Interview with Alphonse Daudré-Vignier: Corporate Communication in a Context of Geopolitical Turbulence

Published26/11/2024

Alphonse Daudré-Vignier, Executive Vice President at Weber Shandwick, was the guest on the French podcast “Les Coulisses de la Com de Crise” (“Behind the Scenes of Crisis Communication”) with Clara Labbé. This episode focuses on corporate communication in a context of geopolitical turbulence.

You can listen to the podcast here: https://bit.ly/4hX94Sj

In recent years, due to the sensitive geopolitical context, companies are increasingly being held accountable. The silence of leaders is no longer accepted. We see that companies can no longer hide behind economic neutrality. This leads to complex situations for companies that can seriously affect their reputation. For example, the war in Ukraine has forced companies to quickly decide whether or not to withdraw their activities in Russia. More recently, the conflict in Israel. These issues go beyond the core activities of the targeted companies and are not easy to solve.

We are in a new world. We are moving away from multilateralism and are in a state of deglobalisation. This is reinforced by social media activism. Companies find themselves in the middle of these conflicting interests. The media understands this and asks companies about their value chain. Today, this is exacerbated by known issues such as Russia, Ukraine, intellectual property in China and human rights in Saudi Arabia. This creates a difficult context for companies.

How can we anticipate this geopolitical risk? How can companies prepare for this?

As communicators, we need to have sensors on different topics to monitor the evolution of the situation in different countries. After becoming aware of the importance of the topic, it is necessary to map the risks. An international company will follow the political evolution in different countries. Take the example of the energy sector, which understands these issues well. Today, thanks to data, we can understand the state of conversations in different countries and follow their evolution. For example, in Russia, we can quickly capture the state of discussions on the subject and understand to what extent a given company is involved.

In this context, let’s take the example of Russia. Some companies quickly decided to stop their activities in the country, at least temporarily, after the first announcement. Others waited for public opinion to express itself on the subject. There were calls for boycotts and even “shaming” by Ukrainian leaders. When should these decisions be made? Should we wait to be accused or anticipate the future? Seizing the right moment is complicated. What are your tips in these cases?

As in crises, several parameters must be considered. It is necessary to follow the company’s values in making decisions, this is fundamental. The situation will not be the same across industries. For example, a pharmaceutical company can’t be compared to a luxury sector company. It’s also necessary to consider the company’s structure and international presence. As a communicator, it’s important to remember what’s being said about the company. In the end, it’s crucial to make sure to take all these parameters into account to make an informed decision.

Once the decision is made and the company is going to communicate, it’s important to consider the sensitivity of each country. The same position will not be perceived in the same way whether it’s in the United States, France, China or Saudi Arabia. Therefore, it’s necessary to deal with these differences to provide a unique response at the global level.

Yes, this is a topic that often comes up, like during Pride month where companies’ social media profiles are not the same in different countries. Some display the Pride flag, others less so, due to different sensitivities. What’s important is consistency. As soon as we lose it, we put ourselves at risk. So, it’s necessary to maintain overall consistency.

Speaking out on sensitive issues is not without risk for a company. For example, condemning a war or conflict may seem natural, but it means taking a position in sometimes complex conflicts. Audiences’ expectations diverge, some are ready to boycott a brand that takes a position, while others expect the company to take a firm stance. How to navigate between these contradictory expectations? How to respond to those who want a position and those who refuse for the company to venture into this territory?

Data is important for understanding what’s happening, especially in the case of a boycott. It’s necessary to analyse if it has a real impact on sales. Thanks to data, this analysis is simpler to carry out. It’s important to understand what we’re facing and make a decision accordingly. Sometimes, a call for a boycott makes a lot of noise on social media, but doesn’t reach your core target of consumers. So, it’s important to understand if you really have a problem, how big it is, and with whom. Often, these calls for boycott come from isolated groups whose message does not extend to your core target. So, it’s essential to have a clear view of the situation before reacting.

How can a balance be found between the time needed to collect and analyse data for thoughtful decision-making and the need for quick communication, considering the importance of both closely monitoring the situation to react quickly if necessary and taking time to analyse data for informed decisions?

As often in crisis communication, it’s necessary to anticipate. Normally, the company will have already identified potential risks and set up sensors to quickly detect weak signals. The idea is to see a potential call for a boycott coming and make decisions as it progresses. Today, there are tools that allow tracking almost in real time the evolution of the narrative associated with the company. The company must therefore anticipate possible scenarios and update these scenarios based on the evolution of the situation.

There is no contradiction between following the company’s purpose and reacting based on public reactions. In fact, both aspects must be taken into account. The company’s values guide its actions but it is also important to understand how these actions are perceived by the public. So, the company must be faithful to its purpose while listening to its audiences?

Finding a balance is essential. The company’s purpose guides our decisions and our communication. Following the evolution of the discussion around the company is not everything, it informs us but does not dictate our actions. This information is analysed in light of the company’s values to make a decision. Being opportunistic and making decisions based solely on public discussions poses risks. That’s why it’s important to always keep in mind the company’s purpose and values. Data and analysis help us make more informed decisions.

Once the company decides to speak out, it must do so thoughtfully to minimize risks. It is crucial to demonstrate transparency, humility, and pedagogy. It is necessary to clearly explain the decision made, while acknowledging that the subject can be complex. It is also important to remain faithful to the company’s values and avoid any accusation of “greenwashing”. In short, communication must be transparent, authentic and respectful.

We must accept that we will always offend someone with our decisions or our communication. It is essential to avoid a discrepancy between internal and external communication. To manage the different stakeholders, it is necessary to understand the weight of each. This involves a thorough analysis of the stakeholders and adapting the communication accordingly. For example, in the case of regulatory sanctions, the question no longer arises because the activity is banned in a given territory. Therefore, it is necessary to understand who the most important stakeholders are for each subject and adapt the communication accordingly.

Do you have examples of companies that have spoken out in these contexts, which you would have advised or not? Examples of good communication or on the contrary, situations that could have been improved? Can you share concrete cases?

It’s interesting to note that companies started communicating more with COVID, then with the Russia-Ukraine conflict. However, applying the same communication pattern to the war in Israel proved more complex, notably because of different audience expectations in the United States and Europe. Some American companies immediately took a stand, while others, less close to these issues, did not express themselves. It depends on the company, its values, and its geographical presence. So, a decision must be made based on these factors.

Sometimes leaders spontaneously express their position on a subject that is close to their heart, which can involve the entire company. Sometimes this can be anticipated, but there are also cases where the company must adjust the discourse after an unprepared statement by the leader. It is therefore crucial for leaders to understand the impact of their words on the company and to think carefully before speaking out on sensitive issues.

In the United States, several leaders have spoken out at the beginning of the Israel-Palestine conflict. Although they felt the need to communicate personally, their companies have communicated less on the subject. The tone of their communication on LinkedIn indicated that they were speaking in a personal capacity, not necessarily engaging the company. However, after this first wave of communication, their companies generally refrained from speaking on the subject. The perception of the conflict differs between the United States and Europe, which implies different communication.

It is not always necessary for a company to speak out in these contexts unless it is directly involved. Some companies have communicated their support for Ukraine, even though they were not directly involved. However, each situation is unique and must be evaluated individually. For example, communicating about the Israel-Palestine conflict can be riskier. It is therefore important to assess the risks and decide if silence is preferable.

The line is thin and the answer lies in authenticity. If a company supports a cause authentically, in line with its purpose and past communication, it will be well received. On the other hand, if the communication seems forced or inconsistent, it will not work. It is therefore essential that all communication makes sense and is authentic for the company. Consumers will know how to distinguish what sounds false from what is authentic.

This is a challenge for companies with subsidiaries or subcontractors in different countries. In the case of Carrefour, calls for boycotts were made because of the activities of its subsidiaries during the conflict in Russia. To avoid such situations, companies must ensure alignment of decisions and communication at all levels. This may require increased control and close coordination with subsidiaries and subcontractors to ensure consistency of actions and messages.

The subject of fake news is crucial. The first response to this is to know what is being said. For example, in the case of Carrefour, it is necessary to be able to detect these stories quickly and understand how to respond. Often, it is about fake news and a clarification is enough. However, in complex situations where the company does not have local control, like Carrefour, other than following these fake news and providing a response, there is not much to do. It is therefore essential to detect these narratives early and respond quickly. Today, companies and even governments do not hesitate to quickly correct false information.

Do you have specific examples that you had to manage, or can you give examples of subjects for which clients ask for your help?

There are many other topics, like the launch of the new golf league sponsored by Saudi Arabia. Several brands had to reevaluate their partnership contracts with golfers who joined this league. American universities are facing protests on their campuses. The way some leaders talk about Taiwan, or a company that sponsors the World Cup in Qatar are other examples. All these subjects require a well-defined communication strategy.

What level of advice and support can you offer to a company that is wondering whether it should sponsor a sports tournament in Qatar? What factors will you examine to help it make its decision?

The challenge is to quantify these reactions, which is possible with today’s AI tools. We can model scenarios using AI to simulate the reactions of different actors. Our advice is based on geopolitical expertise and the use of these tools to imagine possible repercussions. This helps us understand the narrative that could be associated with the company depending on the decision made. Then, we accompany the company in the final decision-making process, ensuring that it aligns with its values.

Do you consider that a decision can set a precedent when making a decision? For example, if a company ceases its activities in Russia due to a conflict, should it anticipate that it will be expected to act in the same way in other similar situations?

It is essential to maintain consistency and authenticity in the company’s decisions. If a company is opportunistic, it will show sooner or later. That’s why it’s important to take into account the company’s values when making decisions. If a company adopts a double-edged approach, it can harm its reputation. As communicators, we strive to maintain this consistency.

What role can communicators play in these situations? Should they intervene as soon as the decision is made? Should leaders entrust a particular role to communicators, who are often the “ears” of the company and capable of monitoring stakeholder expectations?

In the United States, the concept of “corporate diplomat” well illustrates the role of the communicator. Instead of simply understanding what consumers or the media are saying, this role involves understanding how international balances can affect the company and its reputation. This is a new role for consultants: explaining what is happening and how it can affect the company, particularly in terms of reputation, and supporting them in responding to these issues.

For more information about our offer in crisis communication, reputation and leadership, please visit: https://bit.ly/40WQe86