Listening: A Strategy and Change Blog | Hosfeld & Associates

By Kathleen Hosfeld

Looking to reap the many benefits of a stakeholder centric approach to business but wondering where to start?

First, recognize that you’re not starting from zero. You already have relationships with stakeholders. Many companies can benefit from taking an appreciative approach to identifying what they are already doing well. From there you can measure the gap between the current state and the desired future state of each relationship.

Second, accept that movement toward a stakeholder centric model represents both cultural and operational change and will take time.  This movement will take a combination of both “soft” skills and “hard skills.”  An effective change initiative will address individuals and teams, structures, behaviors and beliefs.

Third, get rid of the notion that this is just corporate social responsibility or good PR.  It’s actually a different approach to business altogether.   It means inviting stakeholders into the value creation process of your company.

While every company’s situation will differ, there are eight basic steps to implementing a stakeholder approach to a business:

1.  Determine the strategic context:  What are you trying to accomplish? Are you formulating business strategy or functional strategy?  Are you seeking the overall competitive advantage of the firm or are you working in service of a specific business unit, service or product’s performance?
2. Prioritize stakeholder influences in this strategic context:  Evaluate stakeholders using the criteria of power, legitimacy, urgency, interdependence, cooperation, and conflict. Consider all the stakeholders in your value chain. Note that research shows that investing in employees make the most significant contribution to overall financial performance. This is likely a good place to start.
3. Assess stakeholder interests and satisfaction: Many executives think they know what stakeholders want, but it’s rare when they actually do. Assessing stakeholder interests and the current state of their satisfaction can take many forms: discussion, surveys, group processes. What’s important is to make this determination based on data.
4. Harmonize stakeholder interests: Compare the interests of all key stakeholders to identify areas of commonality and difference. Look for the third way when needs or interests seem to compete.
5. Develop stakeholder strategies: Creating stakeholder strategies is an iterative process with the preceding step. Inherent in each stakeholder strategy is the best way to form a two-way exchange  that creates value for all parties. This step should include a determination of measurable outcomes.
6. Implement stakeholder strategies: Create a detailed action plan that defines accountability for full implementation of the stakeholder strategies, and support the plan with resources.
7. Evaluate: Using the measurable outcomes defined above, evaluate stakeholder efforts’ success in creating value for all.

Additional articles about the stakeholder model are available here.

By Kathleen Hosfeld

You may call it the triple bottom line, sustainable, green, conscious, responsible or worthy business. Underlying the labels is a common commitment to maximizing value for multiple stakeholders including the community and the environment.  Research continues to show the approach pays off. Financially.

Many people find their motivation for “good” business in an instinctive or intuitive desire to “make a difference,” even if it risks lowering profitability. In the early days of so-called green business, most mainstream business owners and executives saw efforts to manage environmental and social concerns as expensive indulgences that would ultimately cost money and possibly competitiveness.  That perception has shifted as organizations realize meaningful cost savings and risk mitigation from entry level commitments to waste and energy reductions.

But the strategic upside potential of a values-based, stakeholder approach is growing increasingly clear thanks to books like Good Company: Business Success in the Worthiness Era by Laurie Bassi, Ed Frauenheim, and Dan McMurrrer  with Larry Costello.  The book travels many of the same paths of the book Firms of Endearment, by Rajendra S. Sisodia, and colleagues in 2007.  Firms of Endearment made the point that a positive relational approach to multiple stakeholders resulted in superior financial performance. The companies they profiled achieved a higher return on equity (10 year rate of 1025% compared with S&P 500 of 122.3% and Good to Great Companies 331%) in spite of spending considerably more on employees and other stakeholders than most companies.

Bassi et al have done two things to advance the conversation. First, they have compiled a boat load of more recent “hard-nosed” evidence that companies who do well do better and those who do not do poorly by comparison.   A sampling of their citations:

• In a recent study by consulting firm A.T. Kearney, firms that embraced sustainability outperformed industry averages by 15% from May through November of 2008.
• According to a study by Packaged Facts, in spite of the recession, sales of “ethical” consumer products have grown at a rate of high single and low double-digits to a projected $38 billion in 2009.
• Firms on Fortune’s 100 Best Companies to Work For outperform the stock market as a whole.

Bassi’s group has taken this analysis one giant step further. They created a quantitative index of what constitutes a “worthy” company, profiled all the Fortune 100 companies and compared them on three levels: as employers, as sellers and as stewards of society and the environment. They found that companies with a higher Good Company score outperformed their peers with a lower Good Company score by an average of 19.8 percentage points.

On the strength of their findings, the Bassi and her colleagues created Bassi Investments, a money management firm that invests according to the Good Company criteria. The funds were established in 2001 and results continue to support the finding that investing in employees is a best practice of wealth creation.

It may seem counter intuitive that in order to be more profitable a company has to invest more money in an area.  These business results point to the new insights that are emerging as the way we do business continues to change.

More about the Book:

Good Company

By Kathleen Hosfeld

Two of my “summer reads” are books that make the case that strong relationships with key stakeholders are driving financial performance and are central to how business is being reinvented. The first is Patricia Aburdene’s  book: “Megatrends 2010: The Rise of Conscious Capitalism.” The second is “Good Company, Business Success in the Worthiness Era,” By Laurie Bassi, Ed Frauenheim, and Dan McMurrrer with Larry Costello.

Aburdene’s book follows the framework of her hugely successful megatrends books written with John Naisbett, and cites seven interrelated trends that encompass corporate social responsibility, spirituality in business and so-called “conscious capitalism.” The term conscious capitalism, which Aburdene used in speaking engagements for several years prior to the publication of the book, has been picked up by both academics and business people alike.  A conscious business embraces three things:

• a strong sense of mission and purpose,
• a stakeholder perspective – which cultivates strong relationships with key stakeholders rather than prioritizing stockholders or profit as the sole directive, and
• conscious leadership.

“Conscious leadership” in this setting means leading holistically through the lens of relationship-oriented values.  Recently, practitioners have also begun to articulate the cultural dynamics of conscious business as having these key values: Trust, Authenticity, Caring, Transparency, Integrity and Learning.

(Note: This definition of conscious capitalism is complimentary to but not the same as the conscious business model developed by Fred Koffman. That model emphasizes self-knowledge and self-awareness as the basis of conscious behaviors and choices.)

Both Aburdene’s and Bassi’s books look at the question of “why” businesses are changing their practices. Aburdene, while citing multiple drivers of economic necessity and changing values, shines a spotlight on the spiritual values and practices from which the conscious capitalism arises. Bassi and colleagues, who also cite a spectrum of drivers, highlight the changing values and expectations of stakeholders and their influence on company behaviors.  They have created their own term – “worthiness”— which connotes the qualities that make a company worthy in the eyes of customers, employees and other stakeholders.

Good Company emphasizes the role of the employee in all three important “worthiness” areas:  being an employer, seller and steward.  I like the summary of one Amazon reviewer who said “Good Company shows how a strong leadership culture that’s serving all of its stakeholders and society pays off for everyone buying from, working for, investing in, and doing business with the company.”  A worthy company does not choose one stakeholder over another. Everybody – including the community and environment – wins.

Both books include stories of real businesses and executives doing well as a result of a broader stakeholder perspective. One of the things I appreciate about Good Company is that the authors also point out when companies who are doing well in some areas stub their toes in others.  This reads to me as imminently practical and realistic. The new paradigm is still emerging and all of us still in that transition will arrive at various degrees of consciousness – worthiness, goodness, sustainability, etc. — at different times.

(In another article, I will explore the  updated business case for a stakeholder view .)

More about the books:

Megatrends 2010

Good Company

“To listen is to lean in, softly, with a willingness to be changed by what we hear.”

Mark Nepo

By Kathleen Hosfeld

Increasingly strategy must be about dialogue. In a recent article about the changing nature of strategy and marketing  in the “Twenty-Tweens” (our current age),  I described three different forms of communication – information sharing, persuasion and dialogue. Information sharing and persuasion are the two forms most people associate with marketing. But the nature of business, the demands of customers and stakeholders are quickly outstripping the capacity of information sharing and persuasion alone to respond.

What do we mean by dialogue? I’ve said that it’s the type of conversation where two or more parties bring together information out of which something new is created.

Poet David Whyte has talked about this type of communication in terms of what it means to be a leader today. In a video on his website he talks about the conversational nature of reality:

“The conversational nature of reality has to do with the fact that whatever you want to happen will not happen. A *version* of it will happen. Some aspects of it will happen. You will be surprised also and quite often gladdened that what you wanted to happen in the beginning actually didn’t happen and something else occurred. Also it’s true that whatever society, or life or your partner or your children want from you will also not happen. They also will have to join the conversation.”

Whyte’s speaking engagements with companies on the conversational nature of reality have to do with what kind of leadership stance one can take in response to this dynamic. Who do we need to be as leaders to participate in the conversational nature of reality?

The same question faces organizations. What kind of stance do we need to take with our customers and partners in order to thrive in the conversational nature of reality? Many companies who have been early pioneers of collaboration and co-creation will say there’s tremendous potential return on investment from engaging in dialogue. Strategy– including communications, product innovation and more – is at its best in dynamic collaboration with customers and other stakeholders. To tap that potential we need to start from a place of strong core of identity and purpose, and then have the skills and tools to support dialogue as it scales through the organization.

The scale of dialogue takes place on a continuum of complexity. On the left side of the X axis we have dialogues one-to-one; on the right side we have dialogues one-to-thousands or even millions. On the left side of the continuum we rely on interpersonal skills and good facilitation of conversations to get to the shared creation. On the right side, we need technology platforms (crowd sourcing, social media and corporate social platforms) to support true two-way “conversation” on a mass scale.

All along the continuum, we need to be able to relax our grip on our own ideas and be open to what we can “create together.” In his video, Whyte takes issue with what he calls the “strategic” approach, by which I think he means predetermining a set of actions and getting too attached to them in ways that ignore the conversational nature of reality. I would say that the type of strategy – marketing and organizational — that actually works today is one that takes the conversational nature of reality into account. It is not static. It is not a fixed plan. Rather it’s a framework that includes a strong purpose and identity and that creates a container – much like a greenhouse – where the seeds sown in dialogue can take root and grow.

By Kathleen Hosfeld

Working with a series of nonprofits in 2010, it came home to me that when clients say they want to work on “communication,” they are categorizing activities by the tools used rather than their purpose. Activities that utilized a web site, email, social media, advertising, public relations, or media relations were all grouped as communications, and approached from the same perspective.  The perspective from which these organizations viewed communication was that of “getting the word out.”

“Getting the word out” – essentially one-way communication – is in fact only one method of communication. Although important, it is possibly the least powerful. We call this either information sharing or information broadcasting. It’ the kind that is conveyed in newsletters and websites.  The organization writes and publishes information; the recipient does not revise or shape what is sent or published. At times, the information is shared purely for “awareness.” A reader or recipient is a “consumer” of the information.

In dialogue, by contrast, information is exchanged, and typically something new is created by the parties to the dialogue. Each party brings pieces to the conversation, they put those pieces together, and a new whole emerges.  The information or feedback shared creates something new, beyond information exchange alone. This type of communication is the type that takes place in work groups, teams and in stakeholder engagement.

Communication that seeks to create cultural or behavioral change is a third type of communication, and it begins with a point of view about the change that is desired. Behavior change and cultural change are two distinctly different outcomes, but the element of persuasion is needed to generate both, and this distinguishes this type of communication from pure information sharing, which is more neutral in tone.  Fundraising and development in nonprofits uses persuasive communication.  Many nonprofits’ mission is to create social change, and they do this with a form of communication called social marketing (not the same as social media marketing).  When we call this marketing, we imply a commercial exchange or money. However, in common parlance people apply the term “marketing” to any type of communication that intends to persuade. In the case of behavior change, the persuasive speech must include a call to action that is specific and intentional.

One of the secrets to effective communication is to recognize the appropriate use of these three different forms. Organizations must recognize that exclusive reliance on “get the word out” communication only works in markets where the audience has no other choices. For most for-profit and non-profit organizations those days ended in the 1960s. If you have competitors or alternatives, your ability to use dialogue and persuasive speech is a critical competence.

Effective programs generally blend all three types of communication together.  Increasingly, organizations are using dialogue as a way to improve their persuasive capacity and to discover unmet needs of their constituents. By engaging stakeholders, customers or donors in dialogue, they better understand what the other needs for a positive exchange.  This underscores the most important component – the ultimate secret – of communications: listening.

By Kathleen Hosfeld and John Forman

Trust in business is starting to make a comeback from historic lows during the Recession, according to the 2010 Edelman Trust Barometer research.  It’s a fragile trust, the report tells us. Those surveyed say that after the economic pressure is off, they expect business to go back to unbridled self-interest. In other words, they don’t really trust business – not for the long-haul. At a Young Presidents Organization event last week, members said that “trust” was their number one concern, regardless of the specific business they were in. The gap is enormous.

The Business Case

The business case for trust is well established. A lack of trust can create a number of problems for a company. It can impact reputations as conversation in the market place is fueled by assumptions of ill-will (like BP), gossip and innuendo, slower decision-making processes, as well as loss of sales. And the misbehavior of one Bernie Madoff can sour public perception for organizations that have never been connected to him.  On the other hand, a company that has the trust of its customers or other stakeholders can count on better collaboration and decision-making, resilience in the face of a crisis (like Toyota), more word of mouth advertising from advocates, and fewer legal or regulatory costs.

Trust matters to a lot more companies than a skeptical public might imagine. While there are egregiously self-interested firms that can be said to not care about trust, the larger part of the business world cares deeply. Yet, in the current  environment, positive intent may not be enough to reclaim trust.

The Trust Formula

One model of trust in relationships offers some lessons for senior executives and marketing specialists for how to reclaim trust with customers, partners and other stakeholders. The trust “formula” has four factors: Credibility, Reliability, Openness, and Self/Other Orientation. This model is adapted from David Maister’s “Trusted Advisor,” a classic in the field. All four elements in the model play an important part, but the fourth — Self/Other Orientation — can either undermine or enhance the other three factors.

Credibility – The credibility of a firm is built on the truthfulness of its communications, its reputation, its experience base and credentials. If there’s a gap between what a firm says and the customer or partner’s experience, trust can break down. If the firm’s reputation or verifiable credentials or experience don’t line up with its claims or communication, trust can be lost. Marketing initiatives to build credibility center on brand alignment, certifications, client/customer testimonials, promotion and sales processes.

Reliability – The reliability of a firm is demonstrated in its actions. Does the firm follow through and keep its commitments? Does it create predictable experiences, does it set expectations that it can keep? Uneven quality, inconsistent experiences, poor performance, lack of follow up or follow through, all contribute to a loss of trust. Marketing initiatives to build reliability include product management and sales and customer service.

Openness – In interpersonal relationships, openness is often confused with sharing intimate information. That does not foster trust. Openness that fosters trust involves the risks taken  in the relationship, and  the discretion and empathy with which one treats other people’s risks. In business life, this translates to transparency, and sharing information with stakeholders, sometimes hard-to-admit information like “we made a mistake.” Marketing initiatives that demonstrate openness include stakeholder engagement, supply chain transparency, sustainability reporting and open design standards.

Self/Other Orientation – In individual relationships, we most deeply trust those people who we feel have our best interests in mind. So too with companies. We trust companies that  care for our benefit as much they care about profit.  Marketing initiatives that foster trust also include integrating social good into all aspects of mission, marketing and communication. Demonstrating this commitment amplifies the benefit of a firm’s efforts in regards to Credibility, Reliability and Openness. Marketing initiatives that “go first” involve making a stand for social and environmental responsibility in the communities and the environment where they operate. But efforts at these forms of conscious capitalism must be genuine, and seen as genuine, efforts to make a positive difference.

How are We Doing?

Each of these qualities shows up in organizations in slightly different ways, but all lend themselves to meaningful measurements. As a result, organizations can benchmark perceptions and behaviors, and objectively assess progress towards trust goals.  Companies can be comprehensively assessed on these four qualities to determine the greatest opportunities for reclaiming or enhancing trust with customers and other stakeholders.

~~~
Kathleen Hosfeld is the principal of Hosfeld & Associates, a strategy and marketing firm.  John Forman is the principal of Integral Development, a teaching and consulting firm focused on leadership, performance, strategy and decision-making.

Terrific blog post at Harvard Business Review  by Umair Haque who is Director of the Havas Media Lab  saying the proof of the benefit of responsible business is in. Wait too much longer for more proof and the responsible businesses will have eaten your lunch. Statistics he cites are:

• Ethisphere Institute: In 2008, ethical leaders outperformed the growth of the S&P 500 by 40%. In 2009, again. In 2010, by 35%.
• CSR Magazine found a shareholder value performance gap of about 10% between, for example, the most and least transparent companies.
• SRI Research finds that the mean Market Value Added of the top 100 Corporate Citizens is $36 billion, more than four times the Mean Market Value Added of the remaining companies — which is less than $8 billion.
• Berkeley’s Haas School of Business: Study found that companies high in social responsibility had significantly higher profit margins, returns on equity, and returns on assets.

What type of behavior characterizes these types of companies? It’s important to note that these are self-regulated practices of companies that take responsibility for relationships with and impacts on a variety of stakeholders, and incorporate an active, conscious commitment to the public interest (versus self interest alone) in their decision-making.

For additional details see the entire blog article here.

By Kathleen Hosfeld

The Journal of Public Policy and Marketing released a special issue devoted to stakeholder marketing this month, which among other things, features an article by our academic partner Jenny Mish, professor of marketing at Notre Dame, with her colleague Debra Scammon.

As the journal has limited visibility with people in business and non-profits who engage with stakeholders, I’m reporting here on some of the ideas that have the most applicability to day to day practice.

What is Stakeholder Marketing?

Stakeholder marketing is an approach to marketing that examines the impact of marketing on stakeholders other than the customer.  Our short-hand description is that it is about “marketing with rather than marketing at stakeholders.” It seeks to partner and collaborate with stakeholders in the creation of value for the company, its customers and other stakeholders. One article in the special edition, “Stakeholder Marketing and the Organizational Field,” says that research demonstrates a strong business case for responding to stakeholder issues efficiently. Among the benefits are improved financial performance, greater stakeholder identification with the firm, and stronger stakeholder support.

The ideas from this special edition, combined with my own research, leave me with two observations on the current state of stakeholder marketing:

Best Practices Not Yet Clear

First, the primary obstacle to the adoption of stakeholder marketing it that it does not lend itself to tactical considerations as easily as green marketing, social media marketing, relationship marketing or any other similar approaches. These other practices often comprise a set of tools and tactical strategies that can captured and shared. So far, stakeholder marketing has not been reduced to a checklist of best practices. These articles, rather, describe an intention. One essay suggests that stakeholder orientation is best represented in a definition of marketing management. As Jenny’s article indicates, stakeholder marketing begins with a set of principles rooted in values, which then inform the culture of the firm, which then informs marketing practice.

Jenny’s article actually goes farthest toward identifying practices that show up in a stakeholder oriented approach to marketing. Among them:

• Approaching promotion and sales from the perspective of educating consumers about their choices rather than persuading them or seeking to control their behavior in favor of the firm’s objectives.
• Engaging customers as partners in creating value for other stakeholders
• Giving away innovations and market intelligence in service of improving the overall well being of the industry or market.

Marketers alone are not organizationally empowered to implement these practices.  More so than other marketing approaches, stakeholder practices must be supported from the top and must be coordinated across functional boundaries throughout the company. This leads us back to the role of marketing management as key in implementing stakeholder marketing.

How is Stakeholder Marketing Different From Stakeholder Engagement?

The second takeaway is that this edition does not yet answer the question “How is stakeholder marketing different from stakeholder engagement?” To answer this will require comparing companies’ stakeholder engagement or Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) programs with their marketing strategies, taking into account all aspects of the marketing mix: product/service, pricing, distribution/sales, and promotion. Where are the linkages, overlaps or gaps?

Over the last several months I have contacted a number of well-known companies that I perceive to be practicing aspects of stakeholder marketing. Unfortunately, they don’t recognize their actions as such. They are more inclined to say that their CSR programs have elements of customer engagement. Even Timberland, whose stakeholder initiatives have been integrated into aspects of marketing and promotion, declines to call what they do stakeholder marketing.

It may well be that in many companies a stakeholder orientation in marketing will come from gradual encroachment of CSR initiatives.  As long as companies reinforce short-term thinking among marketers through mandates on measurement and quarterly financial goals, marketers will understandably resist embracing stakeholder methods which are often long-term in nature and difficult to measure – even though enhanced financial performance may be the ultimate outcome.

In the following series of articles, I’ve taken some of the topics raised by the authors in this special edition and provided brief summaries of findings that I feel are the most practical for those who manage marketers or have strategic oversight on a firm’s marketing.

Evolution of the Marketing Orientation – Researchers propose that stakeholder orientation is the next evolution in what began as a product orientation and evolved next to a market orientation.

Stakeholder Practices of Triple Bottom Line Firms – What does stakeholder marketing look like? Exemplary Triple Bottom Line firms provide the most insight and examples.

Like it or Not: Dragging Companies into the Stakeholder Perspective — Market events often trigger stakeholder activism that forces companies to shift from stakeholder management to stakeholder engagement.

Social Networking Taps the Creative Potential of the Stakeholder System — Social media marketing technology gives companies ways to manage stakeholder ideas and input.

Copies of the Journal of Public Policy and Marketing are available from the American Marketing Association. Purchase requires a subscription, which for individuals costs $90. The Journal publishes twice a year. Digital versions are available, but only to subscribers. Additional Information is available here .

If you are interested in integrating stakeholder strategies into your own marketing programs or strengthening stakeholder relationships in other ways, please contact us.

~~~

This series of articles is dedicated to my beloved friend Coffee, with whose help they were written.

This article is one in a series of reports about the Spring 2010 Journal of Public Policy and Marketing special edition on Stakeholder Marketing. See an introduction to and a summary of our coverage of this edition here.

By Kathleen Hosfeld

In an article called “The New Marketing Myopia,” authors N. Craig Smith, Minette E. Drumwright, and Mary C. Gentile suggest that a stakeholder perspective is the next step in a progression that began with “product orientation” and evolved to “market orientation.” Building on the insights of Theodore Levitt’s landmark essay “Marketing Myopia,” originally published in 1960 in Harvard Business Review, the authors say that a stakeholders orientation in marketing will help prevent companies from relying too heavily on products or services that may come under regulatory or other scrutiny, or fall out of step with mainstream values.  Another article in the Journal’s special edition, “From Market Orientation to Stakeholder Orientation,” by O.C. Ferrell, Tracy L Gonzalez-Padron, G. Tomas M. Hult, and Isabelle Maignan, further develops the this idea.

A product orientation is internally focused on selling what one can/wants to make. A market orientation shifts to an external assessment of what customers need/want, and what competitors provide. A stakeholder orientation would also be externally focused, including other voices beyond customers and competitors, those advocating for longer-term, ethical, social, environmental or cultural issues.

The New Marketing Myopia article provides examples of food manufacturers and retailers who trade on the short-term desires of children for junk and fast food, and US automakers catering to the desire for gas-guzzling SUVs while disregarding signs of increasing regulatory pressure for more fuel-efficient vehicles. Stakeholders have lobbied both industries for years.  Automakers in particular have paid a price for ignoring stakeholder concerns.

The authors make the point that a market orientation, because it looks outward, has the potential to more easily evolve into a stakeholder perspective. The chief difference is that market orientation tends to ultimately prioritize customers and competitors over other stakeholders, whereas stakeholder orientation seeks to manage to all stakeholder interests simultaneously.

The original “Marketing Myopia” offered inspirational examples of how a market orientation expanded possibilities for long-term organizational evolution – reframing the core business from specific products which may only have a market for a decade or two to a customer need that might be reinterpreted over many decades.  It expanded trains to transportation, or silent films to film and video entertainment.

The authors suggest that stakeholder orientation can help companies “develop foresight regarding the markets of the future.” However, they provide no examples of how companies have thrived by doing so. Rather the stakeholder orientation as described here serves as a constraint – what one should not or cannot do – rather than something that broadens strategic options.  This does an injustice, I believe, to the stakeholder concept, which by way of its expanded systems view and the latent creativity present in the stakeholder system itself should similarly explode strategic options.

I wanted the authors, particularly of the New Marketing Myopia article, to cite examples of the generativity fostered by the stakeholder perspective. In some situations the stakeholder perspective might offer an expanded view of customer needs—from junk food to youth nutrition, or from SUVs to transportation solutions.  In others, it might show how companies and customers can create new benefit for other stakeholders while enhancing value creation for themselves. Or, it may simply mean meeting the same customer need but from within a business model or operational system that has been redesigned to respond to issues of ethics and sustainability.

Significant change is motivated by a compelling future.  I believe there is a compelling business case for adopting a stakeholder orientation in marketing. The authors of both these articles have not made that case.

This article is one in a series of reports about the Spring 2010 Journal of Public Policy and Marketing special edition on Stakeholder Marketing. See an introduction to and a summary of our coverage of this edition here.

By Kathleen Hosfeld

It’s virtually impossible to be a Triple Bottom Line business without practicing stakeholder marketing.  Adding social and environmental outcomes to the traditional financial bottom line almost invariably involves engagement with stakeholders other than customers, employees and owners.  As a result, Triple Bottom Line firms are a source of insight concerning what stakeholder marketing looks like.

Hosfeld & Associates’ academic partner, Jennifer Mish, Ph.D., a professor of marketing at Notre Dame, contributed the article “Principle Based Stakeholder Marketing: Insights from Triple Bottom Line Firms,” with co-author Debra Scammon to the special edition of the Journal of Public Policy and Marketing. The article is based on her doctoral research of firms who had operated with at least two bottom lines for at least 15 years and three bottom lines for at least 5 years (some had done so for more than 30 years).

Such firms inherently recognize the interconnectedness of stakeholders, what we call “taking a systems perspective.” Moreover they are committed to acting in service of the well being of the system as a whole. This translates to a commitment to transform industries and institutional norms, reinventing how business in their industry gets done, and tending to the needs of the weakest or most vulnerable members of the system.

The firms Jenny interviewed use value propositions in a unique way. In traditional settings, a value proposition is used to clarify the benefit created for a target customer.  The value propositions adopted by these Triple Bottom Line firms however define how the company and its customers together will create benefit for other stakeholders in the system (for example, offering a recycling program that helps them co-create benefit for the community and the environment).

Jenny’s article describes three elements of a Principle-Based Stakeholder Marketing Model:  1) a set of principles which support  2) the organizational culture which then in turn supports 3) specific stakeholder marketing practices.  The practices include 1) generating stakeholder-related intelligence,  2) disseminating the intelligence, and 3) responding to the intelligence.

Her article includes implications for public firms, some of which apply to many organizations – public, private or non-profit — that may be seeking to adopt a stakeholder perspective. A stakeholder orientation will increase the complexity of decision-making, may be difficult to measure, may unsettle single-bottom-line expectations, may expose the firm to reputation risks, and may challenge perceived legal constraints.

This article brought me back to another in the Special Edition, an essay by Gregory T. Gundlach and William L. Wilkie on why the term “stakeholder” was omitted from the latest iteration of the American Marketing Association’s definition of marketing in 2007. The essay makes the point that stakeholder marketing is less a set of specific tactical practices – like green marketing – and more a marketing management perspective or a marketing philosophy.   Jenny’s article may leave the practitioner hungry for answers to the question “How do I do stakeholder marketing?” Yet, it rightfully sets the context for how marketing and other executives should think about marketing from a stakeholder perspective.