"We get it."

That was the unspoken take-away from Corporate Reputation Watch 2003 – the annual survey of chief executives conducted by Hill & Knowlton in partnership with Korn/Ferry International.

Reputation Drives Business Objectives

No surprise that the vast majority of American chief executives fell in lock step with their peers around the world in their belief that corporate reputation is more important now that ever before. Most see it as their own responsibility and believe that the ability to manage reputation is critical in choosing a successor.

The majority of chief executives surveyed pegged reputation to the ability to recruit and retain employees and develop strategic partnerships. Slightly more than half connect reputation with driving sales, and about one third saw a correlation to the share price of their companies.

American Companies Need to Extract More from CSR Initiatives

When you drill down into one of the key drivers of reputation – corporate social responsibility (CSR) – a value disconnect begins to emerge suggesting that there is more work to do to obtain maximum return on the dollars invested in CSR. The leaders surveyed viewed CSR as having considerably less effect on many of the key business objectives cited in the study.

While 80% saw CSR as important to recruiting and retaining people, fewer than half see a positive impact from CSR initiatives on generating favorable media coverage, promoting transactions and partnerships and withstanding the adverse impact of crises. Only one third credit CSR initiatives with driving sales and only one fourth of the American chief executives find that their company’s CSR programs are helping build public support for the policy initiatives they favor.

More Work to Do

The disconnect between their general belief in the importance of reputation and the perceived contribution of CSR initiatives suggest that there is more work to be done. The connection between the positive impact that a sound reputation can have and the CSR contribution to that reputation needs to be more transparent to the tenant in the corner office.

We know from other research that consumers prefer to do business with companies they believe are doing good for society, as well as for their employees and shareholders. We know that CSR is a visible component to reputation that is both tangible and measurable. What remains to be done is to make the general equation to preference based on "reputation" more specifically tied to preference based on corporate social responsibility. Chief executives will only believe that there is a real advantage to their companies from their CSR programs when they hear it from their customers and partners, and when they can measure it on their bottom line.

CSR Front and Center

Communications can play a role in providing better leverage for CSR programs. In fact, placing the CSR initiative at the center of the strategic communication program is mission critical to realizing its full value. Making CSR the centerpiece of communication implies other responsibilities as well. The programs have to be relevant and credible – relevant to the organization’s business and credible to outside stakeholders. The Ronald McDonald House is a fine example of relevance and credibility. The company’s most important customers are children and young people, so the work of Ronald McDonald House in support of seriously ill children makes sense and is believable.

It is only in going a step further than relevance and credibility by making the CSR initiative a true centerpiece program, that maximum value from dollars invested can be extracted.

If more companies placed the CSR program where it belongs, more chief executives would be able to recognize the impact of CSR on reputation and see the greater benefits on their business objectives -a worthy goal for communicators in the next year before the sixth annual Corporate Reputation Watch finds too many American companies still missing the boat.