29.01.10 - 11:55
By James Osborne
At this time of year, CSR and communications departments are busy planning their CSR report and it’s likely that 2010 will see an increasing number of them produce an interactive version in HTML.
But this trend is raising issues about duplication of information and resources. In an effort to make their reports more appealing and less like a book-like corporate document, many companies find their interactive CSR report tends to resemble their corporate website. Many of the people we have talked to, who are all facing tight budgets, are wondering how to balance the need to produce a distinctive interactive report each year with the need to maintain an updated, engaging and informative website (not to mention all the offline communication).
When we were evaluating the online CSR communications of 170 corporate websites as part of the CSR Online Awards last year, we were surprised by the variety of solutions adopted to resolve the potential conflict between the CSR section of the corporate website itself and interactive CSR reports.
We identified three different models being used.
Firstly, there are companies like Baxter International that, instead of having a CSR section, send users directly to the interactive report (on a separate site). This is understandable: it saves time and effort and increases flexibility in the creation of the report, since it exists outside of the constraints of the corporate website. But, precisely because users are forced to leave the corporate website, CSR information is detached from key issues such as corporate governance and the investment message, giving the impression perhaps that CSR is separate from the main focus of the business (increasing only shareholder value?). This model, which perhaps gives great online reports, seems weak from an overall communications point of view: at a time when companies are striving to embed their CSR into the corporate organisation, it needs to be integrated into online communications too.
Secondly, there is a middle ground, with companies having a certain amount of information in the CSR section of the corporate website and integrating to a greater or lesser degree the contents of the interactive report. This is where the report vs. website dilemma is at its most intense as companies seek to maintain a large and relevant website while churning out an informative, accessible and well designed report every 12 months. Almost always, the CSR report is given priority with a selection of its content subsequently used for the web. Unfortunately, this leads to static websites with content that is soon dated and large blocks of hard-to-digest text. Barclays is one of the few companies to have found a neat balance between the corporate website section and its interactive report.
Finally, a small number of companies have abandoned the distinction between report and corporate website altogether and embraced web-based reporting. In this third model, all the CSR content lives primarily on the web in a continuously updated format. This represents a radical break from document-based concepts.
Examples of this approach include Centrica, Kingfisher, E.ON and Allianz. They pack a large amount of information into the CSR section of the corporate website and save themselves the time and cost of producing a freshly designed report each year. They can integrate news, newsletters, webchats, blogs, video and audiocasts and are free to update content as and when appropriate, rather than waiting for the next report cycle. Users are not diverted away to a separate mini-site and the barrier created with some audiences by the need to read a formal report is avoided.
One key question remains for all those companies now producing PDF reports: if having an interactive report seems like the logical next step to enhance your CSR communications, why not skip the intermediate phase of having both an interactive report and a website, and embrace web-based reporting directly? Many of those currently maintaining large CSR sections on their website will no doubt be attracted to the web-based reporting model. A short summary can be prepared for printing (a sustainable solution, indeed!). The three models above represents a progression only in terms of integration so there’s no reason for companies not to pass from one end to another.
At this time of year, CSR and communications departments are busy planning their CSR report and it’s likely that 2010 will see an increasing number of them produce an interactive version in HTML.
But this trend is raising issues about duplication of information and resources. In an effort to make their reports more appealing and less like a book-like corporate document, many companies find their interactive CSR report tends to resemble their corporate website. Many of the people we have talked to, who are all facing tight budgets, are wondering how to balance the need to produce a distinctive interactive report each year with the need to maintain an updated, engaging and informative website (not to mention all the offline communication).
When we were evaluating the online CSR communications of 170 corporate websites as part of the CSR Online Awards last year, we were surprised by the variety of solutions adopted to resolve the potential conflict between the CSR section of the corporate website itself and interactive CSR reports.
We identified three different models being used.
Firstly, there are companies like Baxter International that, instead of having a CSR section, send users directly to the interactive report (on a separate site). This is understandable: it saves time and effort and increases flexibility in the creation of the report, since it exists outside of the constraints of the corporate website. But, precisely because users are forced to leave the corporate website, CSR information is detached from key issues such as corporate governance and the investment message, giving the impression perhaps that CSR is separate from the main focus of the business (increasing only shareholder value?). This model, which perhaps gives great online reports, seems weak from an overall communications point of view: at a time when companies are striving to embed their CSR into the corporate organisation, it needs to be integrated into online communications too.
Secondly, there is a middle ground, with companies having a certain amount of information in the CSR section of the corporate website and integrating to a greater or lesser degree the contents of the interactive report. This is where the report vs. website dilemma is at its most intense as companies seek to maintain a large and relevant website while churning out an informative, accessible and well designed report every 12 months. Almost always, the CSR report is given priority with a selection of its content subsequently used for the web. Unfortunately, this leads to static websites with content that is soon dated and large blocks of hard-to-digest text. Barclays is one of the few companies to have found a neat balance between the corporate website section and its interactive report.
Finally, a small number of companies have abandoned the distinction between report and corporate website altogether and embraced web-based reporting. In this third model, all the CSR content lives primarily on the web in a continuously updated format. This represents a radical break from document-based concepts.
Examples of this approach include Centrica, Kingfisher, E.ON and Allianz. They pack a large amount of information into the CSR section of the corporate website and save themselves the time and cost of producing a freshly designed report each year. They can integrate news, newsletters, webchats, blogs, video and audiocasts and are free to update content as and when appropriate, rather than waiting for the next report cycle. Users are not diverted away to a separate mini-site and the barrier created with some audiences by the need to read a formal report is avoided.
One key question remains for all those companies now producing PDF reports: if having an interactive report seems like the logical next step to enhance your CSR communications, why not skip the intermediate phase of having both an interactive report and a website, and embrace web-based reporting directly? Many of those currently maintaining large CSR sections on their website will no doubt be attracted to the web-based reporting model. A short summary can be prepared for printing (a sustainable solution, indeed!). The three models above represents a progression only in terms of integration so there’s no reason for companies not to pass from one end to another.
What I do not agree with is that including reporting content within your corporate website is the best as you suggest. Reporting as such has to do with trust. One key element of trust in reporting is that content is immutable.
Corporate websites per definition need to be updated as soon as things change. From a reporting perspective this might cause confusion as things may change right after I have read it.
Reports have a specific publishing date and all content are produced with respect to this day. Also its very important to go back into history by comparing what the company has done/said in the past.
Nobody would advise to incorporate Annual Report content into websites. As this would mean they are outdated soon after the report is published.
I think the best way is to report CSR within a separate online report, but provide your updated principles/strategies/contacts/etc. on your corporate website. For me these are two differnt issues divided by the reporting/timeliness.