Using issues management to keep track of topicsBy Detlev Samland, European Director Public Affairs, and
Martin von Broock, Consultant, Pleon Kohtes Klewes, Berlin
Is nuclear power experiencing a comeback? Will obesity become a critical problem for candy manufacturers? Do mobile phones emit carcinogenic radiation? What opportunities are created by from demographic changes? Will drinking water become a scarce com-modity in Europe in the medium term?
These are just a few of the wider political, social and environmental issues that are be-coming major sources of interest and concern for business and the public at large. Gen-eral social and political debate is increasingly impacting industries and business models, creating growing pressure on companies, forcing them to assume responsibility beyond their immediate portfolios. And how companies respond to these issues, and how this impacts their reputation, then becomes a critical factor for success.
A systematic approach to issues management
How can companies face these challenges? First, they must be able to continuously filter the relevant development prospects from the growing flood of information. These issues then need to be analysed in terms of their specific impact on the company. It’s important to note that this is not so much about averting problems and crises in the short term. In most cases, the alleged threats (that companies often are unable to avoid anyway) offer opportunities to sharpen a company's profile and build business, provided they are rec-ognized at an early stage and tackled aggressively with a long-term strategy.
Issues management describes a process that firmly establishes these steps in the com-pany in a systematic fashion. Instead of dealing with "today's issues," which are already having a direct impact on the day-to-day business, issues management sets out to iden-tify "tomorrow's issues" as soon as possible so that you can proactively make use of the opportunities they create. A company that contributes its viewpoint at the very beginning of a debate on a topical issue, and then continuously tracks its development, will usually be well placed to help shape the outcome in terms of its own goals. Establishing clear responsibility for issues management ensures that the company's external communica-tions are consistent.
Taking the initiative
Establish a successful efficient issues management process in the company calls for the creation of a clear framework, with several components:
1 Professionalise the early identification of issues.
In practice, the identification of issues typically arises as a result of the continuous evaluation of media editorial. However, this approach is not comprehensive enough since media coverage is usually preceded by earlier developments. The monitoring effort must address this "pre-published segment," i.e. expert circles, political committees and institu-tions, interest groups, etc. Also the analysis must not be limited to the company's imme-diate environment. Quite a few issues may arise inside the organisation but will create their impact beyond the corporate borders.
2 Networking internal and external knowledge owners.
Experience shows that expertise on a given subject usually exists in various places within a company. To prepare strategic decisions, this available, decentralized knowledge is rarely consulted and its potential remains untapped. In addition, developments are often observed and assessed merely from the specific perspective of the company. This leads to a situation in which undesirable scenarios are systematically ignored.
With issues management, structures are created that network the internal knowledge owners, make their knowledge available for decision-making processes and take into account the outside perspective by involving external experts.
3 Firmly establish issues management within the company.
Issues management relies on access to information. As a result, it must be the task of corporate management to establish an issues management culture that goes across all parts of the organisation. This requires the provision of all necessary material resources as well as non-material resources (approvals etc) and the active support of everyone involved - both top-down and bottom-up. In doing so, the greatest challenge is to inte-grate all means of gathering information with the active consent of everyone involved.
Only if issues management is firmly established and continually promoted as a way of thinking can the objective of continuous and focused issue reporting be achieved in the long term all the way up to the executive level.
Practical knowledge
Over the course of several years, Pleon Kohtes Klewes has supported and researched the introduction of issues management systems, both in corporate practice and jointly with academic and other partners. Experience has shown that the functionality and effi-ciency of an issues management system strongly depends on its integration within the company, on the existing internal interest situation and structures, and, most of all, on the position and attitude of the management.
Moreover, an effective, continuous process can only be implemented if it is clear that the introduction of the issues management system ultimately supports strategic corporate interests. Senior management must make this commitment totally clear. In addition, man-agement will need mechanisms to allow it to implement the tasks resulting from the is-sues management process. If this clarity and the suitable instruments are missing, there is a risk that issues management may ultimately degenerate into a bureaucratic – and unpopular – compulsory exercise.
One way to achieve the full commitment of all involved is to offer the issues management process to all business units in the company as a centrally coordinated framework for the processing of all topics with strategic relevance. This partnership-oriented approach relies on the principle that the participants recognize the benefit of "give and take" with regard to information and therefore voluntarily become involved in the process. This , in fact, takes better account of the interests of all parties involved than the first, more centralized approach.
In summary, the following conclusions can be made:
1. Issues management must be developed and implemented for each organisation. While there are typical models, there is ultimately no "magic formula." Instead, practi-cable concepts need to be developed that are geared to the specific company, taking into account depending on the corporate structure, environment and available re-sources.
2. The introduction of issues management is largely a process of negotiation. The clearly declared intention of senior management is necessary but not sufficient to create broad acceptance within the company. As a result, the challenge lies in identifying the appropriate individuals within the company and motivating them for their task.
3. Issues management is not a "firefighting solution for putting out everyday small fires" – instead, the prospects are long-term and strategic. While short-term crises may be recognized, the system is usually too rigid for crisis management.
4. The establishment of an issues management process takes time. In developing and coordinating structures and processes and in determining issues, all responsible indi-viduals from the relevant corporate divisions must be involved. As soon as all the components of the system are created, a testing phase will be required to check the practical suitability of the system and make adjustments, if necessary. |
