Insights

The transfer to companies of certain responsibilities hitherto reserved for public services is leading the political field and citizen action to move to the point of privatization. From the welfare state to the welfare company, from the National Assembly to the General Assemblies, a shift that develops, in the wake of Corporate Social Responsibility, a new concept of Corporate Civic Responsibility. Deciphering a movement that places economic actors at the forefront - and its impact for us, communicants.

On November 12, Mayada Boulos launched in the columns of La Tribune a call for large companies to commit themselves politically to “get out of their neutrality and think about their geopolitical responsibility”.

And as if to anticipate this call, others had already warned before that about the disengagement of the State and the new responsibility left to companies in fields that have hitherto been endorsed by public action, in terms of ecological transition of course but of social transition also.

While the intention here is not to discuss this observation, it is good to understand what such a redistribution operates in terms of posture and in terms of communication.

By investing businesses in new societal functions, the whole social body is transformed.

Prevention and protection, education and training, digital inclusion, digital inclusion, opening up of territories, employment and reinsertion, financing of culture, valorization of heritage... the projects that companies are called upon to finance and conduct are growing.

The citizens of yesterday, members of a State, holders of a voice and with the right to vote, are replaced by stakeholders, members of communities of interest — customers, shareholders, opinion leaders, activists — holders of economic, legal, power, influence, and (dis) information.

It is these new “voters” that the company is now addressing.

‍

Communication in the age of Corporate Civic Responsibility: our 4 beliefs

‍

1. As soon as the company develops a political status, communication must be of general interest. It constitutes a service, yesterday private, tomorrow public, in its own right.

Creation of observatories and other monitoring bodies, development of mediation mechanisms, establishment of prevention programs...: the paths to be taken are multiple, as long as they do away with exclusively business logic for a while.

2. As soon as the company develops a political status, the communication is aimed at all audiences, or rather at its audiences in all their dimensions, resident, taxpayer, donor, user, employee.

Bringing the methods (and the means) of general public communication into corporate communication; removing the barriers of brand, external communication, internal communication, financial communication; thinking of projects as major transversal cultural projects are becoming a priority.

3. As soon as the company develops a political status, communication touches on new areas of daily life.

The company was “capital”, it is becoming a “resource”.

And if it must position itself to meet the challenges, it must above all act at the level of men. Aid for purchasing power, the fight against discrimination, and support for chronic diseases are illustrations of concrete themes that communication must address.

4. As soon as the company develops a political status, communication is inevitably accompanied by a more territorial effort.

Its tangible and intangible heritage is becoming a common good at the service of regions and their progress. And communication must be this new medium that allows it to be shared. From the Providence Company to the Nation Company, history will tell us where the path ends. For the time being, we are supporting communication departments to take the path of RCE, which is as virtuous as it is essential.