PR Studies

Hans Christian Andersen on spin and PR

There's one fairy tale I frequently use to illustrate lessons about public relations: The Emperor's New Clothes.

Written in 1837, before the modern public relations industry came into existence, it nonetheless can be seen as a metaphor of two contrasting approaches to the practice. One is negative, the other positive.

Two weavers ('spinners') arrive in town and initiate a clever scam. Playing upon the vanity of the emperor and his courtiers, they state that they will create the finest clothes ever seen - but these clothes will be invisible to any who are stupid and unfit for their jobs.

They accept a large advance for silk and gold thread and pretend to start work weaving imaginary cloth, pocketing the money. The courtiers inspecting the cloth proclaim it to be the finest they had seen - and soon the emperor too has to acknowledge its magnificence (he cannot be seen to be stupid and unfit for his position.)

The first, negative stereotype is about spin and vanity. In short, it's about PR as a con trick.

No one dares speak up so the emperor appears in public naked in his 'new clothes'. Who tells the truth?

A child speaks up from the crowd, shattering the adult illusion. The child is the second metaphor - the outsider who dares speak truth to those in power. It takes a child - because adults are too driven by vanity and beholden to those in power.

Spinner, courtier or truth-telling adviser? Which role do you perform?

What's wrong with CSR?

Please note: this is not a principled attack on corporate social responsibility. Who would argue in favour of corporate irresponsibility? Certainly not Milton Friedman, whose famous attack on CSR remains a very potent one.

My objections come from two perspectives: the name is wrong, and the history is wrong.

Let's start with history.

CSR is often presented as a towering achievement of late twentieth century stakeholder capitalism, and therefore as a grown-up strategic justification for public relations.

This narrative fails adequately to respond to the fate of such cynical cheerleaders for CSR as Enron.

It also airbrushes out the pioneering achievements of nineteenth century capitalists such as Sir Titus Salt, whose Saltaire near Bradford, begun in the 1850s, is now a World Heritage Site. Or Bournville in Birmingham or New Earswick in York - housing developments by two Quaker chocolate manufacturers, Cadbury's and Rowntree's, for their factory workers.

Sure, there was something paternalistic about these Christian capitalists who encouraged improving activities (institutes, schools, church, chapel or meeting house) over perceived bad practices (public houses).

But the advocates of CSR do not deny the rights of donors to pick their causes for maximum and sustained social impact.

What's wrong with the name?

People have been moving away from 'social' responsibility because of the rise of the environmental agenda - preferring instead the broader 'corporate responsibility' to refect the triple-bottom-line of 'people, planet, profits'.

The Stockholm Accords have thrown out the whole idea and replaced it with one word - sustainability. The Accords allow for both interpretations of this word: sustainable organisational success within a sustainable environment.

Then there's the question of sustained legacies. Companies and organisations decline; people die; but a Peabody, a Rowntree or a Carnegie lives on through their legacies. Where are the great philanthropists from the twentieth century? Bill Gates and Warren Buffet head the list, but their achievements will belong to this present century.

Time for some perspective, please.