Corporate behaviour must come before corporate communication

Author and journalist Peter Bill wrote a brilliant Property Week Insight piece on the impact of language. It made me shout exactly! and jab at the screen of my laptop. He describes that thing called ‘marketing speak,’ which property companies use to transform their developments into places that don’t quite live up to expectations. With several quotes from George Orwell and a few semi-serious examples of this ‘speak’ he makes the perfect point about using language to disguise truth and the impact of this disingenuousness.

It has long been the reputation of the marketing, communications and PR industries that they help (property) clients tell fanciful stories, giving them ‘Spin’ so others view their businesses and their projects in a favourable light.  This blind-advocacy may have accurately described the work of the past but communications and PR have changed and storytelling is underpinned by authentic and truthful engagement – or at least it should be.

We still help our clients tell the very best story. That specialism is at the core of what we do. But the role of communications and PR is also to challenge clients and critically evaluate what their company says and does. It is our responsibility to question the validity, credibility and honesty of stories and behaviours before they are made public.

This critical challenge is driven by the climate of increased transparency and a growing responsibility for companies to be more…well…responsible. Companies in the built-environment experience more of this pressure because of the environmental and social impact they make with every new construction project and every new development.

There are many reasons why by-passing this critical eye and using language (communications) to, for example, Greenwash - as as Peter Bill points out - is not recommended. Two good reasons are ethics and commerciality. From an ethical perspective, using language to deceive is not responsible corporate behaviour. From a commercial perspective, the reputational risks when challenged and outed in public, are not worth it.

However, this focus on responsible behaviours should not shame organisations into hiding their goals to create profit. It does highlight the need for honest conversations around balancing commercial ambitions of business with the expectations of those stakeholders whose concerns are not financial. Doing this will allow businesses to tell their best story, one that is true to them and considerate of others. 

Good communication is not simply words in a brochure. It is the development and dissemination of authentic information that responds to the needs of stakeholders and positions a company or project in a favourable light. This means the tail can never wag the dog and good behaviours and intentions have to come before good copy.