firm runs the risk of poor investment decisions leading
to under- or over-investment in CSR with the consequent waste of resources
that under- or over-investment implies.
One intriguing approach starts with the concept that companies adhering to
CSR should reduce earnings volatility. CSR should make a company more
‘sustainable’. The company should be less vulnerable to actions against it,
e.g., attacks from NGOs or government inquiries or bad PR or shareholder
dissent. The company should have fewer staff problems or be able to
work in longer term, more stable partnerships. We know investors
favour low profit volatility. Looking at 1,000 UK companies over 33
years shows that the difference between the top quintile and the lowest
quintile of profit stability is a 25% to 30% share price premium for the
most stable quintile. The interesting idea is that perhaps companies
invest through CSR in future profit stability in order to keep up their
share price.
In real life, one large telecommunications firm tries to value its CSR
expenditure in terms of shareholder value. For instance, locating
transmission masts away from schools cost more, but leads to a reduced risk
of being affected by possible future public concerns about the safety of
schoolchildren near mobile phone masts. A model gives managers some
basic shareholder value estimates using option valuation of CSR initiatives
linked to the firm’s share price. By knowing the value of CSR, the
telecommunications firm pursues network provision at higher cost knowing
that it probably adds to net shareholder worth and protects brand value.
Measuring Sustainability in Sales
For a senior sales executive, sustainability can seem remote – it’s well
beyond this year’s sales targets. Yet sustainable customer
relationships matter. Sustainable customers are recurring customers
who refer others. Sustainable customers are firm assets. Firms
are trying to link sustainability with the concepts of sales as
relationships. Recent sales and marketing approaches, such as viral
marketing, depend on the idea that the relationship of customers with firms
is not a simple buy-sell transaction. A sale is just one interaction
between firm and customer within a complex set of interactions where
customers are part of a community of people identifying themselves with the
purchase of goods or services from a firm.
A sustainable firm can only be one with good services, products and prices
that is seen to treat customers fairly, be a valued member of the community
and deserve recurring sales. A fun example of this new approach to
sustainable customers is Swatch. Swatch emerged at a point when
wristwatch marketing was getting unsustainable. Getting ahead meant
moving up in quality and price. Either customers had such a
high-quality, long-lasting watch that they needed no more, or the price
hikes lost quite a few customers who couldn’t compete in the ‘wallet war’ of
expensive fashion statements. Swatch presented a ‘fashion reduction
statement’ – “I have a watch; it’s even Swiss; but I’m not a fool about
spending money to show one off”. Naturally, Swatch has many recurring
customers who explain their fashion reduction statement to others, and come
back for more watches themselves.
“Customers as assets”, is a big concept with big rewards. Asset
provide returns, but they also require care and maintenance. Asset
value needs to be preserved and, where possible, enhanced in order to remain
sustainable. Thus, managing customer relationships has some
interesting similarities to managing fish stocks. Fish stocks are an
asset. Fisherman can bid for quotas, exchange quotas, have overlapping
fishing of different stocks over the same ground and need to maintain their
fishing assets. By viewing customers as assets owned by the firm, each
salesperson begins to think like a fisherman. What grounds should I
bid for this season? What type of fish should I catch? Should I hand my
unproductive customers to others who may have more interest or skill in
managing them? What should we expect to deliver from my customer base? If
this is going to be a bad year, what are we doing to replenish the stocks in
the portfolio?
The starting point is to develop a lifetime valuation formula for the
assets. Valuation of customers is tricky, but certainly not as
difficult as many firms claim. A simple regression analysis will
identify the key variables that indicate total returns and likely lifecycle,
though more sophisticated statistical techniques are often used. The
valuation formula can then be applied to portfolios of customers. The
resulting value is a target for the fees which the firm expects a
salesperson to generate from the portfolio of customers the firm has given
him or her to fish. While the valuation formula will be inaccurate
when applied to any specific customer, it can be used in at least three
powerful ways – to set overall sustainable customer targets; to improve
salespeople’s enduring performance by focusing on the long-term; to inform
strategy on pricing and services.
It’s Ethical To Be Financial
In order to promote proportionate CSR and sustainability effort, we need
measurement. Through measurement we can value CSR and sustainability,
even in sales and marketing. Without measurement, CSR decisions are
seat-of-the-pants. A closing question - if CSR benefits can be
measured, be quantified and be shown to be superior, then is CSR activity
that ‘pays back’ an ethical choice or just a normal business investment
decision?
Professor Michael Mainelli
originally undertook aerospace and computing research, followed by seven years
as a partner in a large international accountancy practice before a spell as
Corporate Development Director of Europe’s largest R&D organisation, the UK’s
Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, and becoming a director of Z/Yen (Michael_Mainelli@zyen.com).
Michael is Mercers’ School Memorial Professor of Commerce at Gresham College (www.gresham.ac.uk).
Z/Yen is the City of London’s leading
think-tank and research organisation. Z/Yen uses risk/reward management to
implement strategy, finance, systems, marketing and intelligence projects for
clients in financial services, technology, government, the voluntary sector and
many other fields - www.zyen.com.
Z/Yen’s humorous risk/reward management novel, “Clean Business Cuisine: Now and
Z/Yen”, was published in 2000; it was a Sunday Times Book of the Week;
Accountancy Age described it as “surprisingly funny considering it is written by
a couple of accountants”.
Z/Yen Limited, 5-7 St Helen’s Place, London
EC3A 6AU, United Kingdom; tel: +44 (0) 20-7562-9562.
|