reputation leaders network pdfs/rln... · colgate-palmolive: 68.28. 25: danone. 68.02: poor 80...

Reputation Leaders NetworkWelcome!

Winter RLN Meeting, St. PeteFebruary 1 - 2, 2016

RepTrak® is a registered trademark of Reputation Institute. Copyright © 2015 Reputation Institute. All rights reserved.

Day 1 Agenda

Day 2 Agenda

When a meeting, or part thereof, is held under the Chatham House Rule, participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed.

Chatham House Rules Observed

Introductions

• What are your objectives for attending this RLN Workshop?

• Is there a 2016 initiative or program that you would like to share with this group?

Volkswagen:A Self-inflicted Reputation CrisisA case study discussion and workshop

Winter RLN Meeting, St. PeteFebruary 1, 2016


On September 18th 2015, the US Environmental Protection Agency announced that Volkswagen, the company that coined the term ‘clean diesel’, has been installing sophisticated software to cheat diesel emission tests, and as a result its cars produced up to 40 times more pollution than allowed by US standards.

Volkswagen – Diesel Scandal and Reputation Challenges

1960 2015

2015 Global RepTrak® 100: The World’s Most Reputable Companies

Rank Company 2015 RepTrak® Pulse Score

1 BMW Group 78.982 Google 78.263 Daimler 77.854 Rolex 77.685 LEGO Group 77.556 The Walt Disney Company 77.117 Canon 76.648 Apple 76.509 Sony 76.49

10 Intel 76.1611 Microsoft 76.1112 adidas 75.5313 Nike 75.25

14 Volkswagen 75.02

15 Rolls-Royce Aerospace 74.4916 Nestlé 74.4817 Samsung Electronics 74.4618 Johnson & Johnson 74.2719 Michelin 74.0720 Ferrero 74.0121 Levi Strauss & Co. 73.7422 Philips Electronics 73.7023 Nintendo 73.2024 Amazon.com 73.1225 Colgate-Palmolive 72.84

POOR

<40AVERAGE

60-69EXCELLENT

>80STRONG

70-79WEAK

40-59

14thVolkswagen’s rank in the

2015 Global RepTrak®100 Study measured in

Q1 2015

2015 Global CSR RepTrak® 100: The World’s Most Reputable CSR Initiatives

Rank Company 2015 CSR RepTrak® Pulse Score

1 Google 75.402 BMW 73.363 The Walt Disney Company 73.354 Microsoft 73.285 Daimler 73.206 LEGO 72.697 Apple 72.288 Intel 71.819 Rolls-Royce Aerospace 71.32

10 Rolex 71.19

11 Volkswagen 71.05

12 Johnson & Johnson 70.4213 adidas 70.2814 Canon 70.2615 Philips Electronics 70.1916 Sony 70.1317 Michelin 69.4018 Nestle 69.3419 Robert Bosch 69.1220 Samsung Electronics 68.8321 BBC 68.7622 Nike 68.6723 Ferrero 68.3424 Colgate-Palmolive 68.2825 Danone 68.02

POOR

<40AVERAGE

60-69EXCELLENT

>80STRONG

70-79WEAK

40-59

11thVolkswagen’s rank in the

2015 CSR Global RepTrak® 100 Study

measured in Q1 2015

VW Gets, Embraces CSR Accolades

VW declared world’s most sustainable automaker by DJSI on September 11, 2015 Neatly fits narrative from their 2015 Sustainability Report

Source: VW 2015 CSR Report

Source: VW Media page on corporate web site

VW’s Engineers are So Virtuous They Sprout Wings

https://youtu.be/sylr-XHKcPg?t=8

https://youtu.be/sylr-XHKcPg

https://youtu.be/sylr-XHKcPg?t=8

Behind the Scenes, Trouble is Brewing in the US

Timeline: Actions Up to the EPA Announcement

May 2014 – WVU researchers find that 2012 Jetta TDI Diesel and 2013 Passat TDI Diesel emit far more NOx. They alert EPA and CARB.

Dec 2, 2014 – VW begins a voluntary recall of about 500,000 vehicles in the U.S.

Aug. 2015 – EPA says it won’t certify VW 2016 diesel vehicles until the company explains discrepancies.

Sept. 18, 2015 – The EPA discloses that VW used a software program that produces lower measurement in diesel emissions; VW recalls 482,000 cars in the US.

Sept. 3, 2015 – VW officials tell EPA and CARB that its TDI Clean Diesel vehicles contain a defeat device.

Aug 18, 2015 - A VW executive for the first time tells EPA and CARB officials of the company's deceptions

Questions

1. If you and your communications team found this out on Sept. 3, and had 2 weeks to address before it went public, what are the 3 things you would have done first?

2. Which internal and external stakeholders would you have focused on first, and in what order?

VW Admits Trickery but Declares It Isolated to a Small Group of Employees

Top commenter, CrustyJusty, remains skeptical

VW’s reputation takes a severe hit to its reputation in October 2015 in comparison with Q1 2015

Q1 2015RepTrak

Oct 2015RepTrak

Germany

United States

VW’s Reputation Drops Precipitously in October

VOLKSWAGEN CSR REPTRAK® PULSE

Arrows denote statistically significant score changes since previous measurement

70.8

58.2

57.6

77.6

57.4

58.2

45

55

65

75

85

Q1 '15 October '15 November '15 December '15

WEA

K

AVER

AGE

STR

ON

G GERMANY

USA

VW’s 2015 CSR Performance: Germany & the US

VOLKSWAGEN REPTRAK® GOVERNANCE DIMENSION ACROSS SIX MARKETS IN 2015GENERAL PUBLIC

71.7

54.855.0

76.3

43.9 45.7

78.5

34.739.5

67.9

29.7

34.1

71.2

27.1

34.4

79.1

32.0

27.3

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


POO

R

W

EAK

AVE

RAG

E

STRO

NG


UKGERMANY

FRANCE

ITALY

SPAINUSA

Governance Takes a Particularly Sharp Drop with No Material Recovery

VOLKSWAGEN REPTRAK® CITIZENSHIP DIMENSION ACROSS SIX MARKETS IN 2015GENERAL PUBLIC

70.5

54.6

58.3

53.5

77.6

55.7

47.2

56.8

77.2

30.9

41.9 41.3

65.6

28.3

25.2

31.7

69.5

21.724.0

33.0

75.3

27.6

28.0

23.9

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


The EPA discloses that Volkswagen used a software program that produces lower measurements in diesel emission tests

WEA

K

AVER

AGE

STR

ON

G


UKGERMANY

FRANCE

ITALY

SPAINUSA

VW’s 2015 CSR Performance: Citizenship

VW’s Reputation and Share Performance Drop in Tandem in Q4 2015

VOW.DE (XETRA) Currency in EUR

VOLKSWAGEN REPTRAK® PULSE IN US & GERMANY VS. VOW.DE STOCK PERFORMANCE

30

40

50

60

70

80

Q1 '15 Oct '15 Nov '15 Dec '15

VolkswagenStock Price

GERMANY

USA

VOLK

SWAG

EN R

EPTR

AK®

PULS

E

VOW

.DE STOCK PRICE IN

EUR

Willingness to Buy Drops 10 Points, US Sales Drop Each Month in Q4 2015 WILLINGNESS TO BUY – VOLKSWAGEN U.S.

48%

38%

45%

36%

-40%

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Q1 ‘15 Oct. ‘15 Nov. ‘15 Dec. ‘15

The EPA discloses that Volkswagen used a software program that produces lower measurements in diesel emission tests

USA

VW GROUP

VW BRAND

VolkswagenMonthly Sales

WILLINGNESS TO BUY

% o

f gen

eral

pub

lic w

ho a

re st

rong

ly w

illin

g to

buy

VW m

onthly sales

Calls for Investigations, Exec Changes and Recalls Announced

Timeline: Actions Immediately After the EPA Announcement

September 22 – VW issues a profit warning to shareholders and announces setting aside 6.5 billion euros (7.1 billion dollars) for future vehicle recalls and to cover the costs of the investigation.

Sept. 20 –CEO Winterkorn apologizes and VW orders an external investigation

Sept. 23, 2015 – CEO Winterkorn steps down while insisting that he was not aware of this wrongdoing, a day before VW admits that there are 11 million cars worldwide that have been affected

Sept. 2015 – VW communications Chief Stephan Gruehsemresigns, replaced by Hans-Gerd Bode from Porsche

Oct. 6, 2015 – Muller states that affected diesel vehicles will be recalled started in January and cars will be repaired by the end of 2016

Oct. 23, 2015 – VW board members state that they learned about the violation not from company executives but from news reports

Jan. 4, 2016 – The US Justice department files a lawsuit against VW over emission scandal for up to $46 billion under the Clean Air Act

//

1. By not acting, VW completely lost control of the narrative. What counter narrative would you have created had you been in this situation?

2. If you led communications for another US automaker, what actions would you have taken?

Post-Announcement Actions & Perceptions

Volkswagen’s 2015 Performance

1. What would be your corporate communications plan over the next 12 months?

2. What would be the key messaging points you would choose to highlight? Present to the group.

RI’s Volkswagen Reputation Case Study Next Steps

• Publish a final version in February• Will send a copy to everyone here today and to companies who

weren’t able to attend

• Review at the EMEA RLN Workshop in Brussels in mid-March

RLN Member Meeting:Volkswagen Reputation Case Study

Understanding Reputation Risk:Reputation Institute RLN Member Meeting

St. Petersburg, FL1st February, 2016

26

UNDERSTANDING REPUTATION RISK vs. REPUTATION

Reputation Risk ExposureIdentify your most significant risks and understand what can possibly and is most likely to impact your reputation and the reputation of your competitors.

RISK vs. REPUTATION: IMPACT ON SUPPORTIVE BEHAVIOR

Would recommend company 7% 10% 27% 52% 85%

Would buy the products 8%

Would say something positive

Would work for

Would invest in

Would welcome into local community

14% 32% 57% 85%

7% 12% 29% 56% 86%

7% 10% 21% 38% 69%

6% 9% 19% 34% 69%

9% 15% 32% 56% 85%

Would trust to do the right thing 7% 10% 25% 47% 81%

Poor0-39

Weak40-59

Average60-69

Strong70-79

Excellent80+

MORE IMPACTED BY RISK RISK BUFFER

CHARACTERIZING RISK

• Global Risk– e.g., act of terrorism, cyber attacks, major

economic crisis

• Industry / Category Risk• e.g., environmental impact, societal well-

being, occupational hazards

• Company Risk• e.g., operating practices,, labor issues,

leadership behavior, celebrity endorsement

• Product / Service Risk• e.g., product defects, health issues, harm

through consumption, service delivery

Degrees of RiskWhat are the types of risks your organization is most exposed to – do you have a proactive risk management strategy across your company at each level of risk?

“A reputation risk is an event that can impact

stakeholder perceptions of the organization”

15%

25%

50%

60%

55%

75%

95%

25%

32%

32%

35%

40%

54%

84%

21%

17%

36%

73%

69%

48%

88%

22%

24%

39%

49%

53%

58%

84%

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Marketing

Corporate Strategy

Corporate Branding

Legal

Enterprise Risk Management

CEO's Office

Corporate Communications/Public Affairs

% who strongly agree with statement

Overall US Europe Latin America

What function is responsible for managing reputation risk at your company?

Comms partners with Risk and Legal in the US, CEO and Brand partner in LA

50%

41%

39%

45%

45%

39%

46%

49%

42%

40%

39%

39%

55%

40%

45%

50%

70%

30%

60%

43%

40%

60%

55%

45%

20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Our organization has developed internal competencies that enable us toidentify and anticipate the key reputation risks we face in our business

Our organization has established formal processes that enable us to assess theprobability that key reputation risks will materialize

Our organization has a formal methodology to assess the impact that keyreputation risks will have on our business if they materialize

Our organization has put in place a cross-functional governance structure tomanage the key reputation risks we face in our business

Our organization has a well-established structure for addressing and mitigatingkey reputation risks if they materialize

Our organization emphasizes the importance of protecting and defending ourcorporate reputation in our internal training, appraisal, and reward systems


USA Latin America Europe Overall

How ready is your company to manage reputation risk?

LA leads in Risk structure maturity, US focuses on training and competency

5%

5%

5%

15%

25%

20%

25%

2%

9%

5%

9%

12%

33%

30%

2%

5%

10%

2%

26%

21%

33%

3%

5%

9%

10%

17%

24%

33%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

More than 75%

51-75%

Don't Know

None

26-50%

10-25%

Less than 10%



What percent of your external communications focus on reputation risk issues?

50% of US Firms spend <25% on Risk Communications, LA is opposite

IDENTIFYING REPUTATION RISK: TWO PART DISCUSSION

IMPACT

Low

High

Low HighLIKELIHOOD

Reputation Impact Calibrating Reputation Risk

1 Accounting malpractices 2 Bankruptcy fraud 3 CEO resignation after a financial scandal 4 Child labor in a supplier's factory 5 Delayed reporting of defects 6 Fraud and abuse allegations 7 Homophobic comments of top management8 Incoherent communication of corporate strategy 9 Labor strike in emerging market

10 Mandatory product recall 11 NGOs very critical against a plant 12 Price increase 13 Product fraud 14 Bribery of Public officials15 Repeated product recalls 16 Service changes and interruption 17 Sexual harassment 18 Strong layoffs 19 Unaware utilization of toxic packaging 20 Wage Renegotiation

Reputation Risk Matrix: CalibrationTop 20 Reputation Risks - Generalized

STATISTICAL MODELING OF RISK

KEY QUESTIONS

1. What are the most significant reputation riskskeeping you up at night?

2. What is your company doing to mitigate risk – and what is it not doing?

Proprietary & Confidential

CONTINGENCY PLANNING WORKSHEETCATEGORY: FINANCIALTOPIC: EMBEZZLEMENTSITUATIONOVERVIEW

The following plan covers the possibility of an individual executive (or group of executives) that are under investigation for embezzlement or financial fraud. This type of scenario would inherently involve outside law enforcement authorities and necessarily include the involvement of external financial resources (e.g. accounting and law firms) that would need to collaborate on Southwest’s response to the alleged incident

STATEMENT Southwest Airlines is cooperating with [law enforcement agency] in their investigation following the arrest of [executive(s) name(s)] under suspicion of [crime/charges description.] The employees involved in the alleged incident [have been placed on leave/terminated/other] as the investigation continues. Their job responsibilities have been reassigned …..

TALKINGPOINTS

• Southwest Airlines is cooperating with [law enforcement agency] in their investigation following the arrest of [executive(s) name(s)] under suspicion of [crime/charges description.] • The Employees involved in the alleged incident [have been placed on leave/terminated/other] as the investigation continues.

Q&A Q: What are the financial controls you have in place? A.Q: How was this matter brought to your attention? A. Q: Did you conduct background checks on the employee in question when he was hired?

IMPACTED AUDIENCES

Customers Employees Shareholders Vendors NYSE

CHANNELS Statement/News Release/TalkingPoints SWALife Message Read Before Lead NYSE Notification

POLICIES &RESOURCES

Guidelines for Employees Executive Succession Planning

INTERNALROUTING

Approvals: Communication, Investor Relations, CFO, Legal, Internal Audit, Corporate Security Distribution: Communicators, Vice Presidents, Board of Trustees

Proprietary & Confidential

Playbook Operational Playbooks – Social Threats

RLN Member Meeting:REPUTATION RISK

Day 2 Agenda

Reputation Leaders NetworkWelcome!



Day 2 Agenda

2015-16 Reputation Leaders StudyA brief review and discussion


Reputation Leaders Study Review

Today’s Agenda

• Reputation Leaders Study Overview and Methodology• Reputation Management Organizational Structure• Reputation Progress Report• Reputation Link to Corporate Purpose • Reputation Risk

Global Reputation Leaders Study - Overview and Methodology

2

RLS Participants Are Corporate Communications and Reputation Leaders


CEO/ President/ MD/ Owner/ Board Member

4%

VP/ SVP/ CCO20%

Director/ Senior Director/ Head/ AVP

39%

Manager/ Senior Manager

23%

Other14%

RI surveyed over 150 senior Reputation and Corporate Communications executives across 20 countries to explore:

Organizing for reputation management Brand purpose and corporate narrative Communicating on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Reputation risk management Return on reputation

Data collection: online survey - Sept. 2015-Jan. 2016

Respondent headquarters: Europe: ~50%, North America:~30%, Central/Latin America: ~15%, Other: ~5%

Respondent titles: • CEO/President/MD/Owner/Board Member -4%, VP/ SVP/ CCO - 20%,

Director/ Senior Director/Head/ AVP - 39%, Manager/Senior Manager -23%, Other - 14%. “Other” titles included Brand/Reputation Strategist, Reputation Officer, Communications Advisor, Marketing Leader

Corporate Communications/

Public Affairs60%

Marketing9%

Corporate Strategy

7%

Other (HR, CEO's office, Legal, ERM, etc)24%

Functions Represented

Less than $1 billion22%

$1-5 billion28%$6-29 billion

27%

$30 billion or more23%

Company Size

Overview and Methodology - Continued


Today’s Agenda


25%

45%

80%

80%

90%

35%

26%

46%

58%

81%

24%

23%

40%

62%

98%

30%

31%

50%

62%

88%

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Corporate Strategy

Marketing

CEO's Office

Corporate Branding




How responsible are each of these departments in managing your company’s reputation?

Communications leads, brand teams participate, marketing and strategy do not


Today’s Agenda


20%

45%

50%

40%

30%

70%

30%

28%

39%

42%

56%

58%

48%

48%

43%

38%

52%

60%

35%

39%

43%

44%

52%

60%

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Business case for reputation management; includingquantifying Return on Investment (ROI) of specific…

Knowledge: Improving our organizational competencyin reputation management/corporate communications

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR): Improving ourreputation for CSR and sustainability

Managing reputational risk: improving our ability toeffectively manage reputational crises

Measuring our reputation across key stakeholders

Communicating: Articulating a cross-stakeholder, cross-market company narrative



Where must your company make progress over the next 12 months to improve its reputation?

Multistakeholder communication and measurement dominate, ROI lags


Today’s Agenda


59%

35%

41%

63%

42%

47%

41%

54%

49%

51%

26%

32%

63%

33%

40%

40%

47%

49%

65%

45%

50%

55%

55%

60%

50%

65%

65%

76%

43%

60%

83%

57%

67%

55%

60%

50%

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

Consistent commitment and reiteration of core value by senior leadership

Corporate performance metrics tied to core values

Personal performance metrics tied to core values

Internal policies and codes of conduct developed to articulate company's…

Training provided to employees on company's core values

Core values emphasized in recruitment materials/ activities

Internal processes and controls set up to ensure employee adherence to…

Company marketing materials and corporate communications reflect its…

Proactively communicating externally on company's core values



What mechanisms are in place to ensure the company’s purpose and values are clearly and consistently demonstrated in how it acts and does business?

Internal communications and recruiting dominate, external comms lags


Today’s Agenda


15%

25%

50%

60%

55%

75%

95%

25%

32%

32%

35%

40%

54%

84%

21%

17%

36%

73%

69%

48%

88%

22%

24%

39%

49%

53%

58%

84%

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Marketing

Corporate Strategy

Corporate Branding

Legal

Enterprise Risk Management

CEO's Office




What function is responsible for managing reputation risk at your company?

Comms partners with Risk and Legal in the US, CEO and Brand partner in LA

50%

41%

39%

45%

45%

39%

46%

49%

42%

40%

39%

39%

55%

40%

45%

50%

70%

30%

60%

43%

40%

60%

55%

45%

20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Our organization has developed internal competencies that enable us toidentify and anticipate the key reputation risks we face in our business

Our organization has established formal processes that enable us to assess theprobability that key reputation risks will materialize

Our organization has a formal methodology to assess the impact that keyreputation risks will have on our business if they materialize

Our organization has put in place a cross-functional governance structure tomanage the key reputation risks we face in our business

Our organization has a well-established structure for addressing and mitigatingkey reputation risks if they materialize

Our organization emphasizes the importance of protecting and defending ourcorporate reputation in our internal training, appraisal, and reward systems



How ready is your company to manage reputation risk?

LA leads in Risk structure maturity, US focuses on training and competency

5%

5%

5%

15%

25%

20%

25%

2%

9%

5%

9%

12%

33%

30%

2%

5%

10%

2%

26%

21%

33%

3%

5%

9%

10%

17%

24%

33%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

More than 75%

51-75%

Don't Know

None

26-50%

10-25%

Less than 10%



What percent of your external communications focus on reputation risk issues?

50% of US Firms spend <25% on Risk Communications, LA is opposite

Next Steps for the Reputation Leaders Study

RLS Client Webcast: March, 2016RLS Report published March 2016RLS results presented as part of 2016 Pulse deliveryRLS 2016-2017: Winter 2016

RLN Member Meeting:Reputation Leaders Study

Applying Reputation Insight to Communication:Reputation Institute RLN Member Meeting

St. Petersburg, FL1st February, 2016

59

Do

60

Say

Are

CORPORATE BRAND PURPOSE: INSPIRING COMMUNICATION STRATEGY

Do

61

Say

Are

Brand Expression

Touchpoints

Content

COMMUNICATING WITH PURPOSE: ACTIONABLE OUTCOMES

62

MULTIPLIER EFFECT OF COPRPORATE COMMUNICATION

ReputationCommunication

Brand Expression

Touchpoints*

ContentPerception

SayX

Isolating The Core Variables of Corporate Communications

*includes paid, owned, and earned media impressions

Corporate Brand

63

THE IMPACT OF BRAND EXPRESSION

Reliable, secure, hardworking

Friendly, pleasant, open, straightforward

Ambitious, achievement-oriented, leading

Imaginative, up-to-date, exciting, innovative

Honest, sincere, trustworthy, socially responsible

Technical, corporate

Cool, trendy, young

Masculine, tough, rugged

Concerned, reassuring, supportive

Prestigious, exclusive

Casual, simple, easygoing

Charming, stylish, elegant

Extroverted, daring

Inward-looking, authoritarian

Arrogant, aggressive

Snobby, elitist

Delivers on its promise

Meets needs of customers

Welcomes open discussions

Appears genuine

Open about activities

Delivers consistent experience

Stands out

Brand Expressiveness

Brand Personality

Manner and Tone of Corporate Communications

Delivers a consistent experience

Stands out from the crowd

Meets the needs of its customers

Appears genuine

Communicates often

Welcomes open discussion

Provides sufficient information about its activities

Please select a number from “1” to “7” where “1” means “I strongly disagree” and “7” means “I strongly agree”: communicates often, stands out from the crows, delivers a consistent experience, provides sufficient information about its activities, appears genuine about what it says and what it stands for, welcomes open discussion with outside audience about its activities, delivers on its promise.

64

30%

26%

34%

52%

46%

47%

59%

- Company A -

BRAND EXPRESSION: MANNER OF COPORATE COMMUNICATON

65Of the terms you selected, which 5 do you most strongly associate with the company? Please select 5 items.

PERSONALITY TRAITS% of respondents

who perceive Company A as..

POSITIVE IMPACT

Friendly 40%

Exciting 14%

Hardworking 42%

Honest 26%

Imaginative 17%

Intelligent 23%

Responsible 33%

+8

+8

+6

+6

+6

+6

+6

PERSONALITY TRAITS

% of respondentswho perceive

Company A as..

NEGATIVE IMPACT

Boring 4%

Arrogant 3%

Aggressive 10%

-25

-17

-6

BRAND EXPRESSION: THE TONE OF COPORATE COMMUNICATON

Significant positive reputation impactSignificant negative reputation impactNo significant reputation impact

~

67%

68%

n=517

EXPERIENCE RECALL* REP IMPACT

Someone whose opinion I value that does not work for the company

Social media postings (e.g. Facebook, Twitter, Linkedin, etc.) by someone who does not work for company

A story by an industry expert or thought leader

Local newspaper or associated website

Radio program

Local TV news or their associated website

National TV news or associated website

Magazines or periodicals

69%

74%

64%

64%

68%

77%

National newspaper or associated website

72%

+14

~

~

~

+15

~

~

~

TOUCH POINTS

+7

28%

43%


39%

40%

43%

34%

47%

49%

50%

~

~

+7

-8

+5

~

~

~

+8

36%

52%

43%

44%

48%

43%

55%

59%

55%

~

~

~

-7

+8

~

~

+7

+9

33%

52%

44%

45%

50%

45%

53%

54%

56%

+9

~

~

~

~

~

~

~



66

TOUCHPOINT: REPUTATION IMPACT BY COMMUNICATION CHANNEL

- Company A - - Company B - - Company C - - Company D -

67

ATTRIBUTES

Leadership 1 Has a legacy of fostering traditions and heritage 53% 71.4

Citizenship 2 Embraces local cultures 48% 69.8

Products & Services 3 Offers products that can be part of a healthy lifestyle 41% 62.5

Citizenship 4 Has a positive influence on society 44% 67.0

Workplace 5 Rewards its employees fairly 42% 70.4

Governance 6 Is open and transparent about the way the company operates 44% 67.3

Products & Services 7 Offers high quality products 57% 73.4

Governance 8 Is fair in the way it does business 46% 68.5

Products & Services 9 Products provide good value for the money 53% 70.6

Governance 10 Behaves ethically 48% 69.8

DIMENSIONS SCORE

*Top reputation drivers ranked by the impact on Comoany A’s reputationWe would like you to examine some specific statements, and indicate how well you think they describe the company. Please select a number from “1” to “7” where “1” means “Does not describe well” and “7” means “Describes very well”.

% of AGREE

CONTENT: TOP DIMENSIONAL DRIVERS OF REPUTATION

Reducing harmful alcohol consumption

Preventing drunk driving

9 – Fostering sustainable agriculture practices

8 – Conserving and protecting water

7 – Using environmentally friendly packaging

6 – Ensuring responsible advertising, labeling, and packaging

5 – Being energy efficient

4 – Helping victims of natural disasters

Preventing underage drinking

15 – Promoting environmental sustainability

14 – Supporting local economic development

13 – Advancing research and innovation in the product it makes

12 – Improving road traffic safety

11 – Celebrating local heritage and culture

10 – Enhancing safety in the workplace

123

Together, the top 3 issuesimpact over

65%of respondents

68Max Diff: Below is a list of issues that alcohol beverage companies can be involved in. Please review the options and select the one that you think is the most important for alcohol beverage companies to be involved in and the one that you think is the least important for alcohol beverage companies to be involved in.

CONTENT: ISSUES THAT MATTER MOST

KEY QUESTIONS: HOW TO OPTIMIZE CORPORATE COMMUNICATION

1. Who are the most influential stakeholders to focus on – where is the tipping point?

2. How do we optimally engage them – manner and tone?

3. What are the most impactful channels, content stories, and issues for messaging?

Perception

CommunicationSay

70

REPTRAK AS A MEASUREMENT INSTRUMENT

Reputation

Perception

CommunicationSay

How to Understand The Cause And The Effect?

Corporate Brand Purpose, Communications Strategy, And Reputation

71

Reputation

Perception

MEASURING THE IMPACT OF CORPORATE COMMUNICATION

CommunicationSay

Key Opportunities• Protect and further strengthen our competitive advantage on the top driver

of Governance.

Governance is a priority for our key stakeholders

+

We are known for our ethical practices and outperform

National Banks

= Governanceas a

Competitive Advantage

• Community = Acceptable way to story tell

your ethics and governance

• Stories can work well

• Consistency is key

• Don’t ignore the non-verbal cues

• Leverage and nurture high employee

engagement

Communication

Amazon and Subway:A Tale of Two CrisesA reputation risk discussion and workshop



2015 US RepTrak® 100 : The Most Reputable Companies – MAY 2015


1 Amazon.com 84.082 Kellogg's 81.503 LEGO 81.494 Fruit of the Loom 81.235 Campbell Soup Company 80.296 Levi Strauss & Co. 80.257 Snap-on 80.098 Hershey Company 80.009 Panera Bread 80.00

10 Briggs & Stratton Corp. 79.8911 UPS 79.6812 Clorox 79.3013 BMW 79.2914 The Walt Disney Company 79.2415 Netflix 79.0516 Kraft Foods Group Inc. 79.0117 FedEx 78.8218 3M 78.4419 Dunkin' Brands, Inc. 78.4420 Publix Super Markets Inc. 78.3621 Whole Foods 78.1522 Tupperware 78.0823 Hasbro 78.0024 Under Armour 77.8925 Tiffany & Co. 77.85

Rank Company 2015 RepTrak® Pulse Score 26 General Mills 77.7627 Harley-Davidson 77.7528 Samsung Electronics 77.73

29 Hallmark 77.59

30 Lavazza 77.5631 Shire Ltd. 77.5532 Costco Wholesale 77.5233 Michelin 77.4934 Subway 77.3835 Tesla Motors 77.2136 Krispy Kreme 77.2137 Sony 77.1138 Nikon 77.0639 Baskin-Robbins 77.0640 La-Z-Boy Inc. 76.9841 Ferrari 76.8442 Cummins Inc. 76.8443 J.M. Smucker Company 76.83

44 Hewlett-Packard 76.66

45 Pizza Hut 76.6246 Microsoft 76.6047 Lowe's Home Improvement 76.5848 Unilever 76.5349 Eni 76.53

50 Kohler 76.51

POOR

<40AVERAGE

60-69EXCELLENT

>80STRONG

70-79WEAK

40-59

2015 US RepTrak® 100 : The Most Reputable Companies in the US





26 General Mills 77.7627 Harley-Davidson 77.7528 Samsung Electronics 77.73

29 Hallmark77.59

30 Lavazza 77.5631 Shire Ltd. 77.5532 Costco Wholesale 77.5233 Michelin 77.4934 Subway 77.3835 Tesla Motors 77.2136 Krispy Kreme 77.2137 Sony 77.1138 Nikon 77.0639 Baskin-Robbins 77.0640 La-Z-Boy Inc. 76.9841 Ferrari 76.8442 Cummins Inc. 76.8443 J.M. Smucker Company 76.83



50 Kohler 76.51

POOR

<40AVERAGE

60-69EXCELLENT

>80STRONG

70-79WEAK

40-59







29 Hallmark77.59

30 Lavazza 77.5631 Shire Ltd. 77.5532 Costco Wholesale 77.5233 Michelin 77.49

34 Subway 77.3835 Tesla Motors 77.2136 Krispy Kreme 77.2137 Sony 77.1138 Nikon 77.0639 Baskin-Robbins 77.0640 La-Z-Boy Inc. 76.9841 Ferrari 76.8442 Cummins Inc. 76.8443 J.M. Smucker Company 76.83



50 Kohler 76.51

POOR

<40AVERAGE

60-69EXCELLENT

>80STRONG

70-79WEAK

40-59

US CSR RepTrak® 100 Ranking: The Top 25

POOR

<40AVERAGE

60-69EXCELLENT

>80STRONG

70-79WEAK

40-59

CSR Reputation Rank Company2015 U.S. CSR RepTrak®

Score

1 Amazon.com (Q1 2015) 84.052 LEGO Group 79.793 Levi Strauss & Co. 78.57

4 BMW 78.22

5 Schneider Electric 77.60

6 Sanofi (former Sanofi-Aventis) 77.40

7 Snap-on 77.23

8 Panera Bread 76.55

9 Shire Ltd 76.45

10 Harley-Davidson 76.40

11 Lavazza 76.37

12 The Walt Disney Company 76.31

13 Hershey Company 76.24

14 Briggs & Stratton Corp. 76.06

15 UPS 75.99

16 Kellogg Company 75.87

17 Hasbro 75.48

18 Subway (Q1 2015) 75.4319 Google 75.42

20 Ahold 75.29

21 Campbell Soup Company 75.17

22 Visa 75.16

23 FedEx 75.13

24 Microsoft 75.06

25 Whole Foods Market 75.00

2015 U.S. RepTrak® Drivers:

18.0%

13.4%

12.8%

14.0%

15.5%

13.1%

13.2%


POOR

<40AVERAGE

60-69EXCELLENT

>80STRONG

70-79WEAK

40-59


Score

1 Amazon.com (Q1 2015) 84.052 LEGO Group 79.793 Levi Strauss & Co. 78.57

4 BMW 78.22



7 Snap-on 77.23


9 Shire Ltd 76.45


11 Lavazza 76.37




15 UPS 75.99


17 Hasbro 75.48

18 Subway (Q1 2015) 75.4319 Google 75.42

20 Ahold 75.29


22 Visa 75.16

23 FedEx 75.13

24 Microsoft 75.06


• In 2015, Amazon was the only US company to receive an “Excellent” (>80) CSR reputation score, and led the US in all 3 CSR dimensions.

• Subway vaulted from 34th (overall reputation) to 18th

(CSR reputation) in the US

• #2 in industry in Workplace, tied for 1st in Governance, #1 in Citizenship.

• Other than Panera (76.5), there was no other restaurant in the top 50. Chipotle was next at #72.

Reputation Crisis #1:

Amazon

The 2015 Amazon Reputation Crisis How They Responded

What happened?

“This is not the Amazon I Know”

Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos

POOR

<40AVERAGE

60-69EXCELLENT

>80STRONG

70-79WEAK

40-59 CSR RepTrak® scores that differ by more than +/- 3.1 are significantly different at the 95% confidence level.

Pulse scores are based on questions measuring Trust, Admiration & Respect, Good Feeling and Overall Esteem (captured in the Pulse score on a 0-100 scale).



Score

1 Amazon.com (Q1 2015) 81.842 LEGO Group 79.79

3 Levi Strauss & Co. 78.57

4 BMW 78.22



7 Snap-on 77.23


9 Shire Ltd 76.45


11 Lavazza 76.37




15 UPS 75.99


17 Hasbro 75.48

18 Subway (Q1 2015) 75.43

19 Google 75.42

20 Ahold 75.29


22 Visa 75.16

23 FedEx 75.13

24 Microsoft 75.06


Q1 score

Q4 RepTrak® CSR Score: 72.5(-9.34)

US CSR RepTrak® Ranking: September 2015

#82

1. What should Amazon have done in advance to prepare for this potential reputation risk?

2. How would you have handled this crisis situation (differently) had you been in charge? Present to the group your proposed (re)action plan.

3. Would you focus on any specific actions/stakeholder groups? How and what would you do?

Amazon Crisis Management

Reputation Crisis #2:

Subway







29 Hallmark77.59

30 Lavazza 77.5631 Shire Ltd. 77.5532 Costco Wholesale 77.5233 Michelin 77.49

34 Subway 77.3835 Tesla Motors 77.2136 Krispy Kreme 77.2137 Sony 77.1138 Nikon 77.0639 Baskin-Robbins 77.0640 La-Z-Boy Inc. 76.9841 Ferrari 76.8442 Cummins Inc. 76.8443 J.M. Smucker Company 76.83



50 Kohler 76.51

POOR

<40AVERAGE

60-69EXCELLENT

>80STRONG

70-79WEAK

40-59


POOR

<40AVERAGE

60-69EXCELLENT

>80STRONG

70-79WEAK

40-59


Score

1 Amazon.com (Q1 2015) 84.05

2 LEGO Group 79.79


4 BMW 78.22



7 Snap-on 77.23


9 Shire Ltd 76.45


11 Lavazza 76.37




15 UPS 75.99


17 Hasbro 75.48

18 Subway (Q1 2015) 75.4319 Google 75.42

20 Ahold 75.29


22 Visa 75.16

23 FedEx 75.13

24 Microsoft 75.06


• In 2015, Amazon was the only US company to receive an “Excellent” (>80) CSR reputation score, and led the US in all 3 CSR dimensions.

• Subway vaulted from 34th to 18th overall in the US

• #2 in industry in Workplace, tied for 1st in Governance, #1 in Citizenship.

• Other than Panera (76.5), there was no other restaurant in the top 50. Chipotle was next at #72.

REPUTATION RISK MANAGEMENT

The 2015 Subway Reputation Crisis How They Responded

What happened?

Subway’s Reputation Over Time

77.38

71.35

65.0

67.0

69.0

71.0

73.0

75.0

77.0

79.0

81.0

83.0

85.0

Q1 2015 Q3 2015

RepT

rak®

Pulse

Sco

re

RepTrak® Pulse ScoresSubway

Subway RepTrak® Pulse

Subway’s reputation plummeted 6 points

in Q3 2015

#159

POOR

<40AVERAGE

60-69EXCELLENT

>80STRONG

70-79WEAK

40-59


Score

1 Amazon.com (Q1 2015) 81.84

2 LEGO Group 79.79


4 BMW 78.22



7 Snap-on 77.23


9 Shire Ltd 76.45


11 Lavazza 76.37




15 UPS 75.99


17 Hasbro 75.48

18 Subway (Q1 2015) 75.4319 Google 75.42

20 Ahold 75.29


22 Visa 75.16

23 FedEx 75.13

24 Microsoft 75.06


Q1 score

Q4 RepTrak® CSR Score: 69.32(-6.11)

US CSR RepTrak® Ranking: September 2015

#150

A Tale of Reputational Crisis

Subway’s 2015 CSR Dimension Scores: Q1 – Q3

All 3 CSR dimensions dropped significantly, led by citizenship and governance, which dropped over 6 points.

73.01

67.76

75.83

69.49

77.45

70.76

64

66

68

70

72

74

76

78

80

Q1 Q3

REPT

RAK®

SCO

RE

Workplace Governance Citizenship

RepTrak® Pulse links to Supportive Behavior

77.4

71.4

66.0%

56.2%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

55%

60%

65%

70%

75%

65

67

69

71

73

75

77

79

81

83

85

Q1 2015 Q3 2015

% w

ho w

ould

say

som

ethi

ng p

ositi

ve a

bout

Sub

way

RepT

rak®

Pulse

Sco

re

“I would recommend Subway”

Subway RepTrak® Pulse

% who would recommend company

Say Something PositiveStrongly Disagree Tripled

Willingness to Buy: Strongly disagree tripled

Willingness to Trust: Strongly disagree quadrupled

Benefit of Doubt:Strongly disagree increased 5X

1. What should Amazon have done in advance to prepare for this potential reputation risk?

2. How would you have handled this crisis situation (differently) had you been in charge? Present to the group your proposed (re)action plan.

3. Would you focus on any specific actions/stakeholder groups? How and what would you do?

Subway Crisis Management

Post Reputation Crisis Activity

Amazon’s Reputation Post-Crisis

While Amazon’s reputation plummeted

in Q3, it rapidly recovered by year’s end

79.95

82.9084.08

78.40

84.90

70.0

72.0

74.0

76.0

78.0

80.0

82.0

84.0

86.0

88.0

90.0

2013 2014 Jan-15 Sep-15 Dec-15

RepT

rak®

Pulse

Sco

re

RepTrak® Pulse Scores:Amazon.com

Amazon

Amazon’s Pulse Has Recovered, but their CSR scores have not

84.1

81.180.3

85.083.5

84.1

84.4

84.08

January 2015

CSR Index: 81.84

83.1

69.272.8

80.477.3

74.1

77.3

78.40

September 2015

CSR Index: 72.10

85.4

77.178.9

81.482.0

77.2

82.4

84.90

December 2015

CSR Index: 77.80

Reputation Tracker: Spotlight on “Workplace”

56.9%

30.7%

44.7%

21.5%

26.0%

18.0%

1.3%

2.9%

1.9%

20.3%

40.4%

35.4%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Jan-15

Sep-15

Dec-15

Agree Somewhat Agree Do Not Agree Not Sure

44.7% of respondents agree Amazon is a good place to work, compared with 56.9% last January

“Company is a good place to work – maintains an environment that shows concern for employees and for treating and rewarding them fairly”

1. What other reputation risks do you think Amazon has? Name them and tell us why/how they could impact the business.

2. How would you internally sell the importance of a proactive risk management and communications strategy for these risks? Pick one, and give us your pitch.

Amazon Post-Crisis: An Embarrassment of Riches (Table 5-6)

Subway Post-Crisis

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TR8qmmuZvUE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TR8qmmuZvUE

1. Do you agree with this direction by Subway?

2. What do you like about it? What do you not like? What are the risks?

3. What other reputation risks do you think Subway has? Name them and tell us why/how they could impact the business.

4. How would you internally sell the importance of a proactive risk management and communications strategy for these risks? Pick one, and give us your pitch.

Subway: Post Crisis

ChinaPreview of Our Reputation Findings


China Opportunity

• > 1.3 billion residents today, with a rapidly growing middle class

• The United Nations Population Division and Goldman Sachs predict China will have 1.4 billion middle-class consumers by 2030, compared to a forecast of 365 million in the U.S.

• 7% GDP growth in 2015

• Economy is shifting from reliance on exports to domestic consumption

• Predictions align on China overtaking the US economy (GDP) by 2021

2016 China RepTrak® 100 : The Most Reputable Companies in China (1-50)

Rank Company 2016 RepTrak® Pulse Score 1 Intel 76.62 Rolex 76.13 Porsche 75.84 Rolls-Royce Aerospace 74.85 SAP 74.46 Daimler (Mercedes-Benz) 74.47 Siemens 74.48 Dell 74.39 Michelin 74.2

10 Huawei 74.211 BMW 74.012 Amazon.com 74.013 Microsoft 74.014 Nestlé 73.315 Sanofi 73.316 Giorgio Armani Group 73.317 General Motors 73.218 Airbus 72.519 Procter & Gamble 72.520 Gucci 72.321 China Merchants Bank 72.322 Panasonic 72.223 IBM 72.224 Nokia 72.225 Swatch Group 72.1

Rank Company 2016 RepTrak® Pulse Score 26 Facebook 72.127 Philips Electronics 72.128 Hilton Worldwide 72.129 Abbott Laboratories 72.030 Kraft Heinz Company 71.931 Exxon Mobil 71.832 Pirelli 71.833 Alibaba 71.734 Nescafé 71.535 LG Corporation 71.436 Johnson & Johnson 71.437 Tsingtao Brewery 71.438 Christian Dior 71.339 Hewlett Packard Enterprise 71.240 Apple 71.241 Boeing 71.142 Danone 71.043 The Walt Disney Company 71.044 Air Canada 70.945 Bayer 70.846 Deutsche Lufthansa 70.847 Unilever 70.848 Robert Bosch 70.749 Shell 70.750 SAS (Scandinavian Airlines) 70.7

POOR

<40AVERAGE

60-69EXCELLENT

>80STRONG

70-79WEAK

40-59

RepTrak® is a registered trademark of Reputation Institute. Copyright © 2016Reputation Institute. All rights reserved.

2016 China RepTrak® 100 : The Most Reputable Companies in China (51-100)


51 Frito-Lay 70.752 IKEA 70.7

53 LVMH Group (Louis Vuitton -Moët Hennessy) 70.7

54 Gillette 70.555 USAA 70.556 Heineken 70.557 Visa 70.458 Novartis 70.459 Nike 70.460 The Coca-Cola Company 70.361 Hertz Global Holdings 70.362 General Electric 70.263 HSBC 70.264 LinkedIn 70.265 Mastercard 70.266 FedEx 70.267 Hershey Company 70.168 Deere & Co. 70.169 Pillsbury Company 70.170 Schneider Electric 70.171 Citibank 70.172 ConAgra Foods 70.173 Sharp 69.974 InterContinental Hotels Group 69.975 The Estée Lauder Companies 69.8

Rank Company 2016 RepTrak® Pulse Score 76 HJ Heinz 69.677 Colgate-Palmolive 69.678 Air China 69.579 PepsiCo 69.580 LEGO Group 69.481 Hugo Boss 69.482 L'Oréal 69.3

83 Mondelēz International (formerKraft Foods Inc.) 69.2

84 Whirlpool 69.185 Metro Group 69.086 Canon 69.087 Oracle 69.088 UPS 68.989 State Farm Insurance 68.890 Ford Motor 68.891 Mars 68.892 Goodyear 68.793 Avis Budget Group 68.694 Volvo Group 68.695 Valero Energy 68.596 Carlsberg Group 68.497 Clorox 68.498 Xerox 68.399 Bristol-Myers Squibb 68.3

100 Adidas Group 68.3

POOR

<40AVERAGE

60-69EXCELLENT

>80STRONG

70-79WEAK

40-59


2016 China RepTrak® 100 : Top 20 US Companies in China


1 Intel 76.62 Dell 74.33 Amazon.com 74.04 Microsoft 74.05 General Motors 73.26 Procter & Gamble 72.57 IBM 72.28 Facebook 72.19 Hilton Worldwide 72.1

10 Abbott Laboratories 72.011 Kraft Heinz Company 71.912 Exxon Mobil 71.813 Johnson & Johnson 71.414 Hewlett Packard Enterprise 71.215 Apple 71.216 Boeing 71.117 The Walt Disney Company 71.018 Unilever 70.819 Shell 70.720 Frito-Lay 70.7

POOR

<40AVERAGE

60-69EXCELLENT

>80STRONG

70-79WEAK

40-59


Strong showing for US B2B companies

2016 China RepTrak® 100 : Top 20 Chinese Companies in China


1 Huawei 74.22 China Merchants Bank 72.33 Alibaba 71.74 Tsingtao Brewery 71.45 Air China 69.56 China CNK 67.47 China Construction Bank 67.38 Hutchison Whampoa 67.19 Jardine Matheson 66.8

10 Tasly 66.511 Bank of Communications 66.412 SDIC Power 66.013 Industrial and Commercial Bank

of China 65.7

14 Bank of China 65.515 China Eastern Airlines 65.116 SAIC Motor 64.417 Hainan Airlines 64.418 Shanghai Pharmaceuticals 64.419 China CITIC Bank 63.820 Baidu 63.7

POOR

<40AVERAGE

60-69EXCELLENT

>80STRONG

70-79WEAK

40-59


Lower overall scores compared to US companies

Broad mix of industries represented

Reputation Drivers : US vs China

2015 US RepTrak® Drivers

18.0%

13.4%

12.8%

14.0%

15.5%

13.1%

13.2%

2016 China RepTrak® Drivers

16.3%

13.6%

14.2%

13.9%

14.5%

13.8%

13.7%

Reputation Drivers : Global vs China

2015 Global RepTrak® Drivers

18.3%

13.4%

12.9%

13.4%

14.3%

13.8%

13.9%

2016 China RepTrak® Drivers

16.3%

13.6%

14.2%

13.9%

14.5%

13.8%

13.7%

2015 Asia Pacific RepTrak® Drivers

17.3%

13.5%

13.2%

13.9%

14.5%

13.9%

13.6%

3M: China vs US

2016 China

63.8

58.9

64.0

60.564.4

61.9

65.5

2015 US

66.3

80.2

75.3

76.0

72.873.8

75.6

78.378.412.1

Intel: China vs US

2016 China

77.7

70.2

71.7

71.070.3

69.3

71.2

2015 US

76.6

80.1

72.1

75.1

69.473.1

76.9

79.175.01.6

2016 China : Alibaba vs Google

64.9

69.5

73.5

67.667.3

73.3

75.371.7

65.7

65.1

63.7

58.860.9

64.2

67.167.1

2016 China : Adidas, Levi Strauss, Nike, Under Armour

64.7

58.9

62.4

61.464.8

63.4

62.868.3

64.0

61.6

66.7

64.562.5

65.6

64.464.9

69.2

65.9

68.7

64.365.2

68.6

67.270.4

68.4

64.6

65.8

63.662.6

61.9

66.567.2

Reputations in China: Next Steps

• March publication and webinar

• We will send the final report to all RLN members

• Reach out to any of us if interested in a more in-depth discussion of the findings after this workshop

• China RepTrak® Tracker is available

New Market Challenges:Reputation Institute RLN Member Meeting

St. Petersburg, FL2nd February, 2016

113

“NEW MARKET” REPUTATION MEAUREMENT CHALLENGES

New Segments

M&A

New Stakeholders

New Geographies

Easier

Easier Harder

Harder


New StakeholderNew Geographies

New SegmentsM&A

Easier

Easier Harder

Harder



New SegmentsM&A

Easier

Easier Harder

Harder

Hardest:Developing markets

represent the biggest need and challenge

“NEW MARKET” CHALLENGES: DICHOTOMIES

• Familiarity • Non-familiarity


• Familiarity• Global

• Non-familiarity• Local


• Familiarity• Global• Legacy

• Non-familiarity• Local• Future


• Familiarity• Global• Legacy• Parent Brand

• Non-familiarity• Local• Future• Sub-brands


• Familiarity• Global• Legacy• Parent Brand• Corporate $

• Non-familiarity• Local• Future• Sub-brands• SBU $


• Familiarity• Global• Legacy• Parent Brand• Corporate $• RepTrak Pulse

• Non-familiarity• Local• Future• Sub-brands• SBU $• Other benchmark

“NEW MARKET” CHALLENGES: KEY QUESTION




New SegmentsM&A

How to reconcile the dichotomies and get the appropriate measure of reputation?

“NEW MARKET” CHALLENGES: KEY MEMBER LEARNING



?

Member learning and best practices in new market reputation measurement

• Member-only webinar on Feb. 25th for an in-depth review of the Reputation Leaders Study

• Next RLN Workshop is planned for June in Chicago

• Unleashing employees and internal stakeholders to enhance your reputation (C-Suite, employee ambassadors, front-line delivery)

• Proving and communicating the ROI of reputation

• Multi-stakeholder prioritization and engagement

• Feedback forms

Winter RLN Workshop Wrap-up

US RLN MEMBERS

Reputation Leaders NetworkThank you!



reputation leaders network pdfs/rln... · colgate-palmolive: 68.28. 25: danone. 68.02: poor 80...

Documents