Procter and Gamble's ethical treatment of animals case study

P&g

There are a number of stakeholders in this situation. Procter & Gamble, Iams, their employees and their shareholders represent one set of stakeholders, oriented primarily towards defusing or deflecting the criticism in order to protect their market share, profits and shareholder value. The animals are another direct stakeholder, and they have little voice here. PETA's stakes are unclear. They position themselves as speaking for and defending the animals, but they might well have other motives. We know that PETA thrives on publicity, and seeks it out for a number of reasons. Consumers are a further stakeholder, as pet lovers are unlikely to be attracted to a pet food company known for cruelty to cats and dogs. Supply chain partners are stakeholders, and their interest falls somewhere in between the interests of the company and the interests of the consumers. Regulators are a stakeholder because there are laws governing the treatment of animals, and some of those laws might have been broken. Further, the media is a stakeholder. They drive the story, helping to amplify messages and shape public opinion. The media loves a good controversy because it helps their organizations financially, and conversely the media hates a non-story.

Procter & Gamble will be communicating primarily via the media. PETA is not what one would call a good partner for negotiation. Their concerns about the animals can be assuaged perhaps, but the story has good publicity potential, so there are larger benefits to PETA for leveraging this story to help spread its message. P&G therefore needs to speak to consumers directly, and do so using the media as an intermediary. Defraying the issue for consumers will not only salvage P&G's interest, but can reduce media interest as well. The communication goals should be accomplished primarily through the use of public statements, and by ensuring that P&G spokespeople are able to contribute the company's story to every new piece about the issue.

Further, if achieving non-story status is to be an objective, as it should be, the company also needs to ensure that the message itself is tailored to this. The current strategy of attempting to deflect the issue is defensive, and the use of ad hominem attacks on the researcher is a fairly blatant smokescreen. The problem with defensive tactics is that they create the impression that there is something to be defensive about. P&G needs to take a much more positive tone about dealing with this problem. The past might be negative, but the future can be positive, so P&G needs to focus the conversation on the future and about how that future will not include this type of animal testing, will have no cruelty. This will address the problem for most consumers, give PETA little to talk about, and most importantly will convince the media that there is not much of a story going forward.

2. This is not an external communications issue only. Internally, there are significant questions that need to be raised about the conduct of employees. The internal communication needs, if anything, to be stronger than the external communication. If laws were broken, those individuals need to be dismissed. If there were ethical lapses, again dismissal sends a strong message about the issue and should be part of any internal communication. The entire research program, which clearly has cultural issues and should be subjected to considerable scrutiny.