what do you do if you’re the target of an aggressive lobbying campaign? a case study

30Oct09

This morning I received a tip-off on an interesting development from a company who had been the target of an aggressive, and very public, lobbying campaign by Greenpeace.

This case study, and another one, My Green Apple, have in my opinion displayed the opportunities that a well mitigated crisis communications plan can provide. Instead of running and hiding, which a lot of companies do when faced with a public witch hunt, these two companies listened and responded in a positive and mature corporate way. Let’s look at them.

Timberland stands up to criticism, and ends up looking the hero

Faced with an assault of more than 65,000 template letters from green activists, consumers and members of a genuinely concerned community, Timberland had two options. Run and hide, and don’t respond to the increasingly ferocious lobbying of perhaps the world’s biggest and most trusted green group, Greenpeace, or stand up and listen to the concerns and action them in a mutually beneficial and mature manner. Timberland took the latter option and in turn has proven that a crisis can be a PR dream.

Now, the criticism and resulting public lobbying from Greenpeace was a result of an investigation in which Timberland were implicated as being unwitting contributors to the destruction of the Amazon for cattle farming. Timberland were buying 7 per cent of their leather for their products, from cows who were destroying the world’s most vulnerable forest through grazing.

As a result, Timberland got on the radar of Greenpeace, along with other companies such as Adidas/Reebok and Nike to name a few. This was secondary to the main villains, being the actual cattle farmers Bertin, JBS and Marfrig (interestingly, part-owned by the Brazilian Government).

Taking the road less travelled

It would have been easy for Timberland to play dumb, to cry foul and essentially ignore the brand assault enveloping their operations. Afterall, the PR ’spin’ would have been easy. Can’t you imagine them issuing a media release pleading ignorance and pushing back to their supplier, Bertin, in terms of laying the blame?

Then, behind closed doors, you can picture the discussions with Bertin. “Mate, you have to take this heat. It’s your cows, your farming, your operation. We just buy your leather.”

But Timberland have taken the road less travelled, faced up to the crisis, and in turn, have looked a hero. Why?

Turning the crisis into an opportunity

Timberland have done two things right. They have acknowledged the concerns of the lobbyists and their customers, and have addressed them. Check out their CEO, Jeff Swartz, responding in his blog here.

Not only has Timberland engaged with their supplier, Bertin, to develop a plan that would answer the challenge, but they have managed to respond to the public criticism with a mature corporate tone which places them as the hero. They are using their small leveraging currency to engage with Bertin and other organisations such as Nike, to look at their business operations in the Amazon.  In fact, Bertin have just announced they are no longer sourcing cattle from protected areas of the Amazon.

Confronting the crisis head-on

What interests me is the fact they have confronted the crisis head-on. They have facilitated a major organisation to look at the issue, they have facilitated face-to-face meetings with the villain (Bertin) and the agitator (Greenpeace) and they have put the issue on a major stakeholder’s agenda (the Leather Working Group).

In addition, Timberland have created a positive public relations opportunity out of this action. The CEO blog announcing this action, the covering letter distributed to all 65,000 consumers who wrote to Timberland, and the prominent placement in their CSR website, are all big wins.

The tone in the CEO blog is also interesting. A couple of paragraphs I think are spot on include:

So when 65,000 new friends introduce themselves to your e-mailbox in a week, endlessly resending a form letter written by Greenpeace accusing your company of being part of the deforestation of the precious ecosystem called the Amazon rainforest, what would you do?

To understand Greenpeace’s assertion that our business practice directly leads to deforestation in the Amazon, you’ve first got to know that it is cattle ranching that is causing the deforestation — ranchers cutting down the forest in order to allow livestock to graze. That livestock is raised primarily for tailgate hotdogs or your mom’s meatloaf recipe — not for leather.

So in other words, wow you guys are persistent and we’re listening. Oh, and it’s not our fault.

No more leather from Brazil, no more issues with tracing hides which may have come from cows grazing in deforested areas of the Amazon rainforest.  We’re only talking about 7% of our production — so cut and run, right?

Tempting, but not the right thing to do. Disengaging would have solved OUR problem — no more headaches or emails from angry activists — but would do nothing to solve the problem of deforestation.  Even as we fumed at the way Greenpeace had approached this issue we asked ourselves, what is the responsible thing to do?  Do we walk away and let the beef processors sort this out with Greenpeace, or do we risk further ire, by staying in the conversation and engaging the leather tanner and the beef processor to solve the real environmental challenge?  What would you choose to do?

Or, look we are a really small client of Bertin and you have placed us in an untenable position, but…

We decided to stay engaged.  We pressed our Brazilian leather supplier, Bertin, for a plan that would answer the challenge posed — demonstrate that the cattle grazing in the field were not contributing to deforestation.  Find a way to ensure trace-ability back into the value chain — now.

For its part, Greenpeace has done an outstanding job gathering data, creating a complete and compelling case for the issue, and mobilizing its tens of thousands of supporters to call for action from brands like ours on an issue they care about.  Their effort has driven change into the system.  We applaud their activism, even as we wish next time—and there will be a next time, in the complex global value chain — they would seek to engage brands like ours before they pull the “let’s confront ‘em” lever.

We’re the hero, and we’re impressed that Greenpeace had the balls to push us.  And, finally..

Business can be a force for positive environmental change … collaboration yields more powerful outcomes than the effort of one … learnings reinforced by our experience to date on the Amazon deforestation issue.  We’re not closing the book on this topic yet – we’ll continue to monitor progress through regular reports from Bertin and through our work with the LWG and HWG, and we’ll continue to share milestones and challenges with you here on Earthkeepers.

CEO thanks Greenpeace for full frontal email assault?  Next thing you know, world leaders will actually come up with a meaningful global agreement at Copenhagen…

So, what are the key insights into this case study?

• Timberland have managed to salvage their business relationship with Bertin, by engaging with them, showing them how they can also evoke change in a positive manner, and then credit Bertin in their communications
• The CEO, and Timberland as an organisation, have leveraged the crisis as an opportunity to display good corporate citizenship without actually losing any income or business
• Timberland have approached the PR crisis with a mature corporate voice, and have responded publicly in a tone which mitigates Greenpeace’s concerns. They have put a human face to the response (CEO) and have managed to communicate some pretty convincing business messages
• Instead of an attack on Greenpeace, Timberland have managed to engage with them, and in a side-ways slap, highlighted how  they thought it was unfair that Greenpeace targeted them, via the CEO blog
• The CEO responded to each and every one of the 65,000 agitators via the same mechanism they lobbied to Timberland – through a personalised email
• Greenpeace have commended Timberland’s response and actions, providing a PR win-win. Timberland looks good, and Greenpeace look like a victor.

So, what do you think? Would your company have the balls to confront the PR crisis head-on and come out looking like the hero? And, are you prepared for an assault of this size, by the likes of Greenpeace?

---

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)

• Interview with Jeffrey Swartz, CEO of The Timberland Company
• Nike and Timberland Stop Buying Leather from Deforested Amazon
• Playing Hard to Get

Filed under: PR, issues management   |  11 Comments
Tags: case study, greenpeace, PR crisis, timberland