By Lloyd Macfarlane
Michael Porter, one of the world’s most respected management theorists, argued that there are only two ways for firms to compete: by charging a lower price, or by differentiating their products or services from those of their rivals.
On the Reporting Calendar: Enhancing Market Competitiveness – The case for sustainability reporting and marketing | A free half-day workshop for business managers interested in taking s first step in corporate sustainability | Limited to 50 delegates | Read more here
The modern value proposition increasingly incorporates factors that are not just related to the product or the service (such as price, quality or relevance) but to factors associated with the organisation itself, such as reputation, transparency, accountability and corporate performance against sustainability targets, for example.
Companies that have embarked on a sustainability journey can use the reporting process to distinguish themselves in the value chain by targeting and marketing points of differentiation.
Differentiation – Product, Service and Company
Companies spend time and money trying to differentiate their offerings under the abovementioned [showad block=null]headings, in order to be more attractive to their target markets. Differentiation is a basic economic principal that promotes competitiveness, and one that has been focussed on by many of the classic theorists, such as Edward Chamberlin (Theory of Monopolistic Competition, 1933).
Customers make purchases based on the value propositions presented by their suppliers. A value proposition (in this context) is quite simply the unique value offering that the customer will receive from a transaction (as compared to value propositions from others).
A number of factors go into the assessment of value and in the first instance the product or service is usually assessed for relevance (or usefulness), desirability, price and quality. However, the product or service is delivered by a company whose profile is of increasing importance in the procurement process. This means that the assessment of value is being broadened to include factors that relate to environmental, social, governance or empowerment (SA) credentials. Far more opportunities for brand and company differentiation are emerging in the value chain.
Drivers of differentiation
Forces and pressures are usually responsible for innovation and creativity. If there is no need to change, re-package or improve then there is unlikely to be much differentiation.
Some of the forces/ circumstances in which differentiation is more likely to occur:
Mature markets or sectors:
Companies in mature markets or sectors are more evolved and value propositions are more similar, so there is a greater need for differentiation, particularly with service providers that have less opportunity for tangible innovation.
Take established cellular service providers for example – call costs and network coverage of competing companies can be almost identical and yet these companies spend millions letting you know how different they are by building a corporate identity that you can relate to. Conversely, in new markets or new sectors (and in good economic times) less differentiation is apparent – there is less need for differentiation when there is no threat from competition.
Economically stressed markets:
When margins are tight and procurement budgets have been cut, buyers look more closely at the value proposition and sellers tend to increase levels of innovation and differentiation. The world has been on a tough economic treadmill since the collapse of the financial markets in 2008/9 and this has seen the emergence of new ideas and not surprisingly corporate sustainability has enjoyed prominence in this regard.
Regulated markets or sectors:
Regulation or supply chain policies can elicit forced (e.g. tax or incentive) or voluntary (e.g. reporting) responses from suppliers. Government can use incentives to speed up change and perhaps the best example of this is carbon taxation which will be introduced in South Africa in January 2016.
Carbon tax will see the need for more measurement and management of carbon across value chains and this will bring about procurement policies that require suppliers to measure their carbon footprint. These policies may further evolve to specify an acceptable range of carbon emissions per unit of output or per square metre of operations in any given sector, for example.
Supply Chain Sustainability
The real power of the economy lies in procurement. The quantity and availability of products and services is directly affected by demand and because demand is affected by supply chain/procurement policies, the supply chain can be a most powerful agent of change.
Companies are introducing sustainability into their supply chains not only because it’s the right thing to do, or because they are under pressure to do so, but because they see the value of doing so in the context of their medium to long term strategies.
The United Nations Global Compact (UNGC) is encouraging corporate leadership in this regard and many businesses use the ten UNGC principles to inform their supply chain policies. Similarly, the recently launched Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) G4 Guidelines contain much emphasis on supply chain sustainability, traceability and chain of custody.
The next big opportunity – supply chain differentiation
The most significant recent step up in corporate sustainability is the increased emphasis being placed on sustainability in the supply chain.
Procurement policies that encourage and even enforce certain key sustainability principles can meaningfully affect markets and should be noted by suppliers looking for opportunities to differentiate.
Importantly, supply chain policies take a closer look at indicators relating to companies and not simply their products or services.
This is placing more emphasis on environmental, social and governance issues and represents an exciting new opportunity for differentiation for those companies that are first to move.
Risk, reputation and leadership
Large customers are auditing suppliers using various criteria, but generally these audits will seek to establish:
• Whether there are any risks in an association, based on how the supplier’s business is conducted.
• Whether the supplier has a reputation that could cause any harm.
• Whether the supplier’s reputation could add value
• Whether there are any examples of leadership that could be amplified for mutual advantage.
Supply Chain Differentiation – Strategic Approach
Any random approach to differentiating under sustainability indicators is unlikely to succeed in the medium to long term. This is mostly because customers are beginning to use sustainability frameworks and systems to determine a holistic and materiality- based set of procurement indicators in their supply chains.
Therefore, an authentic approach must be driven by a sustainability plan that includes clear statements of objective and vision, where these have been informed by a process of identification and assessment of material issues for the company.
Companies are increasing the degree to which they report on sustainability in their supply chains. They are reporting on the sustainability impacts of their suppliers and on the influence that they have had in changing the sustainability performance of their suppliers.
This means that an opportunity exists for suppliers (and potential suppliers) to:
- Target (or report on) internal interventions that will be acknowledged by customers as meaningful to report on.
- Package sustainability information for large customers and other stakeholders.
- Strategically target key customers and new prospects using this information.
- An authentic sustainability/integrated reporting process will adhere to certain principles that are important in the identification of real opportunities for performance and therefore differentiation. The process of identifying and reporting on material indicators, particularly if inculcated in functional centres, will:
• Highlight data for comparison with competitors
• Highlight opportunities for intervention and performance management
• Establish targets, which can form the basis of future differentiation
Internal capacity and stakeholder engagement
Key stakeholders are engaged by various employees in various ways. Many of these engagements can be opportunities for communication of the company’s primary points of differentiation.
It is therefore necessary that key employees in functional centres of the business are familiar with the terms and tenets of corporate sustainability, the company’s sustainability plan and the role that they can play in the strategic approach.
Building this capacity in the organisation is important to the success of the overall plan.
Sales and marketing
Any sales and marketing plan should incorporate a customer needs analysis. As the needs and the requirements of the customer begin changing to incorporate sustainability indicators, it is important for suppliers to be ahead of this process.
This is only really possible with an engagement process that elicits information that can be used to for innovation and differentiation. This engagement process will ensure that targeted areas of differentiation are aligned with customer requirements.
After the requirements are known, a marketing plan should consistently reinforce messages that are directed at the
establishment of the desired ‘profile’ for the company. A multi-media approach can be effective to leverage packaged information to establish a desirable corporate image – one that is aligned with the ideals and requirements of the targeted customer.
Become a contributor – Have content to submit on Reporting? We are calling for authors to submit content for The Integrated and Sustainability Reporting Handbook Volume 2.
Submit content here.
Source: The Integrated and Sustainability Reporting Handbook Volume 1
Book your seat here.
Join the discussion here.
Follow Alive2Green on Social Media
The state of the nation address was a missed opportunity to begin the process of healing our democracy and restoring trust in its institutions. Instead it will go down in history as the moment in which the state tried to obstruct journalists, and police forcibly removed MPs. However, in the analysis of what transpired that night, a number of other human rights issues have been overlooked.
The address was also a wasted opportunity to open a dialogue on a genuinely inclusive social contract for the mining sector. On the contrary, a bias towards the concerns of elites over those of the poor and marginalised, and the status quo over change, was quite apparent.
Particularly troubling was the continued failure to recognise mine-affected communities as a stakeholder with legitimate interests and a right to take a seat at the bargaining table. The Draft Framework for Sustainable Mining was recently concluded between the government, mining sector and organised labour. Its most widely known flaw is that the Association of Mineworkers and Construction Union, the dominant union on the platinum belt, has not signed it.
Equally significant but less well known is the exclusion of organisations representing mine-affected communities. The organisation of communities into formal nationwide networks means engagement with this sector is far easier than previously. Yet their voices are still missing from negotiations.
While President Jacob Zuma said the streamlining of the mining, environmental and water licensing processes was in response to business requests, there were no corresponding examples of responsiveness to the requests of communities. While investors will now have a “one-stop departmental clearance house” to attend to complaints, communities will have no equivalent body to assist them in responding to violations of their environmental and other rights.
The disproportionate attention to the concerns of the industry and investors results in an incomplete picture of the effects of mining. For example, while mining-related environmental degradation threatens the health and livelihood of communities across SA, there was no mention of the environmental costs of mining.
This approach goes against that required by the constitution, which is founded on the values of respect for the dignity of all and the equal enjoyment of rights and freedoms. To realise this vision, the constitution enshrines the right to political participation, just administrative action, access to a basket of socioeconomic goods and to an environment not harmful to health or wellbeing. These values require a human rights-based approach to governance in which the voices of all are valued, and vulnerable citizens get particular attention.
The exclusion of communities also runs contrary to the National Development Plan, which stresses active citizenship.
Mr Zuma sought to clearly communicate that his government was sensitive to the needs of investors. However, by sidelining the needs and priorities of key stakeholders, the government is doing investors no favours because the main requirement of investors is a stable environment in which the return on their investments is secure. If affected groups are excluded from decision-making and do not see their concerns addressed, they will be more likely to seek to disrupt the system. Stability in the system requires a social contract that addresses the needs and concerns of communities, all organised labour, the government, mining companies and investors.
While the debate over jammed signals continues in Parliament, another form of signal jamming is being overlooked: the inattentiveness of the government to concerns expressed by mining community organisations.
Soure: BD Live
Book your seat here.
Follow Alive2Green on Social Media