Danny Rogers on PR: A perceptive move by Starbucks to regain trust
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.To condemn Starbucks' belated decision to pay more UK tax as a “PR stunt” – as many have been doing – is to misunderstand how companies think.
Certainly the coffee chain's move last week to make a £20m tax donation is a PR-related move, but only in the sense that PR should be defined as enlightened-reputation management.
It was this writer who revealed Starbucks had called in the advice of a top PR consultancy two weeks ago, after it had been hauled in front of Parliament's Public Accounts Committee. Starbucks turned to RLM Finsbury for help, an agency run by the well-known Roland Rudd.
He told Starbucks that it had no choice but to pay more tax, despite fellow multinationals Google and Amazon continuing to insist their payment of minuscule corporation tax "complied with the tax rules of the UK".
Rudd understands that one must sometimes ignore what the law says and tackle crucial public perceptions head-on. With high levels of public mistrust in corporations and our increasingly aggressive media, it is no longer good enough for firms to hide behind legal processes or try to "spin" difficult stories to their favour.
If various stakeholders – customers, staff, politicians – have got it into their heads that a corporation is not making a sufficient contribution to society, it has become a major reputational issue for that firm. If the company is to retain an essential licence to operate, it must become more ethical.
Many commentators have said Starbucks should have complied with the rules in the first place. But international tax "rules" are complex and finance directors are given incentives to minimise all costs. The important thing is that Starbucks has responded to reputational pressure. You can call that public relations or you can call it stakeholder democracy flexing its muscle.
How long will it take for Google et al – who have started to believe their own hype – to wake up and smell the same coffee?
Danny Rogers is editor of PR Week
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments