“Almost two million people are living with sight loss in the UK. When you lose your sight, you feel like you lose everything.” (RNIB)

Five years ago, my dad was registered blind. Having had sight until his mid-60s, he had to adapt to the complete loss of his vision in later life. Quiet roads that he’s known and walked around with ease for 40 years suddenly became hazardous unknown territory and difficult to navigate (although the arrival of a much-loved guide dog, Eli, has helped immensely). Going to the theatre or cinema or just watching TV became impossible. And even eating a favourite meal became a huge challenge.

However perhaps the biggest hurdle he had to face was losing the ability to read. Throughout my childhood and teenage years, my dad always had a book on the go, and his love of reading became mine too. (It’s the reason I studied English and Russian at university – the interest in Russian borne from a love of “A Clockwork Orange” – and led to me having a career in the communications industry).

For such an avid reader, no longer being able to read was devastating and one of the hardest things he had to cope with on losing his sight.

That’s why RNIB’s Talking Books service has been what he calls a “life saver… without it I would have gone mad” – and thanks to their support his love of reading has been able to continue. He’s a regular user of the service, which offers users access to over 19,000 audio books, reading up to 50 books a year – whether those he’s picked himself or the choice of his telephone book club. And thanks to the work the Man Booker Prize did with RNIB (ensuring that the shortlisted books are available in accessible formats before the announcement of the winner), he was able to work his way through all six shortlisted novels… and well before I did. (His personal favourite was Stephen Kelman’s “Pigeon English”).

Knowing first-hand the invaluable support the charity is able to give, I’m delighted therefore that MRM has chosen RNIB to be our first charity of the year. Throughout the year, we’ll be writing, blogging and tweeting about what we’re doing to support the charity – whether volunteering, fundraising (our very own Charlotte Banks has jumped right in and signed up to her first-ever half marathon to raise funds… you can find her JustGiving page here!) or raising awareness of the charity’s work, including today’s Twitter Marathon.

To find out more about the work of RNIB, please visit the charity’s website or follow it on Twitter.

And if you’d like to join us in supporting the work the charity does, please email me at jenny.crossland@mrm-london.com.

“The new price of doing well is to do good. So if you do not do good, you will no longer do well”.

[David Jones, Global CEO Havas and Euro RSCG Worldwide, on BBC Radio 4 Today programme]

In July this year I wrote a blog about the increasing need for companies to “be good” (i.e. inherently responsible) as simply been seen to “do good” ultimately meant very little.

I discussed that corporates are being held accountable at every turn – and those that don’t take consumer feeling into account are under increasing scrutiny and are being challenged, as demonstrated with the very public, and continuing, outrage against press phone-hacking (with the current Leveson inquiry bringing more tales of wrong-doing to light), corporate bonuses and MPs’ expenses scandal. Social media has, I stated, an important role to play, as it gives consumers a voice and the opportunity to highlight any perceived wrong-doing and demand action is taken.

I was therefore very interested to hear David Jones, author of Who Cares Wins: Why Good Business is Better Business, on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme (1st December 2011), discussing corporate (social) responsibility and social media.

He highlights that we’re entering an “age of damage”, with social media creating “… a world where, if as a leader, you do not behave in the right way, you’ll get taken down” as people now have “… a weapon to punish those leaders and companies they don’t believe behave in the right way”.

Jones talks about there being “… a movement driving the world to be more socially responsible” and it’s a view that I agree with. Now, more than ever, as I stated in my previous blog:

“Those not demonstrating responsibility are ultimately deemed to be irresponsible, and we, the public, have the power to ensure that things change. And do so for the better.”

The interview with David Jones can be found here (at 2 hours 44 minutes in).

“First the banks. Then MPs’ expenses. And now in our press…

“All are about the irresponsibility of the powerful. People who believed they were untouchable. This issue of responsibility is one which must be tackled throughout British society.”

[Ed Miliband]

Last year, on the back of the Google/China row over censorship and the consumer anger against the banking crisis, corporate bonus culture and MPs’ expenses scandal, I questioned what this all meant for corporate social responsibility (CSR), highlighting that if companies weren’t “being good” (inherently responsible) then “doing good” (being seen to ‘do’ good deeds/responsible activities) ultimately meant very little.

As the furore around the phone-hacking scandal rages – with new twists and turns and tales of corporate wrong-doing emerging on a daily basis – it’s clear that this applies now more than ever.

As I wrote previously, I felt there were two key factors that played a crucial role in consumer and corporate relations/social responsibility, and I believe these still hold true today:

i) The need for businesses to act as “corporate citizens” was, and is, vital – working for the interests of what is ‘social’ (for the benefit of all of us) as opposed to ‘anti-social’ (for the benefit of individuals… or those of corporate shareholders). How companies conduct their business, internally and externally, is under increasing (public) scrutiny – and companies that don’t take into account consumer opinion and feeling are being challenged and will ultimately face a fight for survival.

ii) The shift to social media is significant, as consumers have the ability to take away control from a previously dominant traditional media and tear down the boundaries between press and public. Consumers now have the opportunity – and are increasingly using it – to shout out about any socially irresponsible corporate behaviour and demand those involved take action. This infographic from The Guardian shows how Twitter reacted to the decision to close the News of the World.

As David Connor, who writes on issues of Corporate Social Responsibility (his blog can be found here), commented on my original blog:

“The arrival of the internet was key in an earlier step change in CSR’s evolution by suddenly making available additional information about corporate activity to those who went looking for it. Social media is providing another step change for CSR as this information is now being pushed at everybody online, every minute of the day”.

As is shown by the summoning of Rebekah Brooks and James and Rupert Murdoch to face today’s culture select committee, people are being held accountable, and one thing is clear: those not demonstrating responsibility are ultimately deemed to be irresponsible, and we, the public, have the power to ensure that things change. And do so for the better.

Picture: Josh [unemployed IT dude] at Flickr

In the past few weeks, the ongoing debate around Google vs. China censorship row has dominated the media, with Hillary Clinton’s speech on the need to protect basic freedoms on the internet an essential read.

While on a personal level many may applaud the decision Google has taken in leading the cyber charge against the abuse of civil liberties, I’m particularly interested in what this means for the future of CSR.

As Tom Watson recently highlighted on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, the activities of other brands operating in China should now be under scrutiny – which begs the question how do they sit within a wider CSR policy back home?

Choosing a programme of CSR isn’t enough – if you’re not ‘being good’ then ‘doing good’ can mean very little.

As I’ve highlighted before, the financial sector has a more tarnished reputation than most as questions around trust and corporate responsibility (or rather irresponsibility) have impacted greatly on consumer and corporate relations. Just a couple of days ago Lord Myners called on fund managers to re-examine their corporate pay culture as “public attention will focus on the decisions that boards make about bonuses” according to the FT.

The consequences flowing from the banking crisis, State ownership of high street banks, MPs expense scandals, and the pervasive bonus culture among senior management in Britain has demonstrated a powerful schism between the social – in all our interests – and the anti-social – in individual interests. Financial institutions need to be acting as ‘corporate citizens’; it’s not enough to be responsible just to shareholders, but responsible to society as a whole.

I believe that the shift away from the dominance of traditional press is significant. With the rise of the internet and social media, now everyone is a media outlet. As such ‘boundaries’ – whether state, corporate or press vs. public – no longer exist, and the power comes from ‘us’, the people that Google and corporates seek to serve and create goodwill with.

As Henry Jenkins says in his fascinating video on the power of media in a 21st century transmediated world (full link here):

“… A new media system is being born… Spectatorial culture is giving way to participatory culture…

“A society based on a small number of companies controlling the storytelling apparatus is giving way to a much more complex mediascape where average citizens have the ability to seize control over media technologies and tell their own stories in powerful new ways…

“ As average people develop the ability to tell their stories, we are seeing different perspectives emerge.”

Thanks to the power of social media, consumers can, will, and do shout from the rooftops (or their laptops) about any wrong-doing or socially irresponsible behaviour, wherever in the world it may be.

A recent report found that just 21% of people in the UK trust banks to ‘do’ what is right -with trust also named as the key driver of corporate reputation (72%) followed by transparent and honest business practices.

Now, perhaps more than ever, those trying to be seen to ‘do’ good – or using CSR as a get-out-of-jail free card – will be found out. BBC business editor Robert Peston said (see his full blog post here):

“I have it from impeccable sources that several of them [banks] have rung up their mates and contacts in 10 Downing Street, the Treasury and BIS, to ask if they can be let off the 50% one-off bonus tax… In return they would make a one-off contribution to some worthy project or other…“

If you’re not demonstrating responsibility, you’re ultimately irresponsible.

The question now is – if you don’t believe in CSR or don’t really mean it, then should you be doing it?

However those keen to ‘take part’ need to be fully aware of the substance and credibility corporate social responsibility (looking at charitable partnerships in particular) requires, with core business activities at the heart of any programme, rather than a philanthropic leaning or chairman’s whim – the right cause considering long-term goals, a real synergy with a corporate’s business interests and values and aligned objectives. A genuine, transparent and well-thought through community involvement strategy is key; if a corporate is seen as exploiting an opportunity with no real engagement with or ‘in’ the cause, it has the potential to be counter-productive.

One campaign that did just that was Cadbury Trebor Bassett’s Get Active! CRM initiative in partnership with Youth Sports Trust in 2003, which aimed to encourage children to become more active and involved in sport. Despite Cadbury’s saying that children would eat chocolate anyway, but should do so sensibly as part of a balanced diet and healthy active lifestyle, the campaign was condemned by children’s and health groups, including the Consumers’ Association who described the scheme as “an irresponsible ploy to encourage unhealthy eating among children” and “nothing short of a scandal”.

Strategies must therefore enable consumers to take part in the brand in order to create a ‘reservoir of goodwill’ to draw upon when ‘other people’ put a reputation in jeopardy. A programme of social responsibility can play an important role when built into the core of marketing and brand objectives – adopting a programme may bring a corporate to the same level as their competitors, but ultimately those not engaging or taking part will end up being the most affected.