By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm:
It usually happens about five minutes into a corporate defense opening statement: the “good company” story. Jurors will hear about the history, moral commitments, and good works that this company does within the community. This “Corporate Social Responsibility” or “CSR” message is a staple for some attorneys, but does it really work in court? It depends on the nature of the story. One that is believable and logically connected to the story at the heart of the case, can help to humanize the company and to build credibility. But one that seems forced and disconnected can come off as a self-serving way to manipulate the sympathies of an otherwise anti-corporate jury.
New research suggests that the stories that clients might feel are the credible kind might actually be viewed as the self-serving kind. The study appearing in Applied Psychology (Donia, Tetrault Sirsly, & Ronen, 2016) looked at what should be a pretty friendly audience for a company’s social responsibility message: its employees. In a survey of workers’ opinions of their own claims to social responsibility, the research team found that the emphasis can backfire if people see it as more symbolic (a self-serving attempt to improve reputation) rather than substantive (genuinely aimed at supporting the common good). “When employees attribute corporate social responsibility as substantive, benefits accrue to the individual and to the organization as a whole;” they note, “however, when viewed as engaging in greenwashing, self-serving engagement in corporate social responsibility backfires: employee reactions are negative, and they may do less for the organization and label it as a ‘taker’ rather than a ‘giver.’” One reason that responsibility claims might be met with a bit of skepticism is the perception that good acts are often tacked on as ways to make up for bad acts. For example, another recent study (Kang, Germann, & Grewal, 2015) found a high correlation between socially responsible policies and examples of irresponsibility in a company’s recent past, suggesting that that company is seeking to use the good acts as a way to “wash away its sins.”
What separates a Corporate Social Responsibility story that is substantive from one that is symbolic? In this post, I will share four rules of thumb for telling the company story in a credible way.
#1 Wait
The timing of the ‘good company’ story can be critical to its credibility. If it is delivered too early, then jurors will not yet have the foundation to trust the source. Viewed through the lens formed through the plaintiff’s opening statement, for example, the narrative of good deeds can seem insincere and manipulative. Later, however, after jurors have a reason to doubt at least some elements of the plaintiff’s case against you, then some features of the ‘good company’ story have a better chance of ringing true.
#2 Connect it to Your Purpose
The actions your business takes to burnish its credentials as a good citizen are probably actions that are good in their own right. But if they carry no relationship to the central work of your company, they are more likely to be seen as symbolic. So if you’re a coal company buying Christmas trees for orphans, maybe instead you should be providing free power to the orphanage. If your own work and product is a benefit to the public, then share it. For example, Apple’s long-running program of offering computers to schools could be viewed as self-serving (since it did work pretty well to help addict a younger generation to Apple products), but because it is connected to the company’s central purpose, it appears more substantive and less symbolic.
#3 Demonstrate Relevance
Is the CSR message a relevant part of your defense in trial, or is it just tacked-on information that is made to make you look good? If it is relevant, and plays a role other than just saying, “We are the good guys,” then it is more likely to help credibility rather than prompt a backlash. For example, the fact that a surgeon travels to Haiti every year to provide free surgery is good, but the fact that travel also helps to make him one of the most experienced surgeons in his niche is even better.
#4 Show Don’t Tell
Ultimately, credibility is something that is granted by an audience and not demanded by a persuader. So give the facts but let jurors draw their own conclusions. The ultimate implication, “So, that shows we care,” should always be something that is left implicit so your jurors can connect the dots without seeing you as strategic or boastful.
Like the strategy of appealing to sympathy as a plaintiff, the ‘good company’ strategy is one that is better underplayed than overplayed. It represents an appeal that jurors will often try to avoid, since they want to believe their decision is based on facts and evidence and not on emotion. Put the information out there, but keep it a background and not a foreground strategy.
______
Other Posts on Corporate Credibility:
- Bad Company: Investigate the Sources of Anti-Corporate Attitudes
- Take it from Mitt Romney: Corporations Are People Too (Even When They’re on Trial)
- Don’t Be Faceless
______
Donia, M., Tetrault Sirsly, C.A., & Ronen, S. (2016). Employee Attributions of Corporate Social Responsibility as Substantive or Symbolic: Validation of a Measure. Applied Psychology; DOI: 10.1111/apps.12081
Kang, C., Germann, F., & Grewal, R. (2015). Washing Away Your Sins? Corporate Social Responsibility, Corporate Social Irresponsibility, and Firm Performance. Journal of Marketing; jm.15.0324 DOI: 10.1509/jm.15.0324
Image credit: 123rf.com, used under license
ottom of each post)