Are the Green Scorpions after you?

I just read a very interesting article in today’s Star newspaper entitled “Keeping polluters in line no easy job, says Green Scorpions boss”

This article spells out an increased potential for reputation risk for organizations. The role of the Green Scorpions, the huge profile of global warming and green issues coupled with increasing stakeholder demands for 3rd party verification of environment and Corporate Social responsibility; will create problems for organizations.

The article also raises questions about an organization’s commitment to environmental impacts. My advice is that organizations need to clean up their act and pay special attention to the lessons this article spells out.

Outgoing director of government’s environmental policy enforcement body, Melissa Fourie is opposed to growth models which do not consider long-term consequences. She points to China as an example that South Africa should avoid. She says “We don’t want to end up like China. But if we don’t check up on industry, we stand to lose things such as our water resources….”

However South African companies have a long way to go. Of the 11 companies that the environmental management inspectorate investigated in the last year, Fourie says that only one came close to compliance standards setup by the inspectorate. “They other 10 were grossly non-compliant,” says Fourie, who leaves the inspectorate this month.

The inspectorate is is just under three years old. It rides on the powers given to it by the National Environmental Act. But even up to 2003, the act made no criminal provision for taking environmental polluters to task. Fourie though believes that the Inspectorate’s legal and technical muscle has started to take shape sufficiently for them to concentrate on the key areas of focus which are pollution and waste, biodiversity, protected areas, marine and coastal management and the monitoring of environmental impact assessment processes.

The inspectorate is currently made up mostly of lawyers and those with a technical and science backgrounds. They also collaborate with the police as well as the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA).

Currently there are just over 860 inspectors, most of them in SAN-parks. The planned deployment of inspectors to municipal structures is expected to bolster on the-ground inspections and initiatives to involve the public in their projects are also on the cards. Fourie,  is confident that in the next three to five years the Green Scorpions will be able to “show big results”.

(*** Warning – you will be targeted. ”Getting the public involved” -  I believe that the role of citizen reporters will increase. People today have mobile phones with cameras and with blogging technologies, social networking and other technologies, so bad news regarding an organization’s environmental practices can easily spread.)

I fully agree with her sentiment that it’s about getting to a point where companies take on true corporate responsibility; not committing to cleaning up only when they are caught out and forced to comply. An organization that cherishes its reputation will take efforts to adhere not just to minimum legal standards, but to act beyond the norm.

Currently the Scorpions are conducting Operation Ferro, an investigation into the iron, steel and ferroalloy industries. There will also be a focus on the paper and pulping industries. The priority air pollution zones of the Vaal Triangle as well as the Highveld will also get renewed attention. There are also increased efforts to enforce accurate on-site air quality monitoring so that companies are not able to hide behind ambient air quality monitoring, as is currently the case.

Fourie says it’s not only about issuing fines. “What hits companies more than a fine is a directive that forces them to change the way they operate and to change their facilities. It will mean that they are compelled to take the steps that will stop them from being polluters months and years down the line”

I recently addressed this issue in part on one of my Stakeholder Reputation workshops. If an organization derives its reputation from its stakeholders, and stakeholders value environmental issues highly, then it will be business suicide not to adhere to international best practices.

As I told my delegates, there is a definite link between stakeholder relationships, organizational behavior and social responsibility.

Some organizations, display:

• Reactive behavior – They deny responsibility and do less than is required
• Defensive behavior – They admit responsibility and do the least that is required
• Accommodative behavior – They accept responsibility and do only what is required
• Proactive behavior – They anticipate responsibility and do more than is required

What is your organization’s approach to environmental issues? Do you cherish your Reputation? Are you a Market Leader or a Follower?

These questions needs to be addressed if you want to protect your organization’s reputation.

Google is the most powerful brand in the world

Google is the most powerful brand in the world and is worth $86,1-billion, according to the latest annual Top 100 list of brands issued by strategists Millward Brown.

According to the study, which is based on financial data and interviews, Google has increased the value of its brand by 30% since last year’s list, which it also topped.

“This year’s brand ranking demonstrates the importance of investing in brands, especially in times of market turmoil,” says Joanna Seddon, CEO of Millward Brown Optimor. “Strong brands generate superior returns and protect businesses from risk. Our data shows that strong brands continue to outperform weak ones in terms of market share and share price during recessions.”

On Monday, Millward Brown released its annual list (PDF) of the world’s top 100 brands. Millward Brown also says that brands are important. “This year’s brand ranking demonstrates the importance of investing in brands, especially in times of market turmoil. Strong brands generate superior returns and protect businesses from risk,” said Joanna Seddon, CEO of Millward Brown Optimor, a Sub-Boutique of the Strategy Boutique. “Our data shows that strong brands continue to outperform weak ones in terms of market share and share price during recessions.”

General Electric was place second in this year’s list with a brand value of $71,4-billion, with Microsoft a close third on $70,8-billion. The Top 10 on the list also includes IBM ($55,3-billion), Apple ($55,2-billion) and Nokia ($43,9-billion). In all, 28 technology firms made the Top 100 including HP, Cisco, Oracle, Intel and Dell.

When is a Cow a Cow?

Sometimes when you clean out old files you can discover some real gems – like this clipping, all about cows:

“A cow is a completely automatic milk manufacturing machine. It is encased in untanned leather and mounted on four vertical, movable supports, one on each comer. The front end contains the cutting and grinding mechanism, as well as headlights, air inlet and exhaust, a bumper and a foghorn. At the rear are the dispensing apparatus and an automatic fly swatter. The central portion houses a hydrochemical conversion plant.

This consists of four fermentation and storage tanks, connected in series by an intricate network of flexible plumbing. This section also contains the heating plant, complete with automatic temperature controls, pumping station and main ventilating system. The waste disposal apparatus is located at the rear of this central portion. In brief, the external visible features are two lookers, two hookers, four stander-uppers, four hanger-downers, and a swishy – wishy.

With all that equipment, you’d think a cow would bring a little more money.”

So, when is a cow a cow? When communicators write to convey a message, and not to impress!

South Africa losing trust in public institutions

SOUTH Africans have lost trust in virtually all major public institutions —except churches — because of political scandal, greed, crime and poverty. Scandals that have eroded trust include the arms deal, bribery and corruption allegations against ANC president Jacob Zuma and alleged criminal misconduct implicating Police Com­missioner Jackie Selebi.

An annual Human Sciences Research Council’s survey on public attitudes has found that trust in national government and Parliament dropped by 20% between 2004 and last year and trust in political parties dropped by 16%.

Read more:

Survey Results: Between TRUST and SCEPTICISM: Public confidence in institutions

Other institutions such as courts, provincial government, the defence force and the police have also seen modest but notable declines in trust (between 5% and 10%). South Africans were now less likely to place confidence in local government and the police (34% and 39% respectively).

What could be driving the rising mistrust in the country’s political institutions? On the basis of other studies, a number of plausible hypotheses emerge:

· political scandal;

· self-enrichment and conspicuous consumption among officials and leaders;

· critical media messages about politicians and the government;

· a public perception that societal problems such as poverty and crime are not being solved;

· perceived poor responsiveness of politicians to citizens’ grievances; and

· ineffectiveness in delivering upon developmental promises.

The causes of mistrust serves as a lesson to those who want to protect the reputation of their institution. Take for instance promises versus delivery. In my Reputation classes I call this consistency work. When words, actions and behaviour are in synch with each other.

Why promise something if you cannot deliver on it? Empty words can be damaging. There is also a clear warning that strategic communication plans are not working. There is a saying that perceptions are a person’s reality. Is it? There is something called Subjective and Objective Reality. Using the facts can often result in understanding, provided certain rules of communication applies. Communication that reaches its destination can prevent skewed perception. This survey seems to indicate that a revamp of strategic communications plans is a necessity.

The perceived poor responsiveness issue speaks clearly about recording of grievances, response and communication again and again. In one IT company, there is a system of escalation where a complaint is escalated every 2 hours until it reaches the Chairman. Apparently few reaches his ears.

The survey state that other factors to be considered include illiteracy, which constrains access to knowledge and information; and the lack of firsthand knowledge of many institutions due to geographic isolation from many public institutions. (Illiteracy again demonstrates the inability of institutions to factor into communication plans, the problems of the so-called voiceless)

The survey, conducted by Ben Roberts, a research specialist in development programmes, found that political parties consistently received the lowest trust ratings (27% in 2007) of all the institutions examined. (Now does that seem strange to you?)

But the majority of citizens (81% on average) have consistently shown greatest confidence in churches. Hopefully churches will stay immune to scandals. After all we have had the Jim Bakers, Jimmy Swaggart, Catholic Churches molestation debacles, gay issues and high- profile divorces.

Whose Responsibility is Communication?

I just read an article that made me choke on my late meal.

Some rugby league player was banned for two years in the UK after failing a drug test. He has lashed out at the league authorities stating that not enough was done to educate players about being drug free.

The article quotes a spokes person for the League saying that they felt they did enough and I quote:” the RFL says it does as much as it can to educate players about the perils of supplements and drug use.

“There has been an extensive information campaign for many seasons now and we have actually been praised by UK Sport for our anti-doping efforts,” an RFL spokesman told BBC Sport.

“We signed up to the 100% ME campaign and introduced a player education programme with posters in every dressing room, lectures, information booklets circulated around the clubs and a special section on our website.”

Oh, so that is enough!

Whose responsibility is Communication? The Sender or the Receiver? Let us go back to Comm 101. Communication is at best an imperfect science. Thus it is the responsibility of the sender.

It reminds me of the Peanut joke. I taught me dog to whistle. His friend replied, saying: I do not hear him whistle. To which Peanuts replied: “I said I taught him, I did not say he learnt how”.

Did the banned player pass an exam? Without checking for understanding and ensuring that the message got through, the League me thinks have a problem.

Read the full article at:

Rugby League player questions Communication

Where do you keep your Mobile/Cell phone?

Hi Guys – I bet you have your phone in your pockets next to your aham…. family jewels…

Recently I asked a group – mostly men to remove their cellphones from their pockets. Most of them kept it close to their groins. I told them that it might be dangerous.

I guess my gut feeling was correct!

Do you believe me ? I bet you have never considered that it might be dangerous! Is it?

Says who? The manufacturers? Come on! Stay sane?

Do your homework – Check out this article.

Cellphones worse than Smoking

What worries me is when an award-winning researcher uses these words and I quote “Dr. Vini Khurana, a top British neurosurgeon and medical researcher, is trying ardently to grab people’s attention about what he sees as a grave risk to health.  He has published over 30 papers; his specialty — cell phones and their links to disease.  He has reviewed over 100 papers on the links between cell phones and cancer.  His latest research, currently under peer-review prior to journal publication, emphasizes a strong link between cell phones and tumors.

Not one to shirk from using strong language on the topic, Dr. Khurana states controversially, “Mobile phones could have health consequences far greater than asbestos and smoking.”

Surely a professional will not risk his own reputation in making a statement he cannot back up. I guess there are a lot of peer reviewers agreeing or disagreeing.

Just read the article and let me know what you think.

Proud and Thankful

On Tuesday the 1st April I celebrated 12 years as an independent speaker, trainer and consultant on Corporate Reputation matters.

During the past 12 years I have worked on projects ranging from OD to Training. I have consulted and spoken at more than 60 conferences in 8 countries on how to build, sustain and protect reputation.  I have facilitated programs on Reputation & Crisis Management & Communication & Stakeholder Management and many of my articles have been published. I have consulted and rendered advice on a variety of issues. My own newsletter’s subscriber base hovers at the 8500 member mark.

Most important , my family have been supporting me.

So again, many thanks to you…my clients….for listening to me, trusting me and using me.

It does not matter where you sit in a plane crash!

In the highly unlikely event of an emergency, does it really matter where you sit?

According to Australian aviation safety expert, Professor Ed Galea, sitting near an emergency exit not only soothes sore limbs but can also save your life. This conclusion is based on a study of over 105 plane crashes and 2,000 survivor reports. Mr. Galea found those who survived were within seven seat rows of a serviceable exit.

Another study of every U.S. commercial jet crash in the last 37 years revealed the further you sit at the back of the aircraft, the higher your chance of survival. Studying crash data from 20 accidents, the magazine found that passengers in the rear of the plane are 40 per cent more likely to survive than those in the first few rows. Comparing survival rates in four sections of an aircraft, results proved in 11 of the 20 crashes, rear passengers fared better, with only five accidents favoring those sitting forward. Popular Mechanics magazine

But according to passenger physiologist Professor Helen Muir, England, it doesn’t really matter where you sit. “They’re unpredictable events, so you never know whether it’s going to be a crash landing or whether you’re going to have a fire in one of the engines. And this means you can’t say where’s the best place to sit,” Prof Muir told the BBC. news.com.au

It reminds me of the humour that went around many years ago when nuclear power stations were launched and the fear of nuclear attack was high.

What are you suppose to do in a nuclear attack? These were the instructions.

1. Sit in your chair

2. Bend forward from the waist.

3. Look up and kiss your backside goodbye!!!

I guess it really does not matter where you sit! If it is your time it is your time.