English version

---

New tools for Corporate Social Responsibility: from the traditional stakeholders’ map to the complex neural network.
Innovative methods to depict the relationship between a company and its public and the narration of business  history^[1].

Introduction

This short essay was put together and developed between December 2008 and January 2009 and is based on previous notes, following my reasoning at the end of 2007, on Game Theory applied to public relations, along with those made in September of 2008, on the ethical dimensions of business life in times of crisis.

This essay aims at creating “food for thought” for the reader and, in particular, for my colleagues, so that they may reflect on the present-day relationship between a company and an institution nowadays and their public interest.

 However, I should like to go beyond the known hypotheses of doctrine, in an effort to offer, to the best of my abilities, a more “original” contribution to the discussion on these questions, by correlating the learning algorithms of artificial intelligence to the doctrine of Corporate Social Responsibility…Corporate Social Responsibility….known to those in the field with the acronym of “CSR”.

Let’s start from what is already known.  Nowadays, it is common knowledge that companies- also thanks to a more direct access to user information – are far more interconnected to their surrounding environment than they once were, or, at least, one may say that they are more aware of the role they have taken on. This means that they have been invested with new responsibilities which cannot simply be ignored, if not at risk of being relegated to the margins of the competitive framework.

Indeed, some time ago, I wrote on my website: “The world-renowned economist and Nobel Prize winner, Milton Friedman once argued, in the 80s, that “the only “socially responsible action” for any firm would be that of taking on their responsibility of paying taxes”. However, time has drastically mutated this concept, as globalization has generated new concerns and expectations in consumers in communities, public authorities and investors alike.

This holds true for large multinationals as it does for the small factory: companies are strongly rooted and connected to the territory they operate in, as well as to society at large, often much more so than the entrepreneur him/herself is able to perceive. How, for decades, it was possible to consider a company, which is, as such, a living organism, as totally divorced from the environment in which it operates, remains a mystery. And then added: “Nowadays, companies have to decide how to deal with the reality of a truly global market– not only in geographical terms- but also, as has been common knowledge for decades, something that is part of a neuronal network of the society they work within”.

We must now reflect on the current ways a stakeholder’s network is “mapped”, the public involved and those involved on behalf of a company, an institution, and – why not – mapping for an individual (have you ever tried drawing your very own personal network of stakeholders, individuals and groups, the entities you depend on as individuals, whilst endeavouring to understand what you are doing for them and what they do – or not do – for you?  Illuminating experience …).

As a rule, the company is represented at the centre of the sheet: all around it, each one connected by a line, are the various stakeholders. I am of the opinion that this  “pictorial way” of representation goes way beyond a merely graphical aspect and ends up involving the deep philosophical aspect of the subject i.e. the way we perceive our role and how we intent to represent ourselves – in the broadest sense of the term – to what surrounds us. So as to be able to understand why, we must first go more into depth as to some of the aspects tied to the history of logic.

Aristotele’s “contradictions”

In the early ’60s, Lotfi Zadeh, a Full Professor at Berkeley University, famed for his contribution to the systems theory, was of the opinion that the traditional analysis techniques were so schematic and “precise” as to end up being not sufficiently adequate to describe many of the everyday problems in those times of strong renewal. Indeed, the logic of Aristotle, “the principle of noncontradiction (PNC)” still dominated numerous sectors. In classical logic, the principle of noncontradiction states that contradictory statements cannot, both, at the same time be true, e.g. the two propositions “A is B” and “A is not B” are mutually exclusive. In fact, Aristotle said that “one cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time”. Trivializing, as we are sure that this someone is always sincere, it consequently follows that every statement he/she makes is true. If we claim that the assertion “X” made by this person has proven to be false, we then have something illogical: otherwise the first assertion i.e. that this person is always sincere, is wrong, or else it is a mistake to sustain that the affirmation “X” is false.  What is sure-on the basis of Aristotelian logic-is that the two things cannot co-exist in the same way, at the same time. This is also in line with what we know as common sense, in as much as if what is aforementioned were possible, everything would be both true and the contrary of everything. A logical system where the principle of noncontradiction is considered valid, but, at the same time also contradiction is present- i.e. an affirmation is completely true just as is its negation- is, in reality, a system without logic, or structure, in as much as all  propositions are true, as are their negation. Therefore, it cannot be interesting as it does not, in fact, communicate any “certain” information at all.

From a practical point of view, this results in a deterministic approach based on binary logic such an approach has been the rule for centuries and this type of approach foresees that: if accurate data and rigid planning process are set, then the results can be nothing other than precise.

However, Prof. Zadeh – and a few others just before him, with him and after him, such as Prof. Lukasiewicz – elaborated a new theory that, at first, was considered by some to be in contradiction with Aristotelian logic – which lead to heated academic discussions- but – as we shall see, turned out to be an extension of Aristotelian logic, dictated by the development of times and thoughts:  logic “ infinite values ​​of truth”, based on the concept of fuzzy sets, also known as fuzzy logic”; (from uncertain, or vague notions, blurred together… fuzzy ).

It is an approach to logic where”degrees of truth” may be applied to each proposition, ranging between a value of 0 and 1. This intuition, which is very useful to explain many modern phenomena, had been previously outlined by such researchers of the class of Bertrand Russell and Albert Einstein, but it was Prof. L. Zadeh, who, for the first time, codified it in an articulated manner. When we speak of degrees of truth, or degrees of membership, we mean –disorientating our Cartesian mentalities somewhat, which are imbued with the concept of “it is either true or false, or black or white ” – that a certain property, apart from being true i.e. with a value of 1, or false i.e. with a value of 0, as classical logic foresees, may also be characterised by an intermediate value: it is true that “ either one is dead or alive” (value 0, or value 1 respectively). However, it is also true that- in fuzzy logic – a value of 1 may be assigned to a newborn and a value of 0.8 to a an 18 year old boy, whilst a value of 0.15 may be assigned to a 70 year old  man. Put in these terms it seems to be an inconsequential and trivial question, but this is not the case, as the codification of this reflection, under the form of mathematical algorithms, triggered off – as we shall see – a real revolution, in the modern world of logic.

True or False: paradoxes and “nuances”

Some have made an attempt to compare fuzzy logic to the probability theory. However, the probability theory describes bivalent random events that occur, or do not occur, without intermediate values. For a better understanding of the difference between fuzzy logic and the probability theory, let’s take a look at this example taken from the web: a batch of 100 bottles has five of them that contain poison. Let’s say that the probability of taking a bottle of drinking water from the batch is 0.95. However, after having taken a bottle, either it is potable, or it is not: the odds collapse to 0 or 1, whilst the fuzzy values ​​may range from 0 to 1 (as the odds) but – unlike them – they describe events that may come about “to a certain extent”, according to a certain “degree of belonging” to a given set.

In the middle of the’90s Prof. Zadeh stated: ” In a broad sense, the term ‘fuzzy logic’ is synonymous of the ‘the fuzzy set theory’: a theory of classes with indistinct  boundaries“. The fuzzy set theory is an extension of the classical theory of sets, because the classical Aristotelian principles of noncontradiction i.e. which foresee that, given two sets A and non-A (such as the example of truth and lies)- do not apply- each element that belongs to the set A cannot, simultaneously, also belong to the set non-A. In other words, according to the classical logic – in a hypothesis made up of only two sets – should any one of the elements not belong to set  A, then it must necessarily belong to its complement set, i.e. the non-A set . Such a principles confer a strict logical bivalent character within the Aristotelian construction, a feature which remained basically unchanged until the 20th century, when the concept of uncertain, or vague notions were included in sets in fuzzy logic and allowed for the dissolving of the long series of paradoxes that were, not only created by the bivalence of classical logic, but ones that it had never been able to clarify.  The oldest and most famous of these paradoxes is the one known as “the liar paradox” and is attributed to the Greek philosopher Eubulides of Miletus, who, in the 4^th century B.C. stated: “The Cretan, Epimenides, says that all Cretans are liars “. It then follows  that, according to the rigor of classical logic, if it is true that all Cretans are liars-then Epimenides is no exception – meaning his statement is false, therefore, Cretans are truth-tellers, so, he too is sincere, so Cretans are liars, and so on and so forth, without solution. Boiling things down to the essential, we may affirm, following the same structural paradox: “this statement is false” and in doing so we make our computer go into short circuit. However, in reality, what we are interested in demonstrating is that Aristotelian logic is unable to determine whether this proposition is really true or false. It is structurally incapable of providing an answer as it is bivalent, in as much as it allows for only two “truth values”: true or false, black or white, all, or nothing. This means that each and every attempt to solve the aforementioned paradox is transformed into a never ending oscillation between the two extremes. Finally, Aristotelian logic was unable to provide an effective response to the new problems the modern society posed to the researches and analysts.

According to fuzzy logic, the statement made in Eubulides’ paradox is neither true, nor false, but simply a half-truth, or, equivalently, a half-lie. The two possible conclusions to the paradox are presented in the contradictory form A and non-A, which, in itself suffices to affect the binary logic. Whilst it poses no problem for fuzzy logic, in as much as, when the Cretan is both a liar and a truth-teller at the same time, he does so only at 50%  and this goes for whatever paradox of this kind is posed, following “fuzzy”  logical principles, that is “fractional values of truth”. Which- by the way – stimulates us to reflect on the concept of sincerity and our relationship with the many “truths” that surround our everyday lives.

From theory to practical application: washing machines and high finance

The idea “grade of membership”, a concept which was to become the backbone of fuzzy sets, was introduced in the middle of the ‘60s by the Polish logician, Jan Lukasiewicz which, in turn, led Prof. Zadeh to publish his first seminal paper and the birth of fuzzy logic. Although the concept of fuzzy sets and fuzzy logic attracted harsh criticism from the traditional academic community, it was immediately taken up by several disciplines. Indeed, research on fuzzy logic was begun by two small university groups founded in Japan, in the early ’70s.  The first control system for a steam generator based on fuzzy logic was developed in the middle of the ’70s in Great Britain, where fuzzy logic was also applied for the first time to an industrial setting, to control a kiln for cement production. As the devotees of Wikipedia, remind us, the ‘80s witnessed the launching of a number of successful important industrial applications of fuzzy logic in Japan: Hitachi automated the operational control system for high speed subway trains in the city of Sendai. Fuji Electric also successfully applied fuzzy logic to a wastewater treatment system.  The success of these first experiments led to a boom in the application of fuzzy logic to industry.  In the early ‘90s, Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. named their newly developed fuzzy controlled automatic washing machine “Asai-go (Beloved Wife) Fuzzy Day”  and launched a huge commercial campaign for the “fuzzy” product. The campaign was a commercial success, not only for the product itself, but also for fuzzy logic technology, so much so that the foreign word “fuzzy” was introduced into the Japanese language with a new connotation: smart. Many other electronic companies launched fuzzy vacuum cleaners, fuzzy rice cookers, fuzzy refrigerators, fuzzy video cameras to control the stabilization of the image under shaky hand and jerky conditions and cameras with a more efficacious smart auto- focus. Indeed, the word “fuzzy” was awarded the neologism of the year and, on the crest of the wave of Japan’s successes, this technology stimulated extensive interest in Korea, Europe and the U.S.A. 

Fuzzy logic was also soon to find applications in the field of finance.  The first financial trading system to apply fuzzy logic was the Yamaichi Fuzzy Fund, which mainly dealt with stocks listed on Nikkei Dow and worked on a combination of fuzzy-based mathematical algorithms, which were verified and, when necessary, modified, monthly by expert analysts.  The system was tested for two years and its performance, in terms of returns and growth, exceeded the Nikkei Average by over 20%. While still in the testing phase, the system recommended to “sell” as early as 18 days before Black Monday on the stock exchange, on 19^th October, 1987.

 In informatics, the first microchip to be based on fuzzy logic was developed in the middle of the ‘80s. These kinds of chips have the capacity to enhance the performance of systems used in applications that necessitate real-time choices and several companies then commercialised in both hard- and software instrumentation for the development of fuzzy-rule based systems. So as to make the idea clearer, let’s take another example proposed by a web surfer – a simple practical application of fuzzy system logic could be the measurement of a temperature for an anti-block braking system, capable of performing different functions, depending on the particular temperature range, so as to maintain the best possible control over the brakes. The three functions, cold, warm and hot are references, with all the intermediate variables: until such times as the value points to zero, the hot function is not true  (“temperature not hot”), the function warm is only partially true ( it could be described in words as being “lukewarm i.e. slightly warm”), on the contrary, the blue arrow (which points to 0.8) indicates that the cold function is quite true (“fresh, cold enough”). This may well seem trivial when observed with the shrewd eyes of a 21^st century beholder, but what should be understood is that mathematics based on the traditional Aristotelian logic did not have the capacity to deal adequately and efficiently with these kinds of processes.

From Fuzzy logic to “soft computing”: a first evolution in our stakeholders’ mapping

For those who have borne with me and have had the patience to read this overview up to this point, we shall now begin to go into detail as to the correlation between a particular application of the principles of fuzzy logic and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR).

Developments made in fuzzy logic contributed to the institution of a new scientific discipline that led to a renewal of the sector of artificial intelligence, a discipline known as “soft computing”. The technique of soft computing aims at evaluate, calculating, deciding and controlling the scenario in an imprecise environment, something vague, fluid, or subject to continuous and sudden  changes, emulating and taking advantage of the capacity human beings have in performing these activities, on the basis of their acquired experience. There are three main pillars that support this discipline:

– the possibility to model and control uncertain and complex systems, as well as to represent knowledge efficiently through the typical descriptions of the theory of fuzzy sets;

 – the capacity to optimise the mathematical algorithms where computation is based on the laws of selection and mutation, typical of living organisms;

– the capacity to learn complex functional relations between neural networks, inspired by those of one’s own brain tissue.

According to Zadeh “…a growing trend is the use of fuzzy logic in combination with the       neural computation and genetic algorithms. More generally, fuzzy logic, neural networks and genetic algorithms can be regarded as the principal constituents of what might be termed ‘soft computing’. Unlike traditional methods of calculation or ‘hard” calculation, soft computing is designed to adapt to the pervasive imprecision of the real world. Its guiding principle can be expressed as follows: exploit the tolerance for imprecision, uncertainty and partial or biased?  truth to achieve tractability, robustness and low cost solutions. Over the next few years, soft computing is likely to play an increasingly important role in many sectors.“

Amongst the characteristic features of this scenario, we find data that are: not certain, ambiguous, or incomplete, randomness and solutions that are as approximate as possible: that is to say, what we have in real life, where fuzzy logic represents a truly effective “adaptive system”.

At the beginning of this overview, we recalled a traditional graphic “stakeholders’ map.” We may say, without fear of contradiction, that the stakeholders’ map, taken in the in traditional sense, can be traced back to a classical system of Aristotelian logic: either you are, or you are not a stakeholder (“or, is it true, or false”, a value of either 0, or 1): no more than a mere graphically represented list. If you are considered a stakeholder, then you will be the object of attention, otherwise you will not. 

We have been applying some elementary fuzzy logic principles to my stakeholders’ maps for some years now. One measure I never fail to avail myself of is the drawing of a connecting line, which varies in length, evidencing the customer company and the stakeholder, where the length of the connecting vector line is directly proportional to the degree of attention they/he/she is enjoying at that given historical moment in time in the absence of crisis situations, whilst a code with “fuzzy colours” is used on my maps to indicate the possibility of an approaching situation of crisis (degree of “possible membership” in a crisis situation) and also – respecting the principle of “variable truth” – to what extent the mandator is currently predisposed to take in the hypothetical crisis and handle it efficaciously.

Nowadays, I have promoted in my staff yet another reflection, concerning the concept of neuronal networks, or “neural”, put in more orthodox scientific terms.

Complex neural networks

The most complete on-line encyclopaedia reminds us that “…the brain is a complex organisation of nerve cells that have the task of recognising configuration taken from the external environment, storage and response to stimuli”. So as to carry out these tasks, the biological cerebral network makes use of billions of simple computational elements (neurones) that are densely interconnected one to the other, in such a way so they are able to change their configuration in response to external stimuli: in this sense we may speak of evolution as a form of learning process and it is this model that the systems of artificial intelligence aim at replicating. A neuron is made up of three main parts: the cell body, the output line of the neuron (a single line, but one that splits into thousands of branches) and the input line that carries impulses towards the cell body, which receives incoming signals from the output line, from other neurones, through the synapses.

The cell body makes an evaluation of incoming signals:  if the result is over and above a certain threshold value, then the neuron is activated, whilst if the result does not go over the threshold value, then the neuron remains in a state of rest.

Although the term “neural network” is traditionally used to refer to a network, or a circuit of biological neurons, its use has also been affirmed in mathematics, with reference to mathematical models of artificial neural networks, or circuits that represent interconnections between elements, known as artificial neurones i.e. mathematical constructs that, to a certain extent, “imitate” the properties of living neurones.  An artificial neural network is an interconnection of a group of nodes, called neurones: it is an “adaptive” system, a modelling tool that changes its structure to adapt to the information that runs through the network in the learning phase.

These mathematical models are applied to solve problems of artificial intelligence, such as those that come up in several different technological fields: in engineering, electronics, informatics and other disciplines. However, on the basis of the research I have carried out, nobody has ever attempted to apply it to CSR.

The concept of artificial neurons was proposed for the first time in the’40s, in some of the research I quote in the bibliography of this overview and stimulated numerous studies and research projects in the scientific community. The ‘60s and 70’s witnessed a frustrating period and a standstill, as a result of the operative limits posed by the first simple networks that were not yet adequate enough to solve numerous classes of complex problems. Whilst the first really efficacious neural networks were developed in the ‘80s.

Researchers’ interest was mainly attracted to the possibility artificial networks have of “learning”: when given a specific task to solve, learning means taking advantage of the observation of the result so as to be able to find the  best possible solution to the problem.  The cost function is an important concept in learning: this involves the quantification of “how far from us” the best possible solution to the problem we wish to solve is, and, consequently, how much effort is required to reach this goal.  Learning algorithms seek out solutions with the aim of identifying a function that carries the lowest possible “cost”. The training of a neural network is done- trivialising, and I ask the professionals in the field to forgive me for this – by the solicitation of the input nodes  with a feed-forward propagation of signals through each level of the network, comparing the response of the network to the desired result, obtaining a corresponding error signal in the case of deformity and then propagating in the opposite direction to the synaptic connections of the error signal, thus “teaching” the network to minimize the difference between the actual output and the desired output. There are various learning paradigms that may be used to regulate the task of a neural network, but this analysis would lead us down an excessively technical and sophisticated pathway which, not only goes beyond my competences, but would also be of no relevance to our reflections. It suffices to outline that the aim of the activity of an artificial neural network is that of individualising the best possible operational method, starting from a process of observation of the external environment: each and every action has an impact on the environment and the environment produces a back-propagation that guides the algorithm itself through the learning process. This system postulates an agent that is endowed with perceptive capacities able to explore the environment, where it starts a series of actions.  In turn, the environment itself, in response, provides either an incentive, or a disincentive, as the case may be and this is how the system learns and evolves. It is also interesting to note that if there is an input of very important data into a neural network, then it will have a heavy weight, if, on the contrary, there is an input of something of little importance to the elaboration, then this input will bear a lower weight, this is how the connections tend to strengthen when the pre-synaptic units and postsynaptic units agree with one another, otherwise, they tend to “weaken”.  The same maybe said of CSR, where a flow of constant attention tends to qualify a relationship with a stakeholder and, conversely, ignoring a stakeholder completely creates a situation where it is impossible to perceive the arrival of even the most serious of crisis. 

The most modern of today’s neural networks, not only have a bi-directional flow of information i.e. in both an input and output direction and vice versa – but the propagation may even come about from one of the successive, or previous neural layers, or may arise from neurones that belong to the same layer, or even between one neuron and itself. This is also true in CSR: would our input action towards the stakeholder, not end up by gene rating a re-elaboration of information also within the stakeholder him/herself, thus modifying his/her attitude along with the scenario he/she has to face? And would these modifications not end up by inevitably producing alterations- in both positive and negative – within our stakeholder’s boundary of public interest?  In artificial neural networks, at the end of each phase in the learning process, the node with the vector that has a weight nearest to a certain desired result is considered “the winner” and all the other weights are updated accordingly, so as to come as close to that value as possible. As every node has a certain number of adjacent nodes, when one node wins the competition, the weight of the adjacent nodes is also modified according to the general rule that the nearer any node is to the winner, the stronger the variation in its weight will be. A map is built during the learning phase, therefore, the network configures and organises itself through a competitive process. This is exactly the same thing that takes place on a stakeholder’s map, where there is a strong possibility that a good practise be adopted by the whole network, which, in turn, becomes a new reference value.  

Since a neural network is usually used to simulate complex relationships between inputs and outputs that other analytical systems are not able to represent, it is, in my opinion, also the best model able to represent the dense interconnections between a given subject and their public interests: whether or not they those known and “mapped”, or those that, in turn, depend on the ones known to us even if we may not even be aware of their existence. 

A new task for neural networks: CSR

The tasks that neural networks are called to give an answer to range from vehicle control systems and industrial processes, to approximation processes forecasting  storms, to the recognition of objects for security purposes in airports, to the verification of decisional processes, to name but a few. Why then not use them in simulations in the field of CSR?

As for any complex algorithm- it is true that also neural networks are efficient only if the “predictive” variables have been chosen with care and attention. As it is true that once a neural network is working to full capacity, it is so sophisticated as to prevent the analyst from carrying out an exact reconstruction of the way a certain result has been reached, thus reducing the power of control over the whole process.   Moreover, there are no theorems, or, models as such that have the capacity to define a network as “optimal”, meaning that the efficacy of a network mainly depends on its creator’s experience.

Nevertheless, as I already expounded in my overview on Game Theory, by  putting into practise what I have illustrated herein, it should be possible for researchers to elaborate innovative solutions to be applied to the field of CSR that will permit professionals to free themselves of the limits posed by “I’ll do it because others have done it like that,  so I think it could work”, or “we’ll do it this way because we’ve always done it this way before”.

In anticipation of obtaining the support of some expert in the field to elaborate one, or more predictive mathematical models that maybe used to overcome the trap of 

“I can learn only my mistakes”, also in CSR, something which is of little profit from a financial point of view, let’s start applying these philosophical concepts that generally rule our everyday working life.

Enough with all these 2D stakeholders’ maps, if it is true – as we all advocate- and this is the concept at the basis of the theory of Corporate Social Responsibility – that the client company is part of an extremely complex network of relationships. I am of the opinion that the model of artificial neurons is able to make an efficacious representation of the reality of the interactions between a company, or institution and all the public interested in them and which are interesting for them at the same time, clearly-as I stated above – an input inserted into the network (our stakeholder’s network) will solicit the input nodes (the  stakeholder is an object of attention at that moment) with a forward propagation of the signal, this will lead to a comparison of the network response (the whole of our stakeholder’s network) with the desired result, there is the possibility of getting a corresponding error signal in case of discrepancy, which then would propagate in the inverse direction to the signal, “educating” the whole network and minimizing the difference between the desired output. Whether we like it, or not, this is the effect we trigger when we take the initiative to stimulate our stakeholder’s network and there are thousands of case histories testimonial to this effect.

The Spanish-based fashion chain  Zara, owned by the Inditex group, imposed the closure of a sister factory of one of its suppliers, after a BBC television network had informed the Spanish group of the physical and verbal violence the workers were exposed to and the extremely bad environmental conditions they were obliged to work in.  When the Zara inspectors finally managed to get inside the factory that had been reported, they were so shocked by deplorable conditions they saw that they gave the factory owner an ultimatum: close this factory and improve conditions at a new site, with your workers, if you want Inditex (and Zara) to remain a customer of yours. The supplier accepted the conditions made by the Spanish inspectors and employed the workers from the old factory,  that would have otherwise been unemployed, at the new site. Moreover, Zara’s supplier committed themselves to recognising the Bangladeshi unions in all their factories.  This is a clear example of how an input inserted into the stakeholder’s network of a multinational company generated such a return flow so as to condition many more elements in the scenario than those initially solicited– here in positive, even if it is not always the case.

Guna Spa, the first Italian player in the field of natural and homeopathic medicines and amongst the first five companies in the world in its category, does not consider the interruption of business relationships a first-line solution in the presence of qualitative discrepancies  – which is a common practise so as to safeguard against public criticism  and judiciary bodies. Guna is well aware that such an action would generate a negative backlash on the supplier’s workforce, that, although have a low responsibility level in the scenario, would most likely end up taking the book and paying the price.  Indeed, their charter of ethics also includes the following: “…GUNA Spa is aware of the importance of the role of its supplier companies in their socio-economic system (in particular as generators of vital income for the families of employees and minor shareholders) and of the importance of these companies in their turn for the suppliers from which they obtain raw materials. In the event of non-compliance, either full or in part, with the criteria dictated by this Charter of Ethics, the first option of GUNA Spa will not be to promptly and definitively terminate supply relations, but rather, after the emergency has been efficiently solved and the interest of citizens and patients protected at all costs and in every possible way and always in relation to the gravity of these violations, to provide, at the expense of, and organized by, GUNA Spa, guidance and assistance in order to improve the scenario existing at the supplier’s, to prevent the problem from recurring”. This is an example of adaptive behaviour for learning, aimed at improving on the existing scenario “educating the neural network” where Guna operates and competes.

The State Treasurer of Pennsylvania, Robin L. Wiessmann announced that she would divest from China Petroleum and Chemical Corporation (Sinopec), responsible for operations in Sudan, where the Khartoum government drew funds from the activities of foreign companies to supply arms to those responsible for the genocide in the Darfur region.  The divestment in Sinopec was equal to $1.2 million, not such an enormous sum. This measure was taken after China Petroleum’s refusal to engage its shareholders in dialogue as to the risks of its presence in Sudan. The Pennsylvanian minister took this decision on the basis of modifications made in the state’s investment policies, which also involved an evaluation of geopolitical, environmental, governance and other strategic factors. Also following this decision, that stimulated debate amongst analysts and the political class alike, the then American president –  George W. Bush – signed an Act that allowed then– as it does today – any state authority to withdraw it investments  from companies operating in Sudan, due to the violence in Darfur. This is yet another case where an action versus a stakeholder created a much wider effect than had been foreseen. 

There maybe many other examples, but what is clear and what companies and institutions have demonstrated  – at times without actually being fully aware of it – is that they behave as part of a “social neural network”. Then it is up to the professionals in the sector to make their own reflections and to enhance their knowledge of their own clients, adopting more sophisticated predictive systems able to increase the control index on the complex scenarios that challenges in the 21st Century face us with.  One thing that is certain is that our level of responsibility and the quality of the governance mechanisms must make a rapid rise, as a direct consequence of the newly found awareness of the degree of the impact level our determinations have on entities that we are apparently connected to.

Modern technologies and social networks are accomplices, each and every entity– individual or collective – is immediately and permanently connected with their very own referents and give daily responses to the streams of stimuli, information and emotions they collide with: all of which makes it clear how every entity is nothing but a  “node” in a much more ample system,  one which I define as social neural network. As Derrick de Kerckhove, tells us in his brief, but most beautiful essay, entitled “There’s a robot in my Body”.  This network is “quick, transparent, potentially ubiquitous and liquid”. It is as I have described it in this paper, each and every input triggers a strong variation in the scenario, both the one “in proximity” and the one – which is, more or less distant, maybe not even “mapped” by us- something we are in contact with only through other nodes: simply, as each node has a certain number of adjacent nodes, when one of the nodes wins a competition (an action on a  stakeholder that improve/worsens our reputation profile), also the weights  of our adjacent nodes are modified (also the other stakeholders improve/worsen our rating and, in turn, this  activates internal procedures to improve their own), in line with the general rule that the more nodes (one stakeholder) are close to the winning node, the more marked the variation in their weights will be.  In this way the interaction is continuous and immediate, is this then not what happens when we spur one of our stockholders? Surely, a stakeholder in our proximity – such as a supplier, or an employee – would be more attuned to our input, but, in turn, also our suppliers will be spurred, as most probably also our employees’ family members will benefit from our intervention.

The Vedas – thousand of years ago-described us as part “a unique One, interdependent one on the other” connected, regardless of distance, much more tightly than we might imagine. We might then write and discuss about Corporate Social Responsibility as being a discipline that can be used to draw the contours and valorise the existence of a “supreme neural network”: the complex network that, at a planetary level, places each one of us in relationship with another, each institution with another institution, each company with another company and all these elements organically between one another.

A neural network that is the natural evolution of a social system, or i sit the proof o fan act of creation?

From the theoretic analysis to practise: a new type of stakeholders’ map

One of the most recent fields of research I have undertaken so as to promote the concept of social responsibility as a strategic dimension of the life of a company, proposed to meet the ever increasingly felt need to “measure” CSR, in an attempt to move away from a merely empiric concept – towards a more scientific approach- involving both the discipline and professional methodology of those who deal with CSR in their daily routine. 

The theoretical basis of the method we have elaborated is described in the first part of this overview, elaborated in 2008, where I hypothesized the application of the principles of fuzzy logic and the functional mechanisms of artificial neural networks to both CSR and stakeholder mapping. I did so starting from the presupposition that “all types of public are stakeholders” and by reflecting on the effects a company’s behaviour (the company being part of a complex neural network) –on the “stakeholders of the stakeholders”, who are all too often neglected. Indeed, I, as other colleagues, some time ago achieved a certain degree of awareness, that, at risk of trivialising, I shall try to synthesize for further clarity.  

A company is part of a social network which is much vaster than one would normally imagine;

• this axiom is a truth, it can be ignored like pretending not to have an arm tied behind your back, even if it remains true;
• the actions a company takes that involve its stakeholders have an influence on this neural network that goes well beyond the stakeholders themselves, from both a functional and identity point of view;
• all of us are stakeholders, there are no “influential ones”.  There is only a different degree of interconnection (in the application of fuzzy logic) that characterises the different types of public, even those that are not so proximal;
• from this it derives that the company is responsible for all of them (and we professionals for the company, when we address the Client’s communication on those vectors);
• a company does not HAVE stakeholders, rather it IS its stakeholders, in the sense that the two identities coincide one with the other, just as the company’s interests coincide with the interests of its stakeholders (unless one of the elements in question abdicates from the ethical dimension of its work )^[2];
• There is no measure of  “unsustainable chaos” – and this concerns us, as it has to do with our capacity to manage complexities on the client’s behalf – there is rather only a degree of relative entropy, that defines “a measure of the complexity in the order of which, whether we like it or not, we must learn to orientate ourselves”;
• The more we ignore these principles, the more we expose ourselves to a crisis.  A crisis is simply the fruit of a low degree of interconnection with a stakeholder, where the reduction of interaction proportionally reduces the informative value of the action taken by the stakeholder him/herself regarding a company and, therefore, the degree of control over the company versus “work” – in the meaning given by the physical sciences – within a system depicted by the stakeholders’ map ^[3]

Starting from these assumptions, the company as such has “disappeared” from my stakeholders’ maps for some years now. That is, the company as envisaged traditionally in the centre of the map itself: the organisation has become a “a texture”, where, in turn, the stakeholders are depicted, giving a better representation of the “connection” between the company itself and its various public.

Our first step in  its application was  firstly done within our staff,  then through seminars, by discussing it with dedicated personnel and then, as from the year  2008, it was also applied to our new form of client mapping – by starting to depict the stakeholder’s map on a Cartesian  graph in quadrants^[4].  When custom-built for the job, this kind of map is able to measure the degree of “influence”, interconnection and potential crisis the company in question has on each single member of its various public, in a more efficacious way than are the more traditional maps. 

However, the data required to make a correct positioning of the stakeholders on the graph still originated from the returns of an internal audit. Even if this audit was well-constructed and carried out by us in a consultancy capacity, the degree of approximation, relative subjectivity and method still did not satisfy me to the full.

This led me – with the precious help of my staff, to create an instrument^[5] that has the capacity to evaluate the degree and typology of the company’s social responsibility in a more analytical way. One that defines a unique framework, one that is as tailor-made as possible, in terms of precise reference standards, which, apart from other aspects, allows for the comparison of performance amongst the companies that compete for sustainable development, as the international GRI Sustainability Reporting Guidelines we all know have done, in terms of classification within social reports.

What I am speaking of is a reproducible criterion of the determination of the positioning of the stakeholders on a Cartesian map in quadrants. This methodology is applied with the aim of providing an instrument able to evaluate the degree of stakeholder engagement between the company and its public. Moreover, it allows its public to be inserted correctly on the map by the application of a “point scoring” system, which does not elide from the professional observation of the consultants, on the contrary, it is valorised, balancing it against the objective data obtained from the reconciliation of the results of the audit not only with the perception that the company has of itself, but,   in turn, the perception the stakeholders have of the company.

Here are the main elements the method is based on:

• a form to be filled in to provide an initial perception of the state-of-the-art of the company’s CSR:

It is to be filled in so as to collect the appropriate fundamental information able to identify the sensitivity and degree of “literacy” on the company’s CSR and the “kit” of basic instruments required to complete a successful CSR project.

• An evaluation/checklist questionnaire  SH by SH:

The questionnaire is elaborated “ad hoc” for each single category of stakeholder (they are not included in this paper for lack of space, as they are some ten pages or more).

Each question is assigned a score which goes from -2 to +2 and defines the “degree of  maturity” reached by the company as to the question under analysis.  When assigning points the following values are taken into consideration:

– 2        absent

– 1        low    

  0        average

+ 1       high

+2        very high

The form is to be filled in by:

• the manager responsible for the function the subject of the analysis refers to (external CSR consultant or internal CSR manager);
•  a representative group of employees/managers (it is fundamental to include employees involved in the function mentioned above);
• a  group which is representative of the stakeholder in question, or  as a close alternative to the CSR manager/external consultant should the involvement of a representative group of stakeholders require such resources so as to jeopardise the project sustainability.

For each stakeholder – or group of stakeholders, where, for practical reasons more stakeholders must necessarily be  incorporated into one category – an articulated checklist, subdivided into three sections  A, B, C, has been prepared, functional one to the other (each one is, therefore, to be filled in by all three of the aforementioned categories):

1. the influence the stakeholder has on the company: i.e. how important the stakeholder is perceived to be by the company/how much, irrespective of the company’s perception, the stakeholder really is objectively important. It is one of the control criteria used to define the potential state of crisis in the specific field;
2. the influence the company has on the stakeholder : current actions being taken involving the stakeholder and, therefore, the degree of  current commitment  the company has in the stakeholder’s field;
3. stakeholder engagement: one-to-one relationships and instruments that facilitate reporting and  dialogue.

Simulations have been made, also with the aim of inserting corrective values into the computation method in an effort to guarantee the most trustworthy results as possible.

The values in the field (A) will define the position on the axis of the abscissa (x) influenced by (C) at 50% as a corrective value.

The dimension of the rectangle where the position of the stakeholder is reported on the map – a dimension that represents the importance/control on the SH perceived by the company – is defined by the value of (A) influenced by (B) to 30% as a corrective value. 

The values in field (B) will indicate the position of the ordinates (y) on the axis.

The values in field (C) will influence the axis of the abscissa by 30%, but, above all they will determine the relative chromatic scale of the potential crisis profile – in relation to the stakeholder – classified as follows:

An Outline of Mapping Set-up on the Basis of The New Positioning Criteria^[6]

(the graphic form is not indicative)

• GREEN: control, a favourable condition with continuous communication;
• YELLOW: attention threshold, the situation is to be monitored and/or dialogue  intensified;
• RED: potential crisis and/or absence of dialogue.

Even if only 5 stakeholders from a “typical” medium-sized company have been proposed as examples in this article, operating on the Italian market in the production of consumer goods, a first series of stakeholders has been defined and a tailor-made checklist of questions set up (obviously differing between one SH and another):

1. Environment
2. Employees
3. Suppliers
4. Clients
5. Social Community
6. Public/journalistic/ media opinion
7. Financial community/banks/investors
8. Regulatory bodies/establishments
9. Category associations/competitors
10. Territory
11. Intermediaries/commercial correspondents

It is evident that professional practise dictates that every company will be object of study and every map will have typical characteristics where the public involved will vary from one company to another; from here the necessity to elaborate new customized checklists, thus building up a store of knowledge and competences that will be enriched with every mandate, and which may then be put to dynamic use in the various professional mandates.

The results obtained for each of the aforementioned categories, after having filled-in the checklist (management, employees, stakeholder/CSR manager/external consultant), stakeholder by stakeholder, will then be elaborated according to criteria of arithmetic average and, at first, will show the variance between the perception of each one of the three categories under study, compared to the current relationships present  between a given company’s public.

Any variance over and above 30% between the results supplied by one category and another will be evaluated as an index of criticality, which is to be examined and that will compete in the definition of the potential state of crisis versus the stakeholder.

Once the stakeholder’s position has been correctly defined, on thee basis of the global perception (amongst the three categories), the company, on the basis of the position of each stakeholder category on the map, can – following the indications set up by the United Nations Environment Program^[7]– consciously identify itself in one of the following development phases (always with reference to varying scores, according to a logic of fuzzy sets):

1. no involvement;
2. explorative: ad hoc involvement of the stakeholder whenever there is an opportunity and/or challenge;
3. developed: a good quality of involvement processes with some ideas as to how to  outline them and the requirements placed on the stakeholder, but the management systems are discontinuous and it is not clear what impact the involvement will have on the current decisional processes, nor have the performance objectives to be adopted in order to face the issues been clearly established;
4. integrated: a high quality of involvement processes that have already been inserted into the  decision making processes, which have also been integrated into the company’s management processes. The involvement has been systematized with the aim of ensuring adequate management of the issues in question; 
5. strategic: a high quality of involvement integrated into the processes of  management and governance, tied to the company’s strategies. The issues in question are dealt with in depth, often with the aim of changing the whole system, both at a local and global level.

At this point, the map will be compared to the “OBJECTIVE” map that has been defined by the management/owners, who will then have at disposal a new instrument for the alignment of the company strategy to expectations of its own internal and external stakeholders, thanks to the adoption of adequate responses able to meet the requirements that have emerged during the processes of auditing and mapping.

I have reason to believe that this paper may be a useful stimulus for my colleagues and -also with the aim of future collaboration to enhance work methodology   – I willingly put these competences at disposal under the licence Creative Commons^[8] and am more than willing to accept each and every suggestion and/or criticism^[9].

There is a further enhancement in quality through the activation of a “Participatory Micro-blog ”: The Corporate Story Telling on-line is in real time, from the “narrative voice” to the shared construction of the message.

In a recent reflection in “Business”, Toni Muzi Falconi^[10]called the readers’ attention to the characteristic of “organisational reporting” in companies (“Corporate storytelling”). Nowadays, companies relate to a varied public: “traditionally  – Muzi Falconi reminds us  – consumers were the favoured terrain of  its communication, simply because  only a push of information on products and services could make people aware of their existence and stimulate their purchase. However, nowadays, employees have joined ranks alongside consumers with a fundamental  role,  as have investors ,public regulatory bodies, suppliers, the local communities and many others and each one of these maintains relationships with the company, through many and varied channels”.

It then naturally follows that this produces narratives with different contents, not only in form, but also in the instruments used to dialogue with one’s own referent public. On the other hand, trivial though it might be to bring it to mind, the stakeholder mapping should be propaedeutic, not only in its reporting in the form of the social report, but also in its structuring of communication strategies and, above all, with tailor-made dialogues with all the types of public involved. For years now I have been suggesting to clients to structure multi-channel web-sites so that they can activate dynamic dialogue ad hoc as to the identity, characteristics and expectations of the various stakeholders.

We have made a further step foreword – after the elaboration of the theoretic basis described in the first part of this overview – with the creation of an innovative stakeholder’s map on Cartesian axis in quadrants, that allows us to abandon a procedure of a purely empiric definition of the types of public on the map, based only on the consultant’s observations and auditing activities, passing to a procedure based on scientific and more objective criteria.

Some months ago, along with Luca Yuri Toselli, I stimulated a client company to open up even more in the direction of transparency of its processes and in the sharing, not only of values, but also the instruments used to  relate them.

To this aim we then published an outline of the company’s social report on a dedicated web site, with open access for consultation and, above all, interaction, with all the company’s referent public. The definitive version that was later printed- on DVD, as a saving initiative on the environmental impact – was the fruit of this “contamination”, on line with our vision of the CSR theory: the company does not DO CSR, but it IS its own CSR, and – if we take as true a total coincidence and superimposition of interests between the company and its various public – then the act of reporting can have no meaning if it is prepared by the company alone,  net of the stakeholders, in a unidirectional manner. It must necessarily be a “choral” act, written by more than “one” i.e. along with the stakeholders and shared with them right from its very first letter on a blank page in “Word”.

That is why we inevitably ended up at a yet another step: we set up a kind of articulated “dashboard of dynamic indicators” that – following in the steps of the social report for the year 2010 –the data, tables, information and, above all stories are being enriched, along a one year pathway, sharing everything in complete transparency and literally “building” along with all the company divisions and all those who make up the company’s neural network.  In this way the first unpublished “real time” social report has been born, which is in itself a method of stakeholder engagement able to transform the various types of public into strategic elements for the definition of the company’s CSR into co-management.

Even the choice of the icon for the project was a useful opportunity for comparison and exchange of ideas: at first we had thought of evidencing the immaterial value of the company’s “transparency” through the symbol itself. On the wave of emotion generated by the score + 2.0 and the concept of a “crystal house”, we fled down the pathway to ice, or an expanse of crystal clear water.

But, then again, it seemed to be a Déjà vu, obsolete, an expression of something like “we are open and transparent, if you want you can read more inside”. Well then, alright, better than nothing, but we were really aiming at something different, we wanted to take yet another step forward: emphasising the role of “Big Brother” which, in this project, we recognised in our stakeholders, some of us, but also “investigators” deep within the company’s fabric.

Then we ended up calling the project with the neologism “Web-Cam”, which immediately brings to mind the impossibility of subtracting ourselves from judgments on the way we live our time and space and the space of “others”, or the other part of the poliedric identity in each one of us, parts that, unfortunately, for too long a time had been relegated to the simple role of onlookers and users of prepackaged messages  and, in line with this concept, as a symbol, we chose a large, tender snowman in the shape of an eye, with a dilated pupil and a huge magnifying glass in his hand. Which, translated from the symbology of narration, for us meant: we are not only ready to let you look inside us , but we invite you to do so, moreover, we recognise your right to do so and we even give you the instruments to do it properly.

Clearly, all of this implied that the entrepreneur be willing to really put himself/herself f at stake and play the game, apart from the words, the propaganda and the greenwashing. Luckily it is an Italian company with a strong character of innovation and has already accepted the challenge^[11]: we’ll keep you posted as to the developments.

However, how long will it be before we have a really and truly 2.0 approach from the large groups? Why is it so as to obtain the information on the automobile production that left the factory this week have I necessarily to contact the group’s press office?   Why is it not possible for me to simply connect on-line and follow a “story-line” that the company tells me, moment by moment, without mediation, maybe also offering my contribution to the idea as to how I would like this story to be told to me?  A new challenge in terms of sharing, for the commissioner and we as public relaters and communicators alike, which we must interpret. 

Would such an approach, which is almost disintermediated, make our professional contribution superfluous? I don’t think so, I believe, if anything, it would lead us to refine our instruments, obliging us to provide services with ever higher adjunctive value. Which is, and has always been, the core of our beautiful profession.

APPENDICE

– The reference checklist for each stakeholder (elaboration is being completed and

  enhanced)

– Author: Luca Poma

– Brief  bibliography

The reference checklist for each stakeholder

1) Environment

A) The influence the stakeholder has on the firm

(Horizontal axis :the stakeholder influences/ does not influence the firm)

1. The implementation of the policy of environmental sustainability
2. The attention paid to the production, in terms of emissions into the environment.
3. The attention paid to the environmental impact the company’s products and services have on the environment.
4. How the company is considered (by the stakeholers) , in terms of environmental policies i.e. best in the class/ leader, a follower, etc., the presence/absence of a person responsible for company policies^[12]
5. How much consideration is given to environmental policies in the production and engineering sectors?

A6  Management capacities, through the implementation of instruments for crisis management, of the tensions in the environmental field.

A7    In the recent past, has this company had particular tension with this stakeholder?   

         The legend below shows how to assign a score to this question:

> 7 crisis in the last 5 years	-2.00
Between 4 and 7 crisis in the last 5 years	-1.00
Between 2 and 3 crisis in the last five years	0
1 crisis in the last 5 years	1.00
No crisis in the last 5 years	2.00

B) The influence the company has on the stakeholder

(vertical axis: the company influences the stakeholder / does not  influence the stakeholder).

• The adoption of solutions to reduce electric energy and water consumption
• The use of alternative energy sources
• The saving/restraint of the use of raw materials
• A preference for the use of natural materials/recycled/from renewable sources
• A reduction/restraint in the treatment of waste products (separate collection of rubbish, authorised disposal companies )
• A reduction in packaging material
• Initiatives to reduce consumption in the field of transport, or transport itself
• The training of personnel on environmental issues ( apart from those compulsory in accordance with the laws in force)
• The research and development of eco-compatible materials and more efficient productive projects
• The compensation of emissions (e.g. awarded green certification or other mitigation measures at “0 impact”)
• The adoption of certified environmental management systems
• The support of programmes/activities engaged in environmental issues

C) Stakeholder engagement:

(the influence the stakeholder has on the company – partially– and colour dimension: cataloguing of the crisis profile)

• Reports on environmental sustainability
• Initiatives taken by the organisation to report environmental policies (ad hoc events, advertising, press office, dedicated sites etc.)
• The sharing of environmental policies with NGOs engaged in environmental protection and other Opinion Leaders in the sector.
• Involving employees in the definition of the company’s environmental standards
• Incentive policies for sustainable employees’ virtuous behaviour in the workplace/private life.

2) Employees

A) The influence the stakeholder has on the company 
(horizontal axis: the stakeholder influences the company( does not   influence the company)

A1  The presence/absence of a union representative in the company and the company’s attitude to “unionizing”.

A2     The predominance of forms of contracts that guarantee stability to the employees   governing temporary labour, dedicated personnel working on a project basis and other atypical contracts.

A3     Provision of ” manoeuvrability space” which flows from the management to the personnel ( with only tasks such as drawing up contracts and calculating payrolls or  “going into the issues in depth”, by running training programmes etc.).

A4     How the company is considered in terms of policies adopted for their staff (may it be regarded as “the best in the class/leader“, a “follower“, does it follow and reproduce best practice policies of others, is it “indifferent”, “the worst” ?^[13]

A5     Management capacities, through the implementation of instruments for crisis       management, from the tension in the organisation of the personnel (e.g. disputes,      strikes, reorganisation plans with consequent redundancies, and the like ….)

A6     In the recent past, has this company had particular tension with this stakeholder? The legend below shows how to assign a score to this question:

> 7 crisis in the last 5 years	-2.00
Between 4 and 7 crisis in the last 5 years	-1.00
Between  2 and 3 crisis in the last 5 years	0
1 crisis in the last 5 years	1.00
No crisis in the last 5 years	2.00

B) The influence the company has on the stakeholder           (vertical axis: the company influences the stakeholder/does not influence the stakeholder).

• The adoption of management systems (e.g. SA8000, OHSAS18000) and/or standards governing employee’s human rights.
• The attention paid to safety and health (other than the rules/regulations ex – 626/94) and care taken of the work-place/environment.
• The adequacy of the salary/wage levels for the enhancement of skills and production incentives.
• Privacy policy (protection of sensitive data) other than those provided for by law.
• The willingness to provide flexible working hours (reduction of overtime, the concession of part-time if requested by the employee).
• Training and programmes to enhance skills- professionalization (including courses dedicated to CSR, health and safety issues, etc…).
• Offers of career paths and incentive systems, other than those provided for by law
• Current programmes for the integration of newly recruited staff members.
• Respect for equal opportunities (e.g. female personnel in key positions and a monetary retribution equal to that of male colleagues).
• The implementation of actions aimed at favouring reconciliation of work and family (teleworking, availability of nurseries, maternity bonuses, business practices etc.).
•  The implementation of actions that facilitate the integration of less-abled persons (e.g. tailor-made training courses, integration of less-abled personnel even if exonerated from such obligations by law etc….).
• The implementation of actions that facilitate the integration of immigrant personnel (e.g. pertinent language courses, the supply of housing facilities and/or support in finding housing)
• Benefits for the employees (e.g. integrative health care schemes, tax etc.).
• Participatory management and management aimed at involvement and empowerment of autonomy for collaborators.
• The valorisation of work groups
• The policies/actions to safeguard the rights of employees working abroad.
• Renovation and/or reorganisation of the company in the context of social responsibility.

C) Stakeholder engagement       
( The influence the stakeholder has on the company  – partially– and colour dimensions: cataloguing of the crisis profile)

•  The degree of collaboration the human resources department provides in the management of  documentation for personnel with other functions (board, CSR staff, etc.)
  • Sharing and co-designing/layout of the documentation used with the personnel for consultations, interviews, periodic meetings, anonymous surveys, comparative board meetings other than the relationships with the unions provided for under contract, focus groups etc.)
  • The presentation of the aforementioned activities in the social report.
  • Interactive initiatives taken to sound out the “atmosphere in the workplace” and employee satisfaction.
  • Internal communication instruments that allow employees to voice their opinions/ideas (newspapers, notice-boards, newsletters, etc, periodic meetings)

3) Suppliers

A) The influence the stakeholder has on the company
(horizontal axis: the stakeholder influences/does not influence the company)

1. The attention paid to limit the pure resale of goods produced by others (not “first sale”) (compared to those bought by third parties, or wholesalers etc)
2. The preponderance of suppliers for whom the company is a primary, main, priority, or relevant client, in terms of turnover percentage.
3. The implementation of control policies, also over the sub-supplier chain.
4. How the company is considered in terms of the quality of relationships it has with its supplier/s (can it regard itself as the “best in class/leader” a “follower”, or does it follow and reproduce others’ best practise” is it indifferent”, the “worst” (indicated by the public opinion as an example NOT to follow)^[14]  

A5     Managerial capacity, through the implementation of crisis management

          instruments, of tension arising from the supplier chain (e.g.  in the case of re-sale of

          non-conforming or damaged goods, charging accusations made by

          =NGOs and other similar actions due to bad practise in the supply chain etc)¹⁵

A6    In the recent past, has this company had particular tension with this stakeholder? The legend below shows how to assign a score to this question:

> 7 crisis in the last 5 years	-2.00
Between 4 and 7 crisis in the last 5 years	-1.00
Between 2 and 3 crisis in the last 5 years	0
1 crisis in the last 5 years	1.00
No crisis in the last 5 years	2.00

B) The company’s influence on the stakeholder          (vertical axis: the company influences the stakeholder/does not influence the stakeholder).

• The application of supplier selection and management criteria
• The application of transparent and collaborative contractual criteria.
• Compliance with terms of payment.        
• The adoption of selection criteria to evaluate respect for the health conditions of the employees and occupational safety.
• The adoption of criteria that evaluate the implementation of actions taken respecting the internal and external environment.
• The adoption of criteria that evaluate the implementation of respectful behaviour as far as fundamental human rights are concerned (no child/forced labour, no exploitation conditions, freedom of association in unions etc. ).
• Application for product/service certification
• The presence/absence of verification instrumentation for productive processes.
• The involvement in, and sensibilisation of, suppliers towards social responsibility issues.
• The adoption of a certified supplier management system (SA8000)
• The adoption of standards for the supplier chain (OCSE guidelines, etc.)
• The adoption of an ethical code for suppliers’ e.g.  “Suppliers’ Charter of Ethics”

C) Stakeholder engagement       
(The influence the stakeholder has on the company- partially– and colour dimensions: cataloguing of the crisis profile)

• Turning to consultancy services to implement the ethical and qualitative profile of the suppliers.
  • The availability of the possibility of taking advantage of credit services, or other similar facilities for crucial suppliers in temporary difficulties.
  • Corporate sharing, co-branding, co-design and other forms of horizontal integration, as well as strategies in the supply chain.
  • Sharing and management of the protection of patents (licensing, etc.):
  • Supplier participation in the company’s innovations/developments.
  • The joint participation of the company and the supplier in fairs, conventions in the industrial sector etc.
  • The joint presence of the supplier and the company category associations and other institutional boards (e.g.: associations that include manufacturers and assemblers of semi-finished goods in the same industrial sector, or companies and suppliers that both fit into the let’s say, “chemical” sector etc..)
  • Subscriptions to company meetings, focus groups and other opportunities to share strategies and compare ideas that are not strictly “product oriented”.
  • Attendance in joint initiatives (the company and the supplier) to promote engagement in their respective employees (training, company charitable work/actions   etc.).
  • The use of privileged “release of information” in company reports (economic, market and social) for key suppliers.
  • The presentation of a social report.

4) Clients

A) The influence the stakeholder has on the company          (horizontal axis: The stakeholder influences the company/ does not influence the company)

1. The development of internal studies on customer satisfaction.
2. The implementation of control and verification instruments for sales channels, public relations activities, the management of relationships with the client before the sale (promotion, representatives), during the sale(sales channels: stores, shops, telephone channels and commerce etc.) post-sales (assistance, follow up, crm? etc.).
3. The set up of audits on the commercial network and/or retailers to analyse the results in terms of satisfaction and the clients’ perception, request/s, critical status/ etc.
4. Consideration of the company How the company in terms of the quality of relationship it has with its supplier/s ( may it regard itself as being the “best in class/leader” a “follower”, or does it follow and reproduce others’ best practise, is it ” indifferent”, the ” worst” is there a person responsible for public relations with the clients?)^[15]
5. Managerial capacity, through the implementation of crisis management, of tension associated to this stakeholder.
6. In the recent past, has this company had particular tension with this stakeholder? The legend below shows how to assign a score to this question:

> 7 crisis in the last 5 years	-2.00
Between 4 and 7 crisis in the last 5 years	-1.00
Between 2 and 3 crisis in the last 5 years	0
1 crisis in the last 5 years	1.00
No crisis in the last 5 years	2.00

B) The influence the company has on the stakeholder           (vertical axis: the company influences the stakeholder/does not influence the stakeholder).

• The adoption of quaity certification (ISO9000, product certification etc.) 
• The application of product safety test marks
• The application of labelling/marks with ecology notes
• Communication and documentation of quality certification
• Communication as to labelling and social certification
• The provision of voluntary information on products/services offered in terms of quality guarantee, safety, labelling, environmental impact, e.g. detailed as to the origin of the product, traceability of the product (batch number etc.), stamps, ISO22000, etc.)
• Communication of spontaneous declarations made on the production processes currently used.

C) Stakeholder engagement

(The influence the stakeholder has on the company – partially– and colour dimensions: cataloguing of the crisis profile)

• CRM centred on the perception and discussion of the company’s products
  • Involving the clients in the creation and design of new products (see the case of  Ducati, who defines itself as a, Stakeholder company?- in fact  – owned by its own “fans”)
  • Participation in community brands, be it online or through specific events (inaugurations, temporary shop, exhibitions etc.)
  • The set up and participation of Educative Activities on the correct use of their  products, against the wasting of resources and raw materials, on the ethicality of  the origin of the raw materials etc. (see the campagne against COOP’s bottled water)
  • Adhesion to shared pricing policies, range of products at controller prices (see  “il pane a 1€/Kg di COOP” –bread at one Euro per kilo at COOP)
  • Communication and reporting of the activities aimed at the public and the clients through institutional channels and social reports).

5) Social community

A) The influence the stakeholder has on the company         
(horizontal axis: is considered influential/not influential on the company)

1. The application of CSR policies to social initiatives in favour of the community where the company is situated.
2. The attention the company pays to its social engagement.
3. The entrepreneur’s direct/personal participation in social initiatives.
4. Consideration of the company in terms of social community (may it consider itself the “best in class/leader “, a “follower“, does it follow and reproduce others’ best practice, is it “indifferent”, the “worst“, is there a person responsible for social initiatives in the community?).
5. The attention the company pays to the social impact of the economic company planning.
6. Managerial capacity, through the implementation of crisis management of the tension associated to this stakeholder.
7. In the recent past, has this company had particular tension with this stakeholder? The legend below shows how to assign a score to this question:

> 7 crisis in the last 5 years	-2.00
Between 4 and 7 crisis in the last 5 years	-1.00
Between 2 and 3 crisis in the last 5 years	0
1 crisis in the last 5 years	1.00
No crisis in the last 5 years	2.00

B) The influence the company has on the stakeholder          
(vertical axis: the stakeholder is influenced by the company/ in not influenced

• Donations and gifts in favour of organisations and social initiatives.
• Support of cultural activites.
• Support of sports events and/or recreation activities.
• Support of activities that deal with defending human rights (political rights, exploitation of child labour, making a stand against prostitution ….).
• Support for programmes/activities that deal with environmental issues.
• Support for initiatives that involve international cooperation.
• Support for initiatives aimed at assistance for less-abled persons, the sick, the poor, persons confined to prisons, sober housing, community homes for persons addicted to drugs  etc and other less advantaged subjects.
• Support for research programmes (cancer, rare diseases etc.…).
• Institutions for grants/awards.
• Support for projects aimed at student collaboration with schools and/or institutes.
• Support (also in the form of partnership) of complementary professional training programmes or participation in support initiatives for their specific production sector.
• Participation in territorial projects aimed at increasing occupation and the economic, social and cultural development of their own referent community.
• Corporate voluntary activities.
• Monetary donations, or donations in the form of machinery/equipment/ new or used products and excess production
• Making the premises, equipment or material available for use free of charge.
• Direct employee participation in social initiatives.
• Promotion campaigns for products/services in support of a social cause (Cause- related marketing).

C) Stakeholder engagement       
(The influence the stakeholder has on the company  – partially – and colour dimensions: cataloguing of the crisis profile)

• The presence of guidelines covering provisions for the social budget.
• The publication of guidelines covering persons applying for economic support.
• The publication of periodic open and closed-term announcements for competitions.
• The reporting of projects sustained.
• Diffusion and promotion of the results of the projects.
• Presentation of the best practice in the company’s social report and/or other forms of reporting.
• Analysis instruments of the distribution of value annexed to the company’s business report.
• The convocation of focus groups, briefings of other forms of participation and sharing with the social reality

6) Public/journalistic/media opinion

A) The influence the stakeholder has on the company
(horizontal axis: the stakeholder influences the company/ does not influence the company)

1. Managerial capacity, through the implementation of crisis management of the tension associated to this stakeholder.

A2     In the recent past, has this company had particular tension with this stakeholder?           The legend below shows how to assign a score to this question:

> 7 crisis in the last 5 years	-2.00
Between 4 and 7 crisis in the last 5 years	-1.00
Between 2 and 3 crisis in the last 5 years	0
1 crisis in the last 5 years	1.00
No crisis in the last 5 years	2.00

A3   Presence in the media, number of publications  (quantitative and qualitative         analysis).

A4   How the company is considered non riflessivo  in terms of the quality of the          relationship it has with public opinion (may it consider itself  the “best in          class/leader “, a “follower“, does it follow and reproduce others’ best practice, is it “indifferent”, the “worst” does the company have a person to deal with public          opinion, journalists and the media? )^[16]

B) The influence the company has on the stakeholder          
(vertical axis: the company influences the stakeholder/does not influence the stakeholder).

B1     Degree of activity of the press office (indicate whether it is internal or external to the company).

B2     Degree of collaboration between the press office and the various company areas for external communications (indicate if dedicated lines are foreseen for communications: commercial, institutional, CSR activities etc.

B3     Company participation in conventions, seminars etc.  in the industrial sector.

B4     Company participation in conventions/seminars/ meetings on the evolution of corporate culture.

B5     The requests to cite the company in thesis, studies research etc.

B6     The company’s willingness to support researchers and students who wish to analyse case studies  on the company or its field of interest for  surveys, research, thesis and studies.

B7     Participation in exhibitions, fairs cultural events that do not necessarily have a promotional commercial target, but rather an “informative” cultural one.

B8     The sponsorship of the aforementioned events apart from participation in the preparation and dissemination of the contents.

B9     Social and environmental communications.

B10   Dialogues with consumer councils/associations.

B11   Periodic investigations into the clients’ requirements and level of customer satisfaction.

B12   The research and development of new products/services to meet the clients’ needs(capacity for renewal and continuous enhancement).

C) Stakeholder engagement       
(The influence the stakeholder has on the company – partially  – and colour dimensions: cataloguing of crisis profile)

C1     The company’s proactivity in the organisation of cultural events (seminars, studies, university courses, or at other institutions and cultural organisations) and support of “thinktank” activities in their pertinent sector.

C2     The presence of journalistic focus groups and/or opinion leaders in the implementation phase of communication strategies.

C3     Involving journalists in periodic “briefings” and other restricted relational activities.

C4     There being a crisis room on the company premises, focused on the management of communication crisis cases.

C5     Presence and training for use of the communicational crisis room.

C6     The frequent and periodic use of level “2.0” channels of communication in dialogues with the public opinion. (e.g. the company takes part in on line debates on blogs and forums etc.. on topics concerning them?)

C7     The adoption of other incentive policies to involve journalists and communicators.

C8     The Monitoring, evaluation and reporting of information activities.

C9     The presence of an editorial division in the company, or company divulging  activities.

C10   The reporting of these activities in the social report and/or other forms of reporting to the public.

7) The financial community

A) The influence the stakeholder has on the company          
(horizontal axis: the stakeholder influences the company/does not  influence the company)

A1     The timing and efficacy of current analysis of economical and financial reports.

A2     The solidity of the relationships with banks and creditors (present an annexed abstract on the analysis of the persons responsible for the report to the financial community, to the mandate and on the degree of autonomy these persons have).

A3     Reporting to the stakeholders, apart from the standard communications provided for in the company laws/rules/regulations

A4     Degree of participation in the stakeholders’ meetings.

A5     Degree of involvement and enrichment for the managers apart from the topics strictly of a statutory nature.

A6     The importance attributed to the company’s performance:  focus on the quarterly report, or on reaching medium-term objectives set in the industrial plan. An analysis of the managerial staff turn-over and the motivations for this issue.

A7     An analysis of the internal governance model.

A8     In the recent past, has this company had particular tension with this stakeholder? The legend below shows how to assign a score to this question:

> 7 crisis in the last 5 years	-2.00
Between 4 and 7 crisis in the last 5 years	-1.00
Between 2 and 3 crisis in the last 5 years	0
1 crisis in the last 5 years	1.00
No crisis in the last 5 years	2.00

A9 Managerial capacity, through the implementation of crisis management of the

      tension associated to this stakeholder.

B) The influence the company has on the stakeholder           (vertical axis: the company influences the stakeholder/does not influence the stakeholder).

B1     Public relations activities focued on the financial world.

B2     The timing and degree of emphasis reports on the company’s overall performance/trend and financial performance have.

B3     The degree of independence and objectivity those entrusted with the certification of financial statements have and other financial indicators.

B4     The adoption of cross-checking instruments.

B5     The predisposition the managerial staff have to the disclosure of their knowledge as to medium-term industrial plans.

B6     Respect for the milestones set out in the industrial plans: on the managerial side- and in respect of the financial community.

B7     The presence and dissemination of an ethical code, or map of corporate governance.

B8     Respect of the code of ethics/map of ethics of the corporate governance.

B9     The delegation of an external certifying body to verify the compliance to instruments.

B10   The presence of other instruments for information transparency as to the financial performance.

C) Stakeholder engagement       
(the influence the stakeholder has on the company – patially – and colour dimensions: cataloguing of the crisis profile)

C1     The presence of a crisis room and training in its use with focus on the trend of the financial indicators.

C2     The adoption of public relations policies with the financial world other than the standard communications provided for by laws in force.

C3     Periodic involvement of banks, investors, financial institutions and of control in meetings, briefing, release, focus…

C4     The sharing and discussing of short-term financial plans as well as medium-term industrial plans, with focus groups that are representative of the financial community. 

C5     The involvement of stakeholders, creditors, investors in periodic updating of the charter of ethics as to company governance.

C6     Verification of respect of the charter of ethics as to company governance.

C7     Degree of dissemination of economic/financial company reporting. (the budget is published on the company’s website, promoted through  advertising campaigns, is modified in a reduced and synthetic version for the general public, is presented and  explained in detail in ad hoc events, or on other occasions in meeting with sector-based operators? Indicate dissemination mode).

8) Institutions/ regulatory authorities

A) The influence the stakeholder has on the company          
(horizontal axis: the company is influenced by the stakeholder/ is not influenced)

A1     The company’s dependence on legislative actions in their referent industrial sector, or on special regulatory restrains particular (e.g. in the case of pharmaceutical or food sectors for consumer protection, or the import-export of environmentally “sensitive” materials, such as petroleum or uranium, or financial/insurance activities etc. with a strong presence of the appropriate control bodies at a national or international level).

A2     The presence of reforms, or other important legal/regulatory procedures in the last few years.

A3     Dependence of the industrial sector on any kind of “blocked market” (municipalized, collectivised sector, etc?)

A4     Liberalization or presence of any other structural interventions in the sector.

A5       Relevance, or prevalence of the company working with the public sector, supply of services and support products, or in conventions with the public sector (e.g. the levying of taxes and contributions, or the medical sector in conventions with the   National Health Service, or the granting of motorways or other infrastructures, etc.)

This analysis is carried out so as to understand to what degree the business continuity itself is subject to regulator/ legislative variables, with consequent influence of the  bodies charged with the  existence of the company.

A6     Managerial capacity, through the implementation of crisis management of the    

          tension associated to this stakeholder.

A7     Consideration of the company in terms of the quality of the relationship it has with this stakeholder (does it consider itself the best in the class/leader, follower, does it follow and reproduce others’ best practice, the worst, is there a person responsible for relationships with this stakeholder? )^[17]

A8     In the recent past, has this company had particular tension with this stakeholder? The legend below shows how to assign a score to this question:

> 7 crisis in the last 5 years	-2.00
Between 4 and 7 crisis in the last 5 years	-1.00
Between 2 and 3 crisis in the last 5 years	0
1 crisis in the last 5 years	100
No crisis in the last 5 years	200

B) The influence the company has on the stakeholder           (vertical axis: the stakeholder is influenced by the company/ not influenced).

B1     The company adoption of a dedicated institutional public relations line (indicate the person/s responsible for the relationships with the referent bodies).

B2     The adoption of a generic institutional public relations line towards the local and national political world.

B3     Internal management of these relationships (indicate whether or not it is managed with the support of PR agencies and specialised Lobbies.

B4     Participation in joint boards with institutions, or other sector-based actors, or in theindustrial sector.

B5  An active role in sector-based organisations, or employers, or in other types of business organisations.

B6     Participation in events, manifestations, studies, research and other activities  inherent to the culture of the company’s sector, with co-participation of the referent public entities.

B7     Medium term public relations activities in support of the claims made by the sector to the institutions.

B8     Internal company charter of ethics, which expressively forbids any hidden conditioning activities with politicians and/or institutional referent representatives.

B9     Internal company charter of ethics that imposes transparency criteria for any lobbying activities.

B10   Activities that stimulate involvement, periodic briefing, participation in television programmes or any other public debates on involvement.

C) Stakeholder engagement       
(The influence the stakeholder has on the company – biased-and the colour dimension: the cataloguing of the crisis profile)

C1     Participation in activities involving proposals of legislative reforms in the sector.

C2     Participation in interinstitutional boards with discussions sectorial legalisation.

C3     Activities aimed at the sensibilisation of the public (on media) as to the regulatory requirements of the sector.

C4     Active support (including sponsorships) of consumer associations implementing initiatives in the referent industrial sector.

C5     Reporting of the activities of lobbying, to the community and media and the listing of these activities listed in the social report.

9) Category associations / competitors

A) The influence the stakeholder has on the company          (horizontal axis : the stakeholder influences/does not influence the company)

A1     The company being subscribed to category employer associations.

A2     The company being subscribed to sector-based category associations.

A3     The relevance associations/competitors’ capacity for technical/process innovations has had in the recent past on the sector.

A4     The relevance associations/competitors’ capacity of innovative rules/regulations or processes have had on the sector in the recent past.

A5     The ease of relationships with referent competitors (or have there been recent he cases of open conflict or mediatic “clashes” on particular issues?).

A6     A comparative analysis of the reputational profile of the company brand with its main competitors.

A7     Frequency of surveys and monitoring activities in the sector and the early detection of new trends/innovations that may be taken advantage of, or that are being promoted by unusual competitors (see for example the advent of  “low cost” air travel ).

A8     Managerial capacity, through the implementation of crisis management of the tension associated to this stakeholder.

A9     In the recent past, has this company had particular tension with this stakeholder? The legend below shows how to assign a score to this question:

> 7 crisis in the last 5 years	-2.00
Between 4 and 7 crisis in the last 5 years	-1.00
Between 2 and 3 crisis in the last 5 years	0
1 crisis in the last five years	1.00
No crisis in the last 5 years	2.00

B) The influence the company has on the stakeholder           (vertical axis: the stakeholder is influenced by the company/is not influenced).

B1     The company takes an active part in employer and sectorial associations’ initiatives.

B2     How seats in representative or executive roles are assigned.

B3     The adpotion of joint lobby policies and activities with sectorial associations.

B4     The presence of joint informative activities and those aimed at the sensibilisation of the public – on specific sectorial issues – with sector-bases associations and/or competitors.

B5     The presence of joint activities in collaboration with universities and/or research institutions focused on the technical development of the sector. 

B6     The presence of dedicated persons for the co-ordination and linking activities with competitors.

C) Stakeholder engagement       
(The influence the stakeholder has on the company – biased– and colour dimension cataloguing of the crisis profile)

C1   Focus group or audit activities, consultancies etc. for the evaluation of joint communication strategies as to lobbying, or the implementation of product processes in the sector

C2     The activity of  “return” or sharing of the progress made in the area of research and development, in favour of the community of  professionals and competitors.

C3     The adoption of disclosure policies or anticipation of market releases.

10) Territory

A) The influence the stakeholder has on the company
(horizontal axis : the company is influenced by the stakeholder/ is not influenced).

A1     In the recent past, has this company had particular tension with this stakeholder? The legend below shows how to assign a score to this question:

> 7 crisis in the last 5 years	-2.00
Between 4 and 7 crisis in the last 5 years	-1.00
Between 2 and 3 crisis in the last 5 years	0
1 crisis in the last 5 years	1.00
No crisi in the last 5 years	2.00

A2     How the company is considered in the referent community.

A3     Managerial capacity, through the implementation of crisis management of the tension associated to this stakeholder.

A4     How the company is considered in terms of quality of relationships with this stakeholder (is it considered the best in class/leader, follower, does it follow and reproduce others’ best  practice, the worst, is there a person responsible for public relations with this stakeholder present in the company?)^[18]

 B) The influence the company has on the stakeholder         
(vertical axis: the stakeholder is influenced by the company/is not influenced).

B1     The presence of a unit responsible for dealings with media relationships dedicated to local realities (local media or those in the neighbourhood, local institutions etc…)

B2     The presence of person/s within the company encharged with local relationships both on the territory where the company itself is located and the territories belonging to its branches.

B3     Sponsorships or other forms of company participation in cultural, sports, folklore events etc…held in the area where the company is located.

B4     The concession and/or sharing of spaces and/or company resources  for manifestations or initiatives promoted by the territory (e.g. concerts, courses, training events, conventions etc….)

B5     The promotion of Special Days “open to all” where the company meets with the local people and makes itself known through permitting them to enter inside the company and visit it.

B6     The willingness to provide for guided school visits and other forms of education for the younger members of the general public.

B7     Collaboration (sponsorship) with health-care, educational, cultural institutions etc…in the area where the company is situated.

C) Stakeholder engagement       
(The influence the stakeholder has on the company – biased – and colour dimension: cataloguing of the crisis profile)

C1     The willingness shown towards meetings with local representatives, local  associations, administrators, citizen associations?

C2     Focus groups for the disclosure and/or participatory discussions on industrial plans, development, etc…

C3     The company’s participation in local development plans or other forms of investment on the territory.

C4     Participation in comparison boards for shared planning with local administrators, or the promotion of such should they not be foreseen.

C5     Reporting of the public relations activities on the social report.

C6     Dissemination of the social report at a local level.

11) Intermediaries / correspondents / retailers

A) The influence the  stakeholder has on the company         
(horizontal axis: the company is influenced by the stakeholder/ is not influenced)

A1     The importance the company places on the stakeholder on the basis of thorough auditing of the marketing department, or other sectors involved in direct relationships with this  stakeholder.

A2     In the recent past, has this company had particular tension with this stakeholder? The legend below shows how to assign a score to this question:

> 7 crisis in the last  5 years	-2.00
Between 4 and 7 crisis in the last 5 years	-1.00
Between 2 and 3 crisis in the last 5 years	0
1 crisis in the last 5 years	1.00
No crisis in the last 5 years	2.00

A3     The preponderance of suppliers the company is a Primary, main, priority client for, or in any case, relevant in terms of percentage in their turnover.

A4     The solidity of the relationship with strategic retailers (starting from audits on the company report, how long there has been a relationship with them and the quality of this relationship, annex documentation of this reference).

A5     Managerial capacity, through the implementation of crisis management of the tension associated to this stakeholder. 

A6     Consideration of the company in terms of their relationship with this stakeholder (is it considered the best in class/leader, follower, does it follow and reproduce others’ best practice, the worst, is there a person in the company entrusted with relationships with this stakeholder?)^[19]

B) The influence the company has on the stakeholder          
(vertical axis : the stakeholder is influenced by the company/ is not influenced).

B1        Is there adoption of pricing policies that respect the small retailers (taking into particular consideration those that are strategic for geographical reasons, or those that have a particular quality approach- or are these “cannibalised” and “bypassed” in favour of the large stores, which, however, guarantee large volumes in terms of sales?

B2        The presence of forms of safeguarding for small retailers.

B3        The implementation of selection and management policies for retailers.

B4        Trasparency in contract criteria.

B5        Respect for the terms of payment.

B6        The application of the criteria laid out in the company’s code of ethics also to etailers.

B7        Promotional activities also in support of the retailers.

B8        “Below the line” (BTL) communication (i.e. communications that make use of use of more niche focused media).

B9        Awards and incentives, based, not only on sales volume, but also on qualitative aspects.

C) Stakeholder engagement       
(The influence the stakeholder has on the company – biased – and colour dimension: cataloguing of the crisis)

C1       Active participation in Brand promotion activities, in the Brand community, at events etc…..

C2       Consultancy services to implement the ethical and qualitative profile.

C3       Credit facilities or other financial facilities for retailers in temporary difficulty.

C4       Corporate sharing /co-branding/other forms of horizontal integration (including strategic and corporate strategies) with retailers and distributors.

C5       Other forms of partnership (e.g. joint design or other co-owned brand products, innovation and development, shared informatic platforms etc.)

C6       The degree of particiapation development ininnovations within the company through the analysis of the policies governing sharing and the management of patent protection (licensing, etc.): starting from the definition of the “low” score, indicate on the form on page, if profit arises from this participation.

C7       Joint participation in fares, conventions in the industrial sector etc…

C8       Meetings, focus groups and other moments of shared strategies and comparison that are not strictly “product oriented”.

C9       Joint initiatives for the engagement of their respective employees (training, company voluntary work  etc.).

C10     The predisposition for privileged “release” in the company reports (economic, market and social) for key retailers.

C11     The publication of the reporting/certification of the best practice associated to this stakeholder in the social report.

The author (brief biography)

Luca Poma was born in Torino, Italy on 16^th February,1972. After fulfilling his high school studies he continued his education specialising in communication techniques and public and institutional relations. As from the year 1994, he has been entrusted with collaboration roles with public entities and intuitions, at local, regional and national  levels, which can be read in detail in his social C.V. available on internet.  As from the year 1997, he has been collaborating with a British consultancy company, covering a pubic affairs role that entails the guidance/management of a work team with missions in the USA, Benin, Jordan, India, Switzerland, France, Germany, Great Britain, Brittany, Luxembourg, Monaco, Kenya, Brazil, Morocco, Tanzania, Malaysia, Uruguay, Argentina, Russia, Romania, Hungary, China, Taiwan and the United Arab Emirates. 

He is an official member of the Italian association of journalists (registration number 115319). He is a member of the Italian federation of public relations (FERPI – Federazione Relazioni Pubbliche ed Istituzionali) in the section “Professional persons”   (“Professionisti” ) with registration number 02159. He is a member of the “Club Comunicazione d’Impresa” dell’Unione Industriale di Torino” (Company Commincations- Industrial Union, Turin). He teaches communications in the health sector at the 1st level Masters Degree course in Health Systems at the Bicocca University, Milan and has been professor and speaker at about one hundred conferences and seminars throughout Italy, has published over one hundred articles and essays – including the innovative “Reti Neurali Complesse” – and, over the last five years, has released more than two hundred and fifty interviews through the media, both on television and for newspapers/journals. The on-line encyclopaedia, Wikipedia has listed him in a section named “Giornalisti italiani del XXI Secolo” (XXI century Italian journalists under the letter “P”). He has created and set up an innovative unpublished model of stakeholder mapping and constantly innovates in his field of work: he has theorized the application of game theory to public relations, as well as that of fuzzy logic and fuzzy sets to biological psychology to corporate social responsibility and the theory of entropy to crisis communication.

He has created and promoted the most visible campaign for paediatric pharmacovigilance in Europe (www.giulemanidaibambini.org) as well as being responsible for coordinating relationships between the one hundred and ninety consortium boards and has been encharged with the role of National Spokesperson – of media relations and public institutions. His commitment and dedication  to the service of safeguarding childhood earned him and his association “Giù le Mani dai Bambini”® (Hands off the Children ®) a prestigious national award, the Italian Senate Siler Medal, awarded by the President of the Italian Republic for social merits on November 20, 2007 at the United Nations Children’s Day. He contributed to the strategic planning of communications in Italy of the World March for Peace (http://www.marciamondiale.org/), an initiative aimed at enhancing awareness of non-violence, that wound its way for160,000 kilometres, through 90 countries worldwide.  His work has been the subject of study in 5 Italian universities, where theses have been discussed on his work and strategies on public affairs. He is a specialist in communication strategies, negotiations and the manipulation of consent.

Short bibliography

The works cited in the chapters of this essay entitled “Le reti neurali complesse” are “A logical calculus of the ideas immanent in nervous activity” (W. S. Mc Culloch and W. Pitts, realy ‘40s), “The organization of behavior” (D. O. Hebb, late ‘40s) and “Phychological review” (F. Rosenblatt, late ’50s).

Here is some brief bibliography on these questions:

• Fabbri, Giampiero e Orsini, Raimondello – “Reti neurali per le scienze economiche”, Franco Muzzio editore
  • Floreano D. e Mattiussi C. – “Manuale sulle reti neurali”, Bologna, Il Mulino
  • Gerla, Giangiacomo – “Logica fuzzy e paradossi”, Lettera Matematica Pristem
  • Gerla, Giangiacomo – “Fuzzy logic: mathematical tools for approximate reasoning”, Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers
  • Guanrong, Chen e Trung, Tat Pham – “Introduction to Fuzzy Sets, Fuzzy Logic, and Fuzzy Control systems”, Lincoln, CRC Press
  • Hájek, Peter – “Mathematics of Fuzzy logic”, Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers
  • Hans-Jurgen Zimmermann, “Fuzzy Set theory and its applications”, Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers
  • Jiri Klir, Gorge, Ute Saint Clair, Yuan, Bo – “Set Theory foundations and applications”, Upper Saddle River (New Jersey), Prentice Hall
  • Jiri Klir, Gorge, e Yuan, Bo – “Fuzzy Sets and Fuzzy Logic – Theory and Applications”, Upper Saddle River (New Jersey), Prentice Hall
  • Kosko, Bart – “Il fuzzy-pensiero. Teoria e applicazioni della logica fuzzy”, Baldini & Castoldi, 2002
  • Kosko, Bart e Satoru Isaka – “Logica sfumata”, Le Scienze
  • Leonardo, Roberto, Cignoli, Oscar e Mundici, Daniele – “Algebric Foundations of Many-valued Reasoning”, Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers
  • Mendel, Jerry – “Uncertain rule-based Fuzzy logic systems: introduction and new directions”, Upper Saddle River, Prentice Hall (New Jersey)
  • Mendelson, Elliott – “Introduzione alla logica matematica”, Torino, Bollati Boringhieri
  • Meraviglia C. – “Le reti neurali nella ricerca sociale”, Bologna, Il Mulino
  • Patarnello S. – “Le reti neuronali”, Franco Angeli
  • Pessa E. – “Statistica con le reti neurali”, Roma, Di Renzo Editore
  • Poma, L. – “Human Social Responsibility: una nuova prospettiva per la CSR. I rapporti della Corporate Social Responsibility con le neuroscienze e la biopsicologia”, Ferpi News, dicembre 2010
  • Poma, L. – “Teoria dell entropia’: comunicazione di crisi e rapporti con la CSR”, Ferpi News, gennaio 2011
  • Russo, Marco e Lakhmi, Jain – “Fuzzy learning and applications”, Boca Raton, CRC Press
  • Ross, Timothy – “Fuzzy Logic with engineering applications”, Chichester (Regno Unito), John Wiley & Sons
  • Wikipedia Free Enciclopedia on-line – “Fuzzy Logic” (UK) e “Reti neurali” (IT)
  • Zadeh, Lotfi Asker – “Fuzzy algorithms information and control” e “Fuzzy sets information and control”

---

^[1] This work was released with the licence Creative Commons Attribution- Non Commercial 3.0 Unported.

If you wish to read a copy of the licence, please visit the web site http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/, or send a written request to Creative Commons, 171 Second Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, California, 94105, USA

² I describe this concept in more detail in a paper published by Ferpi, in the 1st number of “I quaderni delle RP”, entitled  “Siamo tutti stakeholder…ma…? “, (we are all stakeholders…but?) along with an adequate bibliography to support these thesis.

^[3] This concept is developed in the essay “Teoria dell entropia’: comunicazione di crisi e rapporti con la CSR”, published in Ferpi News in January, 2011 and e reiterates the relationship of “dependance”  that ties Crisis Management and Crisis Communication to CSR

^[4]  You can see an example of a  stakeholder’s map  published in  GUNA S.p.a.’s social report  at URL www.guna.it/bilanciosociale2009, page 20 onwards.

^[5] The method I discuss in this article was subject of a thesis in the Master course held at the SDA Bocconi “Gestione dell’impresa sociale, non-profit e cooperativa”(December 2010), the thesis is signed by the candidate Francesca Delpiano, who also made an active contribution on my staff working with Luca Yuri Toselli in perfecting the method herein described -and I should like to take this opportunity to thank her.

^[6]  This outline takes as examples, only the first 5 stakeholders for whom, initially- in the project phase of the method- checklists were elaborated. 

^[7] the classification of the a classification of the development phases has been taken from  “Fasi dell’apprendimento conoscitivo – Manuale dello stakeholder Engagement” – Vol.2, Accountability – United Nations Environment Program, Stakeholder Research Associates (2005).

^[8] The license offers the possibility to use the “protected” body of knowledge without the need for any previous authorisation, in as much as it is not profit orientated, neither direct, nor indirect, the only obligation is that of always quoting the original source and further enrichment in terms of shared knowledge.

^[9] You may get in touch with me if you wish, at my e-mail lucapoma@lucapoma.info or staff@lucapoma.info

^[10] One of the “fathers” of Italian PR , Past-President of the Italian Federation of Public Relations, expert in International public relations, Past President of the Global Alliance for Public Relations and Communication Management and currently special advisor to the President, Professor of  Global Relations and Intercultural Communication at New York University and Professor of Public Relations at the  LUMSA university of  Rome.

^[11] Guna S.p.A., Social Report for 2010 (in the sharing phase, closure is planned at the end of June 2011) at the address www.guna.it/letueidee and social report, 2011 (it will be in the sharing phase as from early July, 2011) at www.guna.it/webcam

^[12] For this question the parameters relevant to the GRI may be used, along with an analysis of the company press releases, press reviews of the relevant sector, participation in conferences and seminars, awards etc..

^[13] For this question the parameters relevant to the GRI may be used, along with an analysis of the company press releases, press reviews of the relevant sector, participation in conferences and seminars, awards etc..

^[14] For this question the parameters relevant to the GRI may be used, along with an analysis of the company press releases, press reviews of the relevant sector, participation in conferences and seminars, awards etc..

^[15] For this question the parameters relevant to the GRI may be used, along with an analysis of the company press releases, press reviews of the relevant sector, participation in conferences and seminars, awards etc..

^[16] For this question the parameters relevant to the GRI may be used, along with an analysis of the company press releases, press reviews of the relevant sector, participation in conferences and seminars, awards etc..

^[17] For this question the parameters relevant to the GRI may be used, along with an analysis of the company press releases, press reviews of the relevant sector, participation in conferences and seminars, awards etc..

^[18] For this question the parameters relevant to the GRI may be used, along with an analysis of the company press releases, press reviews of the relevant sector, participation in conferences and seminars, awards etc..

^[19] For this question the parameters relevant to the GRI may be used, along with an analysis of the company press releases, press reviews of the relevant sector, participation in conferences and seminars, awards etc..