Comment on this view

View a PDF version of this article (37KB)

Employer branding is a fast developing but still poorly understood component of marketing communications. It was previously known by a variety of names, including corporate communications, recruitment advertising, internal communications, university marketing and human resource management, and combines elements of all of these disciplines.

Essentially, employer branding highlights the merits of working for and with a particular organisation to employees, potential recruits, the recruitment industry, business partners and adjacent communities. Its aims are to make staff feel good about their employer and more motivated about their work, and to bring in better recruits and keep them for longer. It is related to but not the same as employee brand advocacy, which focuses more on staff buy-in to external brand communications. It tends to be managed by human resources rather than marketing and, as such, can slip off the brand radar unless the right internal channels are in place.

Key ingredients in the employer branding mix include the attractions of the sector, company reputation, the quality of products and services, the work environment and location, and pay, conditions and benefits. People and culture also play an important part, and most organisations these days seem keen to offer a good work-life balance.

The other missing link in creating a strong employer brand is corporate social responsibility (CSR). Five years ago, this was still seen as a niche activity, only of interest to lobby groups. But the climate change debate and the efforts of campaigners such as Naomi Klein (the author of No Logo) have pushed CSR into the mainstream.

Consequently, many potential recruits won’t even consider joining an organisation if it is not playing a full and active part in supporting worthwhile causes. In a recent Personnel Today survey, as many as 44% of respondents said they would discount an employer that had a bad reputation, while nearly half said CSR policies should be compulsory. A benchmark study from the newly formed Employer Brand Institute ranked CSR as the single most important factor in employee satisfaction. And a survey of 257 CEOs by Korn/Ferry, the leading executive search firm, showed that almost three-quarters regarded hiring and retaining talented people as one of the top three objectives of their CSR programme.

Employers have risen to the challenge with a race to be the greenest, fairest, and most ethical company in their sector. League tables have been created to chart their efforts, with the champions touting their successes in high profile advertising campaigns in the international press.

It’s clear that corporate responsibility is already critical to the success of any self-respecting employer brand. But with so much activity, can a strong CSR programme be a real differentiator for employees and recruits, or has it just become a hygiene factor? How should companies achieve stand-out for their employer brands? And when should they cap or even stop investing in CSR, because there is nowhere else useful for them to go?

To answer these questions, we need to look more closely at what is already out there in terms of employer brand activity and also what companies are doing in developing their CSR programmes.

First of all, there are the companies that fall into the ‘Do Nothing’ category. Doing nothing is not an option for most large corporations, although CSR seems to be little more than a token gesture for some of them. The tobacco manufacturer BAT, for instance, now claims to only use materials from sustainable sources and acknowledges the health risks of its products, but that’s unlikely to overcome the ethical concerns of potential recruits opposed to its marketing policies in developing countries. At least BAT avoids exaggerations in its career communications, which talk about a stimulating work environment rather than good works in the community.

When it comes to small and medium-sized enterprises, however, there are still plenty of companies that are failing to make employees feel good about where they work. Whether this is due to lack of interest, a lack of time or a belief that they cannot afford it, they are missing a significant opportunity to reap real rewards in terms of staff retention.

The next rung up the ladder from ‘Do Nothing’ could be described as the ‘Don’t Feel Bad’ category. Here you will find companies that have a reason to be self-critical about their CSR performance, but have started to do something about it. Some examples include Gap tackling working conditions in Asian garment factories, Coca-Cola collaborating with the WWF on water conservation projects and with Greenpeace on carbon emissions from vending machines, and the Ford Motor Company making a commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from its new vehicles by 30% by 2020 – albeit under heavy pressure from activist investors and legislators. At this point on the scale, the connection with employer branding remains tenuous as there still isn’t much to shout about, although it should at least be a neutral factor for employees and recruits rather than a potential source of embarrassment.

Moving up another stage, we reach the ‘Feel Good’ level, where CSR is sufficiently embedded in the organisation for it to be a source of pride and a positive reason for selection. Typically, there is an element of staff involvement, which personalises the commitment and makes people into employer brand advocates. In the best cases, a link is also established between the company’s core activities and the causes being supported. There are plenty of examples of good practice here, including:

• BT is focusing on the environment and climate change and has introduced a company target of engaging 20% of staff in sustainability issues by 2012. They are also setting up ‘Carbon Clubs’ to reduce their carbon footprint and have encouraged 7,000 staff to pledge to ‘get greener’ on the company website.

• Timberland has targeted human rights, environmental stewardship and community service. The company has developed a global programme of 140 initiatives, including building nature trails and refurbishing rundown schools. Most of their initiatives take place outside, providing opportunities for people to wear its outdoor products as they work.

• Marks & Spencer has introduced its Plan A, which includes a commitment to going carbon neutral, sending no waste to landfill, extending sustainable sourcing, improving ethical trading, and helping customers and employees lead healthier lifestyles. Local champions have been appointed in stores and offices across the group.

• Logistics giant TNT has 50 people on standby to intervene around the world at 48 hours notice as part of its ‘Moving the World’ project, a five-year partnership with the United Nations World Food Programme. They have been called into action on around 25 emergencies, including the Asian tsunami. Three out of four graduates who apply to join TNT mention the association with the World Food Programme as a key reason for their interest in the company.

At the top of the employer branding tree, CSR becomes fully integrated into the business to the point where employees consider ‘It’s What We Do’, rather than being a corporate comms bolt-on. There are fewer examples in this category and the ‘It’s What We Do’ status is difficult to sustain as companies grow and diversify over time (just look at Ben & Jerry’s shift from environmental icon to corporate asset when it was sold to Unilever in 2000). Most of those in this category tend to be newer brands. Google still enjoys a brand halo, for instance, which is yet to slip. It continues to use the strapline ‘Do No Evil’, which applies to both its external and internal communications. As each year goes by, its success puts the claim under more pressure, but it remains an iconic employer brand – for the time being at least.

Innocent Drinks is another company in this category. Their commitment to 100% natural, healthy, renewable ingredients is well known, but their work with the Carbon Trust to reduce their carbon footprint is not. Innocent is the first drinks manufacturer to use entirely recycled bottles and it donates 10% of its profits to charity. It has also set up the Innocent Foundation, to support development work in countries where its fruit is grown, and it runs Fruitstock, a music festival in London’s Regent’s Park to ‘say thank you to the people who drink our drinks’. Staff surveys demonstrate that the workforce really does believe in the company’s values and Innocent’s Head of People Karen Callaghan says that the subject of CSR often comes up in job interviews.

So for most companies, there is still some way to go in developing their CSR programmes and making them relevant to their employees and potential recruits. But not all companies can or should be aiming to be like Innocent Drinks. Essentially, it is about finding the right issues which fit with the core activities of the business, and working out how to make a meaningful and lasting difference that employees can really believe in.

Marketers should be wary about over-claiming or over-communicating their CSR programmes, as there is a real risk that compassion fatigue could set in. We should also accept that there is a natural limit to how far any one organisation can go in developing its CSR programme. The primary goal of most marketers is still to meet customer needs profitably. With that in mind, true idealists may feel more comfortable working with charities and NGOs or in the public sector if that is their over-riding passion.

In summary, corporate responsibility is here to stay, but so is employer branding. The latter is likely to get increasingly sophisticated as it becomes an integral part of the corporate brand. It’s inevitable that the CSR and employer brand agendas are going to overlap and, if handled skilfully, they can definitely help in improving recruitment and retention performance. 

It is no longer enough to have a CSR programme just to impress employees, though. Most now take this for granted, so employers need to work harder to find activities that really resonate with their staff. On top of that, they need to get the communications tone exactly right. If they don’t, there’s always a danger that the whole investment could backfire.

 

 

View a PDF version of this article (37KB)

Our Views