Big Companies Become Big Targets Unless They Guard Images Carefully
Wal-Mart and Starbucks aren't rivals, and they have shared some management talent. Current Starbucks CEO Jim Donald spent five years running Wal-Mart's food operations. But when it comes to corporate reputations, the two are opposites, the Cain and Abel of this business generation.
Wal-Mart, the world's largest public company, is also one of the world's biggest targets. It is being sued for discriminating against women and for forcing employees to work overtime. It has been accused of hastening the decline of U.S. manufacturing by buying products overseas, and blamed for ruining town centers by driving local companies out of business.
Starbucks, by contrast, has won kudos for helping to revive neighborhoods and towns by creating traffic for surrounding businesses. The company also gets praise for treating its suppliers and employees well, practices it publicizes widely.
Why the disparity between Wal-Mart and Starbucks? The reasons illuminate the importance of managing one's corporate reputation -- and the increasing difficulty of doing that as a company expands.
Size is certainly one reason Wal-Mart has faced so much criticism. "When Wal-Mart became the biggest company, it also became a symbol of corporate evil," says Charles Fombrun, the director of the Reputation Institute in New York. The big footprint the retailer stamps on communities where it operates and the power it wields with suppliers have kept it under fire. And rather than take on the critics, Wal-Mart, until recently at least, dismissed them as propagandists or opportunists and figured its business success would speak for itself.
Starbucks Chairman Howard Schultz took a far different approach as he transformed a coffee-bean company into one of the world's most popular brands.
To Mr. Schultz, corporate reputation is a means to success, not a byproduct of it. Starbucks's "guiding principles," such as "providing a great work environment" and "contributing positively to our communities," are the best advertising, Mr. Schultz believes. Called "partners" at Starbucks, employees are eligible for stock options and health benefits if they work at least 20 hours a week.
"Mr. Schultz recognized ahead of most executives that customers today vote with their dollars and will spend more money at companies with values they admire," says Nancy Koehn, a business historian at Harvard Business School.
But as Starbucks keeps growing -- it is opening five stores a day this year -- it's being targeted, too. Last month the National Labor Relations Board issued a complaint alleging that Starbucks tried to block workers in three New York City stores from participating in union activities and fired one who "supported and assisted" a union. Union organizers for the International Workers of the World claim many Starbucks employees don't work enough hours to qualify for health benefits.
Starbucks, through a spokeswoman, responds that "we do not take action or retaliate against partners who might be interested in union activities." The company also says that 65% of its employees are eligible for health benefits after two months on the job, and 65% of this group, or about 42% of its total work force, enroll. (That compares with 46% of employees with health benefits at retail companies, where they typically must be full-timers to qualify.)
Starbucks adds that there has been little union activity at Starbucks's U.S. stores, though some employees have organized in Canada and New Zealand. And it thinks it has a good defense against critics: sticking to its principles. It aims, it says, to "stay small while growing big."
For Jim Alling, president of Starbucks U.S., this means giving store managers and employees enough autonomy to keep them motivated -- and serving customers. "We're not beating people over the head with a checklist of policies to follow," he says. He tells managers to listen to employee concerns, elicit their suggestions and mentor them so they can advance. "If we try to control everything from [headquarters] and don't trust the judgment of our front-line people, we'll lose our connection with customers and be too big," he says.
None of this means that every employee -- or customer for that matter -- is satisfied all the time, Mr. Alling acknowledges. "We're not perfect, but we want an open dialogue and we're willing to change."
That's what Wal-Mart is trying now to counter critics. In recent months, CEO Lee Scott has addressed environmentalists, labor leaders and other activists and asserted that Wal-Mart's low prices help low-income customers afford food and other essentials. Other executives have begun noting that 70% of Wal-Mart's employees work full time (at Starbucks, it's 20%) and 47% receive health benefits.
After Hurricane Katrina, Wal-Mart gave away truckloads of products to victims -- distributing them more quickly and efficiently than any government agency -- along with $17 million in cash relief.
Has all that changed the views of critics? Probably not. But it may be quieting them down.
木秀于林风必摧之
──大企业守护声誉之道
沃尔玛(Wal-Mart)和星巴克(Starbucks)虽不是竞争对手，但有一些管理人才曾先后在其间效力，比如星巴克现任首席执行长吉姆?唐纳德(Jim Donald)就曾在沃尔玛管理食品业务长达5年。可谈到企业声誉的管理，他们的分歧可就大了，简直可以说是现代企业版本的该隐(Cain)和亚伯(Abel)。
沃尔玛是全球最大的上市公司，也是全球最大、最明显、最容易被攻击的靶子。由于歧视女性和迫使员工加班等诸多原因，沃尔玛屡屡被告上法庭。其大规模的海外采购被指责为加速了美国制造业衰落，而将本地公司挤出市场则成了人们眼中城市中心衰败的祸首。
星巴克却截然相反，帮助扩大了周边商铺客流量、带动了店铺周围和所在城镇的商业气氛，赢得了人们的赞誉，此外，它友善对待供应商和雇员的做法也屡获好评。
沃尔玛和星巴克何以有这样大的差别？个中原因可以彰显管理企业声誉的重要性──以及管理难度随业务扩张而加大的形势。
规模无疑是沃尔玛招致种种责难的原因之一。“沃尔玛成了规模最大的公司的时候，也就成了企业罪恶的代表，”纽约Reputation Institute的董事查尔斯?弗布伦(Charles Fombrun)说。沃尔玛每走入一个社区所发挥的巨大影响力，以及在供应商面前的强势地位，都让它屡遭攻击。沃尔玛呢，非但不听取这些批评，直到最近还一直对此置之不理，认为只要业务发展得好，一切自然不攻而破。
星巴克董事长霍华德?舒尔茨(Howard Schultz)在把一家咖啡豆公司转型为全球知名品牌的过程中却另辟蹊径。
对舒尔茨来说，企业声誉是通往成功之路，而非成功的副产品。他坚信，“提供良好的工作环境”，以及“为社区积极贡献”等星巴克的“指导原则”是最好的广告。星巴克的员工都被公司称为“伙伴”，只要每周工作超过20小时，都有权分配股票期权并享受医疗福利。
“舒尔茨走在了大多数企业领导人前面，他认识到当今社会的客户是用钱来投票的，他们仰慕哪家公司的价值观就会往哪家公司身上花更多的钱，”哈佛商学院(Harvard Business School)商业历史学家南希?凯恩(Nancy Koehn)说。
但随著业务的扩张──星巴克今年平均每天新开5家店铺，它也成了攻击的目标。上个月全国劳工关系委员会(National Labor Relations Board)发布了一份投诉，指责星巴克试图阻止纽约市3家星巴克店铺的员工参加工会活动，并解雇了一位“支持和帮助”某工会组织的员工。International Workers of the World的工会组织者声称，许多星巴克员工每周工作时间不够，无法享受医疗福利。
星巴克通过一位发言人回应道，“我们没有向那些对工会活动感兴趣的伙伴采取行动，或者报复他们。”公司还表示，入职两个月后能够享受医疗福利的员工占总数的65%，这其中的65%左右即员工总数的42%属于在册员工。（与之相比，美国零售企业享受医疗福利的员工比例是46%，通常只有全职员工才有资格享受这项福利。）
星巴克还表示，其美国境内的店铺一直很少有工会活动，不过加拿大和新西兰的一些员工组织了工会。而且，星巴克认为针对这些批评自己有很好的防卫：严格遵守公司原则。星巴克称，公司宗旨是“发展壮大的同时保持低调”。
对星巴克总裁吉姆?奥林(Jim Alling)来说，这意味著赋予店铺经理和员工足够的自主权，从而获得努力工作及服务客户的动力。“我们可不会拿著政策清单，敲打著员工，让他们服从，”他说。他告诉经理们听取员工心中所想，鼓励他们提出建议，并提供相应的指导，以便员工不断进步。“如果试图（从总部出发）控制所有的细枝末节，不信任一线员工的判断，那么我们就会失去与顾客的联系，变得高傲自大了。”
但奥林也承认，这些做法并不意味著每一位员工，或者每一位顾客，时时刻刻都能感到满意。“我们并不完美，但期待著开诚布公的对话，我们也愿意作出改变。”
这也是沃尔玛最近面对批评时努力尝试的做法。最近这几个月，沃尔玛首席执行长利?司各特(Lee Scott)会晤了环境保护主义者、劳工团体的领袖、以及其他机构的主管。他坚称，沃尔玛的低价策略帮助低收入人群得以负担食品和其他必需品的开支。其他高层管理人士也开始纷纷露面，指出沃尔玛70%的员工都是全职员工（星巴克只有20%），享受医疗福利的员工占到总数的47%。
卡特里娜飓风袭击之后，沃尔玛向受灾群众派发了大量货物和1,700万美元的现金救济，效率和速度超过任何一家政府机构。
这些是否改变了批评者的看法？也许还不够。但恐怕指责声浪会比以前弱一些了。
