When I wrote ‘New Activism and the Corporate Response‘ just over 10 years ago, companies were struggling to come to terms with how to react if they came under concerted pressure from activist groups. The challenge remains.
The sources of such attacks are varied but they often focus either on the very operation of the organisations, in other words what they do and how they do it, or on their governance, the behaviour of the organisation and those that lead it.
The activists are continuing to push the boundaries of communications and using all the tools at their disposal to disrupt the operation of the organisation, particularly through the use of the law. One only has to look at the HS2 Action Alliance or Stop Stansted Expansion to see how creatively the tools are used and how consistent the pressure can be.
Activist groups can also be more militant and radical but that is more true in the international context, although power stations are often invaded and towers scaled domestically as well.
Online activism was still in its infancy when the book came out and action was still focused around websites and emails. Social media was barely a glint in the eye. The possibilities opened up by the Internet were seen as power tools of democratisation but that power has spread further and more globally as well.
As a result, ‘slacktivism’, an easy normally online action such as retweeting or signing a petition, appears to have got more people involved in campaigns but it is questionable whether it has made the campaigns any more effective. It could be argued that the engagement of large numbers of people is now only the starting point.
Organisations still ideally want to avoid conflict and confrontation and the book examined some of the strategies open to them. The book was unique too in bringing together the views of the activists and the corporates as well. Very often significant barriers remain between the two but organisations do take their reputations more seriously and activists have been able to focus on that.
What is interesting is that the range of organisations coming under pressure has diversified. Charities are increasingly being challenged and more recently NGOs and membership bodies are being questioned as well.
Shareholder activism has become the norm. Indeed, according to McKinsey and Company, ‘activist investors are getting even more adventurous’. Vince Cable’s threat to introduce legislation if companies do not listen to their remuneration committees and do something about executive pay appears to be offering open encouragement to shareholder activists.
Shareholder activists are often perceived in a negative light particularly because of the time, effort and costs involved in dealing with them. They can, however, help to tackle risks and ensure that issues that may otherwise be ignored are dealt with. Shareholder activism is often stronger when companies are under performing and the better companies seek to develop constructive relationships with their activist groups.
Cable, in sending a letter to the FTSE 100 businesses has signalled a willingness to become an activist government. Just as relationships need to be built with shareholder activists they need to be developed with an activist government. His threat of legislation is though undermined by the lack of Parliamentary time available to him and doubts over whether the Conservative part of the Coalition would be in support of such measures.
Activist attacks or ongoing campaigns are still not considered seriously enough in an organisation’s risk analysis or crisis communications plans. Some believe, wrongly, that they remain largely immune and relations with those often considered ‘opponents’ can be limited or confrontational.
Especially given Cable’s intervention, the pressure is now both internal and external. The activist challenge remains a real and vibrant one.
– See more at: https://www.bdb-law.co.uk/blogs/public-affairs/64-activist-attacks/#sthash.u30ZWb7q.dpuf