Like no other event, the annual World Economic Forum in Davos provides us with a compelling reminder of how the language of public relations has well and truly penetrated the boardroom. The importance of trust, the requirement for authenticity, the need to marry profit and purpose — these are all issues that effectively form core elements of the Davos agenda. This year, for example, it is income equality that appears set to concentrate the minds of the superelite, who have identified it as the most pressing threat to the global economy. As WEF founder Klaus Schwab argued last week, uninclusive growth is not sustainable. The title of this year’s Forum, meanwhile, is “The Reshaping of the World: Consequences for Society, Politics and Business.” It is the kind of phrase that will ring true with public relations people, or at least those who are aware of the need to balance multiple stakeholder expectations, rather than focusing on profit to the detriment of all else. So it is hardly surprising that Davos is now an increasingly necessary stop on the global treadmill for senior comms heads and global agency CEOs. A couple of years ago, we analysed this trend in some detail, asking whether Davos simply represents an exercise in spin—an attempt to deflect criticism and deter regulation during the one week of the year when business leaders profess to care about anything other than profit. That kind of argument is not an uncommon one, but is sharply contested by the public relations people who make the Davos pilgrimage. If nothing else, the WEF affords them an opportunity to position their work as central to corporate behavior, rather than as another trivial marketing tactic. In that context, the Forum’s agenda is not the only draw; the opportunity to build relationships with business and political leaders can only help the industry’s efforts to build stronger boardroom credibility.

1. Updates from the
World Economic
Forum 2014

2. In 2014, The Holmes Report, in association with MSLGROUP, created
a microsite called Engaging Davos (davos.holmesreport.com) that
included real-time editorial content written by Arun Sudhaman,
editor-in-chief, and partner content provided by MSLGROUP. We are
pleased to provide you a reprint of much of the content that was posted.
About Holmes Report
The Holmes Group is dedicated to proving and improving the value of
public relations, by providing insight, knowledge and recognition to
public relations professionals.
The Holmes Group was founded in 2000 by Paul Holmes,
Editor-in-Chief and CEO, who has more than two decades of experience
writing about and evaluating the public relations business and
consulting with both public relations firms and their clients.
The Holmes Group delivers against its mission by providing the
most sophisticated reporting and analysis on public relations trends
and issues.
www.holmesreport.com
@holmesreport
www.facebook.com/holmesreport
About MSLGROUP
MSLGROUP is Publicis Groupe’s strategic communications and
engagement group, advisors in all aspects of communication strategy:
from consumer PR to financial communications, from public affairs
to reputation management, and from crisis communications to
experiential marketing and events. With more than 3,500 people
across close to 100 offices worldwide, MSLGROUP is also the largest
PR network in Europe, fast-growing China, and India. The group offers
strategic planning and counsel, insight-guided thinking and big,
compelling ideas – followed by thorough execution.
www.mslgroup.com/@msl_group
www.facebook.com/MSLGROUP
@msl_group

3. Engaging Davos:
The PR perspective
By Arun Sudhaman
Like no other event, the annual World Economic Forum in Davos
provides us with a compelling reminder of how the language of public
relations has well and truly penetrated the boardroom.
The importance of trust, the requirement for authenticity, the need to
marry profit and purpose — these are all issues that effectively form
core elements of the Davos agenda. This year, for example, it is income
equality that appears set to concentrate the minds of the superelite, who have identified it as the most pressing threat to the global
economy.
As WEF founder Klaus Schwab argued last week, uninclusive growth
is not sustainable. The title of this year’s Forum, meanwhile, is
“The Reshaping of the World: Consequences for Society, Politics
and Business.” It is the kind of phrase that will ring true with public
relations people, or at least those who are aware of the need to balance
multiple stakeholder expectations, rather than focusing on profit to the
detriment of all else.
3

4. So it is hardly surprising that Davos is now an increasingly necessary stop
on the global treadmill for senior comms heads and global agency CEOs. A
couple of years ago, we analysed this trend in some detail, asking whether
Davos simply represents an exercise in spin—an attempt to deflect criticism
and deter regulation during the one week of the year when business leaders
profess to care about anything other than profit.
That kind of argument is not an uncommon one, but is sharply contested
by the public relations people who make the Davos pilgrimage. If nothing
else, the WEF affords them an opportunity to position their work as central
to corporate behavior, rather than as another trivial marketing tactic. In
that context, the Forum’s agenda is not the only draw; the opportunity to
build relationships with business and political leaders can only help the
industry’s efforts to build stronger boardroom credibility.
To investigate all of this and more, I will be reporting live from Davos
this week for the Holmes Report, in conjunction with MSLGROUP. We’re
hopeful you find the coverage illuminating and helpful. As always, we look
forward to your participation and insight.
4

5. The comms
world at Davos
By Arun Sudhaman
So which PR industry bigwigs have actually made the pilgrimage up
the magic mountain this year?
Thanks to an excellent attendee list from Quartz, I did a little
research. The results are below, and reveal the preponderance of chief
communications officers and corporate relations directors. That is
unsurprising, given the close links between such executives and the
CEOs that they work for. In terms of companies, the usual suspects
are represented along with many major companies from emerging
markets.
5

6. The agency world, meanwhile, is certainly better represented than it once
was — drawn, no doubt, by the plentiful networking opportunities and, for
some, actual participation in the Forum agenda. Unfortunately, though,
in keeping with one of the criticisms of this year’s Davos turnout, agency
representation is dominated by men. Thankfully, there are a few more
women among the in-house ranks, although still not enough.
Here’s my working list. Do let me know if I’ve left you off.
In-house
Clyde C. Tuggle
Senior Vice-President, Global Public
Affairs and Communications, The
Coca-Cola Company
Carlos Lopez Blanco
Global Head, Public and Corporate
Affairs, Telefonica SA
Enrico Manaresi
Global Director, Communications and
Media Relations, Technogym SPA
Simon Sproule
Director, Marketing and
Communications, Renault-Nissan
Alliance
Mette Fossum Beyer
Director, Global Communications,
Government and Corporate Social
Responsibility, The Reitan Group
Mike Davies
Director, Global Communications,
PwC
John Murray
Group Communications Director,
Prudential Plc
Håkon Mageli
Executive Vice-President, Corporate
Communications and Corporate
Affairs, Orkla ASA
Manuel Kohnstamm
Senior Vice-President and Chief
Policy Officer, Liber
6
Michael Prescott
Director, Corporate Affairs, BT Group
Plc
Karin Schlautmann
Executive Vice-President, Corporate
Communications, Public Affairs
and Marketing and Member of the
Group Management Committee,
Bertelsmann SE & Co. KGaA
Pradipta Bagchi
Vice-President and Global Head,
Communications, Tata Consultancy
Services Ltd
Andrey Shtorkh
Member of the Executive
Board, Director for Strategic
Communications, Renova Group
Asif Saleh
Senior Director, Strategy,
Communications and Capacity, BRAC
Libby Archell
Chief Communications Officer, Alcoa
Inc.
Dan Bartlett
Executive Vice-President, Corporate
Affairs, Wal-Mart Stores Inc.
William Sheedy
Global Executive, Corporate Strategy,
M&A, Government Relations, Visa Inc.
Senior Vice-President and Chief
Sustainability, Investor Relations and
Corporate Communication Officer,
IHS

7. Dina H. Powell
President, Goldman Sachs
Foundation; Global Head, Corporate
Engagement, Goldman Sachs
Morten Albaek
Group Senior Vice-President, Global
MarCom and Corporate Relations,
Vestas Wind Systems A/S
Catherine May
Director, Corporate Affairs, SABMiller
Plc
Lise Kingo
Executive Vice-President, Corporate
Relations, Novo Nordisk A/S
Ian Wright
Corporate Relations Director, Diageo
Plc
Niklas Gustavsson
Executive Vice-President, Corporate
Public and Environmental Affairs, AB
Volvo
Paul de Lara
Head of PR, Europe, Infosys
Elinor Steele
Vice President, Global
Communications & Women’s
Initiatives, Tupperware
AGENCY
Christopher Graves
Global Chief Executive Officer, Ogilvy
Public Relations Worldwide
Richard W. Edelman
President and Chief Executive Officer,
Edelman
Michael Stewart
President and Chief Executive Officer,
Europe and CIS, Edelman
Jack B. Dunn
President and Chief Executive Officer,
FTI Consulting Inc.
Mark Malloch-Brown
Chairman, Europe, Middle East and
Africa, FTI Consulting
Barri Rafferty
Senior Partner and Chief Executive
Officer, North America, Ketchum Inc.
Olivier Fleurot
CEO, MSLGROUP
Jack Modzelewski
President, Americas,
FleishmanHillard
Malcolm Gooderham
Managing partner, TLG
Kathy Bloomgarden
CEO, Ruder Finn
Margery Kraus
Founder and CEO, APCO
Rob Flaherty
CEO, Ketchum
7

8. Nissan’s Sproule:
“Reviving the auto industry
reputation”
Simon Sproule, director of marketing and communications at the
Renault-Nissan Alliance, discusses how technology has helped the
automotive industry rebuild a battered reputation.
8

9. Comments from Simon Sproule made on video to Arun Sudhaman
What we are seeing with the auto industry today, is an industry that is
getting ahead of reputational issues and starting to set its own agenda. In
the past, the industry has been a relatively soft or easy target for things like
legislation, emissions and so forth. And if we look at where we are now as
an industry, technology and the three technology pillars of EV, connected,
and autonomous, just in the last one year or two, have really risen to public
consciousness in a way that’s starting to get people to see the auto industry
as a powerful agent for positive change.
And we are coming up with mobility solutions, as opposed to just producing
cars and trucks.
So what we are seeing now is that the legislatives, governments, consumers,
other companies, and Google with its investments in autonomous vehicles,
are coming to the auto industry because we have got a product that is going
to still be very relevant in the short and long term. And what’s interesting is
that the technology is driving mobility in very different ways.
So I think it’s a great time for the auto industry. There is going to be basic
growth in our business. With 81 million units this year, we should be at 100
million units globally by 2020, which will create employment and wealth in
emerging markets where we put manufacturing facilities. But in addition to
that, we are coming up with very real and very pragmatic solutions to some
very serious mobility challenges. So it’s a really exciting time to be in auto
business.
9

10. Mahindra president:
“You can’t delegate your
reputation”
By Arun Sudhaman
Rajeev Dubey is president of group HR, corporate services and the
aftermarket sector at Mahindra Group, the $16B Indian conglomerate
that launched a new corporate brand in 2011 to try and unify its image
across various industries. Along the way, Mahindra has garnered a
reputation for good corporate behavior, led by high-profile CEO Anand
Mahindra.
Dubey sat down with the Holmes Report at the World Economic Forum
to discuss why reputation is a such a critical element of Mahindra’s
business strategy, and how strong leadership is crucial in this regard.
He also warned companies of the perils of cutting corners in order to
chase short-term gains, noting that they should be prepared to “pay a
price” if they want to benefit from a strong long-term reputation.
10

11. How important is leadership to a company’s reputation?
No matter how you define leadership, it’s absolutely critical. The reputation
of a company depends on what the company is, what it does, how it
communicates what it does, and what it stands for to its constituents.
And, in all of these, leadership is absolutely critical, in first deciding who
we are, and then making sure that everyone in that organization and the
organization as a whole, behaves and lives out what we say we are. And
thirdly, in communicating. Whichever way you want to look at it, leadership
is absolutely critical. Now, is it sufficient? I’d say no, because you also need
processes and systems and metrics to make what we say we are comes
alive. So you need something beyond leadership to convert a dream and a
vision into reality. But leadership is absolutely necessary.
I’ve been in the corporate world now for 39 years. There was a stage when
I thought it was processes and systems and metrics that mattered much
more and it doesn’t matter what kind of leadership you have. That was, of
course, a childish and silly thought that I had. Now, I’m totally clear. With the
same processes and systems and metrics, you can have absolutely different
cultures and behaviors, depending on what the leadership is.
What do you think are the traits of leaders who understand reputation
as an important intangible for the company, like you’ve just described?
The first is to be aware that this is so. And then to be alive and be clear as to
what decisions and what behaviors and what actions determine reputation.
Having done that, you walk the talk. Make sure you incentivize others in the
organization also.
In a lot of companies, it seems like reputation is delegated to the
communications department.
Communications is just one aspect. That is one part of the food chain.
First you have to be clear – who are we? Because that determines business
decisions, it determines who we are in everyday life. Then when you’re clear,
you have to a do a lot of internal – getting people on board and having a
lot of clarity. And then behaving that way, which is where processes and
structures and metrics come in. And then, the external communication.
So the external communication, in a sequence, comes at the end, and it
becomes a loop.
11

12. How important is a visible CEO? A lot of CEOs are quite low-profile.
Your company has a CEO who is very comfortable taking on that public
role.
I think there are many ways in which a CEO can behave. One is the
person who stands up front. We have a CEO who takes the lead in
some things, but he will empower much more than other CEOs. It’s a
choice. I think our CEO comes up front when it comes to defining the
philosophy, when it comes to defining the culture, defining the brand.
Then he delegates a huge amount. In fact if you ask me, two very
important pillars of the Mahindra culture—one is empowerment and the
second is respect for people. And then it is about sustained business
outperformance while showing extreme care for all stakeholders,
whether it is customers, suppliers, our own employees, even society.
But doing all this with clear focus on what our core values are. Whatever
we do nurtures and strengthens the core values of the group.
In some companies, the CEO is only there for two or three years.
Surely that must make it difficult to have that link between CEO and
reputation?
One could say that there are some organizations that already have a
very strong and powerful brand. The importance of the CEO in that
situation, versus a company where you are creating the brand — there
12

13. could be a difference. Different CEOs have different styles. I don’t think
there’s any style which is best. More than the style, it’s the substance of
what the CEO does.
YOu’ve talked a lot about values, vision and reputation. Do you think that
mindset is put under pressure by the focus on maximizing profit and on
quarterly reporting?
It used to be thought that the two are in conflict. But I think increasingly
now, while in the immediate short term there can sometimes be conflict,
I don’t think you’ll find anyone who will say that in the medium or long
term, there is a conflict between good solid business performance and
governance and values. The two support each other. If I had a choice, I
would certainly sacrifice short term gains for the longer term benefits
which values and reputation bring. I have been observing this very closely.
Losing out on your values, your reputation, and the brand has such severe
repercussions on your sustained business outcome. There is no question.
What kinds of repercussions?
So for example, if one value is quality. If you have any problems with quality,
even if it means recalling your product or admitting there’s a problem, you
have huge issues. Often times in India we have pressure to make shortcuts,
or to use different means of persuading government agencies who have
discretionary power. If you succumb to that once, then it becomes very
difficult to resist it in the future. There are some companies and groups who
have taken a stand. Once you’ve taken a stand then the other side knows
they can’t expect this behavior from you and then they don’t badger you too
much. But you have to pay a price, and you have be prepared to pay a price,
is the view I would take.
Some companies, caught in corruption scandals, would say that’s just the
price of doing business in a market. You have to behave as the environment
demands.
Well that’s one view. There is another view which says we can do good
business without necessarily resorting to things that are not acceptable to
us, to our value system. And we’re going to stick to our value system, and
still we’ll produce good results over the longer term.
13

14. Randi Zuckerberg:
“Davos should look to Silicon
Valley for inspiration”
Randi Zuckerberg discusses why business and political leaders need
to adopt a more disruptive Silicon Valley mindset if they hope to
genuinely usher in change. The former Facebook executive, who now
heads Zuckerberg Media, made the comments in an interview with the
Holmes Report at the World Economic Forum in Davos, adding that the
increasing acceptance of new technology companies at the event has
been “astounding.”
Comments from Randi Zuckerberg made on video to Arun Sudhaman
This is my fifth year coming to the World Economic Forum at Davos. It’s
been actually quite astounding to see the shift and how people have
viewed the tech industry and the role of tech leaders here at the forum.
In my first year, I came on behalf of Facebook, which was already
14

15. starting to grow very rapidly and expand. So we had some really powerful
meetings with world leaders, but the tone of the meetings was definitely,
“What is this new thing that’s happening?” “How can we understand
it?” Now five years later, you walk around Davos and tech is so central to
everything that’s going on here. The World Economic Forum has an official
tech pioneers program. Yesterday, I attended a hackathon for Walmart
and Pepsi on gathering minds from different industries and how they can
rethink the future of their business. And you see all of the best evening
events are thrown by the tech companies, so it is definitely a very shifting
tide.
The global leaders can really learn a lot from the tech industry and how
they think about their countries and their futures moving forward. The
ability to take risks, to think innovatively and disruptively, and to fail fast
is something that a lot of businesses could really learn from. It’s difficult
to take risks when you are a big corporate business with many employees
and shareholders, but you cannot afford to not take risks because there
are always other companies nipping at your heels. Especially in this global
economy. It is now easier than ever for a competitor in another country. That
being said, I do understand the challenges of political leaders. Sometimes
it’s not easy to just move fast and disrupt things because you also have
to take into account all of the feedback of your constituents. In the tech
industry it’s very easy to just say, “Oh! Let’s try something!” Whereas when
you are leading a country, there are very real concerns and problems that
need to be taken into account. There are unique challenges. But if global
leaders and business leaders look at tech industries for some of that
momentum, the fast speed of innovation, their constant desire to be moving
forward rather than resting on their laurels and letting their competitors
swoop in, there is a lot that we can do around the global economy.
In tech and business alike, there needs to be a focus on empowering and
educating women. That’s something that all businesses have in common
as a real, crucial need for the future. In tech, we desperately need to
be encouraging more women to learn to code and go into technology
entrepreneurship. Similarly, when you look at the fact that only 15% of the
delegates here are women, it’s also very crucial in all areas of the world to
be providing education, mentorship and guidance to young women.
15

16. Arianna Huffington:
“Business can be a force
for good”
Arianna Huffington believes that business must be a force for good if
it hopes to improve public trust. Speaking to the Holmes Report at the
2014 World Economic Forum in Davos, the Huffington Post chief also
notes that the media should do a better job of holding the corporate
world to account.
Comments from Arianna Huffington made on video to Arun Sudhaman
How business is doing is relevant to how government is doing. And
because government is doing so badly in terms of the public’s trust,
business is looking better. Even though people are still angry at what
happened during the financial crisis, a lot of businesses are actually
16

17. doing good things. Not just social responsibility but looking again at how
to integrate people and planet, and not just profit, into business decisions.
There is a long way to go, but certain good things have happened.
I moderated a panel today in which people from the CEO of Marriot
to Sherry Blair—who is not a business woman but she started her own
foundation to help women entrepreneurs—participated. You see also in the
ideas of wellness and healthcare, a lot of businesses bringing a better way
to take care of their employees.
35% of American corporations have integrated some form of mindfulness
program. So there are steps being taken, and business has a great
opportunity to be a force for good and an agent of solutions. Because when
you look to government for solutions, it’s often not a good outcome.
I think the media needs to do a better job both in holding business to
account in terms of things that have happened that are against public
interest, and also in putting a spotlight on the good things that business
is doing and what is working. Because a lot of what is working, if you put
a spotlight on it, can be replicated and become even more significant, in
terms of solving problems.
17

18. Tech companies should
boost data transparency,
says Salesforce CEO
By Arun Sudhaman
Technology companies should embrace greater transparency if they
want to stop being viewed as enemies of privacy, said Salesforce CEO
Marc Benioff today at the World Economic Forum in Davos.
Benioff made the comments at a Microsoft event which featured new
research from Penn Schoen Berland into how people around the world
view personal technology. The study, overseen by Microsoft advertising
and strategy VP Mark Penn, polled 10,000 people in 10 countries,
revealing that most see technology as a positive force for innovation,
economic growth and education.
The big negative, as Penn admits, is privacy. In the wake of numerous
revelations about snooping and surveillance, 47% said privacy was
the aspect of life most negatively impacted by technology, ahead of
18

19. personal safety/security (23%). In addition, developed countries are less
willing to trade privacy for enhanced national security. Most developing
countries are split on this issue; although in India, 80% believe it makes
sense to give up some privacy to protect national security.
The findings prompted Benioff to call on consumer technology companies
to enable users to know “everything” about how their data is handled. “Do
you know where your consumer email is?” asked Benioff. “These systems
are set up in a way where you can’t see.”
“Transparency is, fundamentally, the only way we are going to rebuild trust,”
added Benioff.
Fellow panelist Maurice Lèvy, the Publicis Groupe CEO, noted that
consumer concerns over privacy had to be taken seriously, particularly in
Europe where they are most pronounced. Lèvy pointed out that European
attitudes are often rooted in the experiences that many of the region’s
countries have had with totalitarian regimes. “It’s something which is
extremely important in those countries and you have to understand those
issues.”
SAP CEO Bill McDermott used analytics to illustrate how technology
companies can help enable greater transparency. As an example, he cited
Turkey, where tech tools have brought a new level of quality and feedback
into the education system.
While Lèvy noted that the “American dream has become a Silicon Valley
dream,” former US Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers warned that
stronger leadership is required to help ease the “difficult adjustment
period” caused by technological change.
Summers said that the technological revolution recalled the industrial
revolution, but noted that a similar level of leadership was lacking. “We
do not yet have the Gladstone, the Teddy Roosevelt or the Bismarck of the
technological era.”
Asked as to the kind of policies that would help ease technological
disruption, Summers offered an expansive take: “Some combination of
harnessing this technology to make public education far more efficacious
than it is today. Some means of taxation that achieves a level playing field
with less interference and more incentives. Some efficacious and affordable
apparatus for providing broader social protection at a no more prohibitive
cost than we have today.”
19

20. HSBC comms head:
“We need to be more careful
about reputation issues”
HSBC co-head of group communications Pierre Goad discusses the
banking industry’s response to its poor reputation, noting that some
banks are tackling issues much better than others. Speaking to the
Holmes Report in Davos, Goad also confronts the “conflict” at the
heart of the World Economic Forum, where the general public is
excluded from discussions about its problems.
20

21. Comments from Pierre Goad made on video to Arun Sudhaman
I think it is very difficult to generalize about all banks. It is a large group of
private and publicly owned companies now, spanning many different levels
of development with lots of different issues. The major international banks
are absolutely aware of the reputation issues that face the industry. We all
look at the same surveys; we all get the same feedback from clients, from
our own employees, from politicians and from regulators.
What has changed is that we are now starting to see a clearer differentiation
between different banks and different regulatory regimes. So in our case,
and I am biased because I work at HSBC, we are certainly very aware of
the reputation of the industry as a whole. But we are also very aware that
HSBC within the industry, just to use HSBC as an example, is developing a
different reputation than the general reputation.
For some of our peers in the industry, it might feel a bit different. But I think
what has changed, only over the last 18 months, is a clearer differentiation
between the major international banks. I don’t want to talk about
competitors, but it’s fairly clear that some people are still struggling with
reputational issues, while others have moved forward on managing actively,
in a way to try and improve whatever reputational damage was caused
during the financial crisis, and are also very conscious that in the future, we
all are going to need to be much more careful about reputational issues
early on. I think that is really interesting. And it’s not just something that has
affected banks; it has affected all corporations.
You have seen it with the most recent outburst of the concern over privacy
with the tech industry in the US. I don’t think that industry was prepared for
the controversy that was caused by Snowden, as an example. They are now
playing catch-up. That is where banks were 5 years ago, so in a way, people
might look at the banking sector as an example of how you have to deal with
very big issues; learn, move forward, and develop better tools for managing
reputation, because it’s only going to become a bigger part of what we do in
communications. And also, a bigger part of what CEOs do.
In the future, in any major organization - NGO, political organization,
government agency or a company, the CEO will spend 20-30 % of his or her
time dealing with reputation issues, broadly defined. That’s just the way the
world is.
There is a conflict at the heart of Davos. It’s been there since Davos began
20-30 years ago. I don’t know actually when the first Davos was held, but
21

22. certainly over the last 20 years, as Davos has become more and more
important, and more and more recognized as a gathering place; it has
become obvious to everybody who attends, that it’s a bit odd to have
everyone in a small Swiss ski resort, having meetings and discussions,
closed off from the rest of the world. But at the same time, where else could
you do this? I think that this is the conflict at the heart of Davos.
If you insist that none of the people who come here speak to each other,
that doesn’t sound like the right outcome. If you insist or expect that they do
talk to each other every once in a while, which does sound like a good idea,
where else would they do it?
Davos, by an accident of history, by the drive of the people behind the World
Economic Forum who started it so many years ago, has managed to create
this space in January, for people to get together, namely business leaders
and some politicians as well.
The value of Davos is actually in the informal conversations that people
can have in the corridors, over a cup of coffee. We all know, working in a
corporation or a government, it is actually very hard for people to find time
to just have a chat, working with very packed schedules.
I get the sense, and I haven’t been here year after year, that people who
come here are aware that they are in a privileged position. They are aware
that there is a much bigger world outside this small Swiss ski resort. So they
are not blind to how it looks to the rest of the world. But at the same time,
there is a real value in having people get together and just talk.
I have certainly heard from my colleagues here at HSBC, who have been
spending time on different panels and have been meeting with clients,
that there have been some really good discussions around regulations
in banking. As you would expect, because we are a bank, but also around
some of the other hot topics of the day, including privacy issues dealing with
technology.
My colleagues have been having conversations that they might not
otherwise have had, and you have to think that is a good thing.
22

23. Does Davos have a PR
problem?
By Arun Sudhaman
It is not hard to appreciate the irony of Davos. While the world’s superelite bemoans global income inequality during the day, at night it
splurges millions of dollars on ultra-exclusive parties.
Typically, public relations runs into problems because it focuses too
much on communication rather than behavior. At the World Economic
Forum, the opposite appears to be true. The sessions, for example,
demonstrate a considerable focus on corporate governance and policy,
or “walking the talk” in the current parlance.
But the world’s business leaders seem oblivious to the message that
Davos sends out to the rest of the world. For many outside the Davos
bubble, all of the “consensus-building” is viewed as empty posturing,
a one-week atonement session for sins committed throughout the rest
of the year.
Yet, if nothing else, Davos certainly affords a platform for conversation,
one that has proved particularly useful for the civil society
organizations that have proliferated at the event. Not everyone
likes to hear what some of these groups have to say — at least two
senior comms heads told me of their disbelief at the views they had
encountered.
23

24. But those views are often more representative of the “real world” than any
number of pronouncements from suited and snow-booted bankers. At the
very least, the presence of so many NGOs has added a dash of reality to
proceedings. At best, those organizations can credibly claim to be shaping,
or “reshaping” as the WEF would have it, business behavior for the better.
Given the event’s remarkable reach and profile, it can seem a little strange
to ask if Davos has a PR problem. The stats from WEF communications
director Adrian Monck are nothing if not beguiling: 31,641 online news
items, 2,570 TV spots, 906 videos, 195,417 tweets, 68% more coverage than
2013.
An army of journalists ensures that there is no lack of coverage. Neither is
there a dearth of PR firepower; the comms world has well and truly arrived
at Davos, led by corporate affairs heads and agency CEOs.
Nevertheless, most of these communications specialists admitted that
Davos does have, as Tata Consultancy Services Europe chief comms and
marketing officer Abhinav Kumar puts it, a “perception issue.”
“At the end of the day Davos is just a platform. The forum itself has no
executive power to implement the change discussed in it,” adds Kumar.
“That job rests squarely on the shoulders of the actors who are present here
and need to go back to their daily operations and walk what they have talked
on the snowy slopes.”
HSBC global comms co-head Pierre Goad believes that the event can
appear “odd” to the outside world, who are effectively excluded from
discussions about the world’s future. That dynamic, says Kumar, feeds the
“conspiracy theories and urban legends.”
“There are no secret meetings setting the agenda or secret decisions being
made on issues that concern us,” says Kumar.
The fact that Kumar needs to spell this out, though, says a lot. Perhaps a
little honesty would help the Davos reputation among the general public.
Yes, there is plenty of agenda-setting about the global issues that matter
most; but more of the WEF’s appeal stems from the ability to do business
and build relationships at the many fringe events that punctuate the week.
This is not exactly “reshaping the world,” but it is a crucial element of
business, made more palatable by the evident optimism from improving
economic sentiment. Ultimately, business leaders would probably benefit
from a more credible assessment of why they attend Davos. Now that would
really be “walking the talk.”
24

25. “Decline in print media has
helped Davos rise”
John Rossant explains why the decline in media influence explains
the rise of “thought leadership” events such as the World Economic
Forum in Davos. Rossant is chairman of Publicis Live, which has helped
produce the WEF for 19 years. Interview conducted by the Holmes
Report in Davos.
Comments from John Rossant made on video to Arun Sudhaman
We have seen over the last few years that thought leadership
events like Davos, and Davos is absolutely the world leader and
the granddaddy of these kinds of thought leadership events, have
become an essential element in the communications toolbox for many
companies. And we see a number of reasons as to why.
25

26. One is over the last 5 or 10 years, we have seen that the decline of the print
press, as the real authoritative medium through which companies can do
messaging and convey their messages. The print press has been really
declining, as we know, in Europe and United States, while it’s a little bit less
the case in the rest of the world. There has been a calling into question, of
just how authoritative, the voice of, let’s say The New York Times or Le Monde
or The Times of London is. I don’t feel they have quite the stature that they
did years ago.
At the same time, companies and CEOs come to Davos because they know
the world press is there, they know that whatever they say here will be
instantaneously transmitted to the global web audience.
The other thing is with the rise of our digital universe—in which we spend
so much of our daily lives in front of the screen and communicate virtually
so much of the time—actually meeting and communicating face to face in
a physical setting becomes much more important. And there is a premium
attached to that kind of communication interchange. So when CEOs come
to Davos, here in Davos, Abu Dhabi, Monaco or Aspen, for these kinds of
meetings, they meet each other and can transact business in a real-time
way. They can look at each other in the eye and there is no substitute for
actually, physically being in the same room and next to someone.
Tele-presence is great but it’s never going to substitute for actual physical
meetings. And another factor is that the big media groups—whether it’s
your Times, The Financial Times, The Economist, The Wall Street Journal—
are all moving into the thought leadership events space, because they
see that as a natural extension of what they do anyway, and that trend will
clearly intensify in the coming years.
So companies have to understand the event space much better; have
to deal with it and come up with good events strategy, and that’s very
important.
26

27. SPONSORED
CONTENT
The Role of Creative Content
in Global Problem-Solving
By Renee Wilson, President, North America, MSLGROUP
As communicators, we too often fail to think big enough about our craft.
The conversation happening this week at the World Economic Forum
Annual Meeting in Davos nudges us to think about the potential we hold in
our hands.
For way too long, the communications function has been dismissed as
having only a tactical purpose; its true value has often gone unrecognized
and untested.
But, in so many areas — from the income equality gap to conflicts around
the globe; from the spread of disease to the failure to recognize risk—many
of the world’s problems are compounded because of communication
failure between people. As communicators, we have the power to build
understanding of complicated issues and to root the emotional connections
between parties. In this, we have the power to contribute to solving some of
the world’s greatest problems and open locked doors to new discoveries.
27

28. The emphasis on content-centric communications over the course of the
last year has spotlighted our craft. Content has provided us communicators
with new opportunities for creativity. It has opened a locked box in which
we have been trapped for far too long and has unbound us from traditional
formats and methods. With such creative opportunities, we communicators
have what may be a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reinvent our craft.
As we work hard to create new forms for communicating, and before we fall
back into new boxes and methods, we need to really think about what we
are trying to do; build true understanding, establish conciliatory dialogue,
and create the means for people – if not to like each other – then at least to
get along through respect and understanding.
How can we do that? By simply going back to communication basics. We
need to build on the basic ways that people have communicated with each
other for thousands of years.
Listen
We need to tune into the real
conversation, understand it, and
start there.
Look
Visual imagery allows us to
peer into the eyes of another
and evoke emotions from joy
to anguish and from empathy
to disdain. Easy-to-understand
charts help us make sense
of complicated ideas and
breakthrough science, and
infographics give us a quick
snapshot of the changing world
around us.
Learn
The easy access to video and
audio in today’s content tool
kit allows us to learn from the
voices of others. Through their
powerful stories, we can build
deep understanding.
28
Share
Giving to another begets a
positive return and ignites the
modeling of a positive behavior
and engagement. Sharing in
social media enables others to
themselves share, spreading
your important communication.
Experience
To truly enjoy the opportunity
or feel the sorrow certain
situations create, we need to go
there or “there” needs to come
to us. Experiential marketing
is a communications tool
that is underutilized in many
circumstances.

29. Crowdsource
The entire world is our
brainstorm group. We need
to tap the thinking of unlikely
and diverse sources. Diversity
of people leads to diversity of
ideas. By broadening the pool of
ideas, better ideas will emerge.
Collaborate
We need to reach across groups,
oceans and generations to
build better communications
together. It goes without saying
that the collaborative process
of building, especially among
those who are not natural allies,
strengthens the kind of solid
bonds that stick.
Sort the Bits and Bites
It seems today as if data is
involved in as many of the
world’s problems as well as
its solutions. Nonetheless, it
goes without saying that data
allows us to peer into a situation
like no other technique. With
some intelligence, we can use
data in so many ways to build
a story, scope out a problem,
define a best practice or adjust
messaging based on real-time
feedback.
It goes without saying that the world is a smaller planet. Modern
communication has contributed in meaningful ways to bringing people
closer and solving challenging problems. On a global stage like the
World Economic Forum, we are reminded of our potential to make not
only a contribution to the industry, but a relevant contribution to the
world.
Renee Wilson is President, North
America for MSLGROUP and is a
strong proponent of content-centric
communications
29

30. SPONSORED
CONTENT
Leaders At Davos Are Focusing
On Trust: Good For WEF
By Stan Collender, Qorvis MSLGROUP
Understandably and traditionally, the World Economic Forum includes
multiple panels on economics, finance and business. That’s hardly a
surprise. When the world’s business leaders gather in Davos this week
for high-level discussions on everything from “Reshaping the World
through Entrepreneurship, Education and Employment” to “The U.S.
Economic Outlook,” those topics will dominate the public and private
discourse that takes place during those four days.
But this year there’s one WEF discussion topic that stands out among
all of the others. By the time you read this, five corporate chiefs —
including the CEOs of PepsiCo and PricewaterhouseCoopers – who
will have participated in a panel discussion called “Doing Business
The Right Way,” will all be asking themselves and each other the most
important current economic question: “How can business regain
trust?”
30

31. Hopefully this discussion will include at least some recognition that trust
will come from convincing more than just investors and analysts that a
company is on the right track. Companies will also have to communicate
with their customers in a way that will give them enough confidence to
happily and continuously buy what’s being sold.
This is not just the musing of an executive of a global public relations
agency who wants to sell more services to the companies whose CEOs will
be in Davos. Opinion polls taken specifically on the subject as well as the
only real poll that counts – sales – show that, while corporate earnings and
profits have recovered from the recession, the reputations and trust of those
same companies’ customers is at least no better (and in many cases far
worse) than it was before the downturn began almost seven years ago.
The record earnings and profits of the past few years actually are part of the
problem. Consumers, who constitute 70% of the economy in the United
States and are similarly important elsewhere around the world, typically
think that the profits come at their expense. When consumers consider
high prices, layoffs, interest rates, product recalls, short billing periods,
additional fees for basic services and declines in customer service, not
to mention the seemingly constant headlines about their privacy being
violated because of the theft of company-collected personal information,
this has constantly reinforced their belief that they have been the ones
paying for a company’s success and what they see as an executive’s high
compensation.
Add to this the still-obvious anger from small business and small business
supporters at the US government bailouts of Wall Street and the auto
industry and you get a virtual witches’ brew of consumer and buyer
resentment. As a result there is little trust and corporations in a bigger
reputational hole than they’ve been in for some time.
Some of the WEF panel discussions are aimed directly at the trust problem.
For example, one of the topics —“The Millennial Challenge”— is about
the continuing problems (the WEF program calls it a “crisis”) with youth
unemployment, one of the primary causes of consumer anger and reasons
that sales aren’t growing as fast as expected. Another — “Money and
Influence” – will debate another of today’s top reasons for consumer anger,
inequality and whether those with the resources to influence policy are
exacerbating the problem.
As someone who has spent almost his whole career dealing with Wall
Street and Washington, DC, I can tell you from very personal experience
that the WEF has correctly seen both the present and future by having
31

32. the concept of regaining trust run through each of its nine specified
themes, because the repercussions for companies not dealing with the
issue will go far beyond lower-than-expected sales. It will also pose
obvious domestic and international political risks as elected officials
rush to conduct oversight and impose additional regulatory burdens to
appease their constituents’ anger. Unless “money and influence” stops
them, there simply will be no political downside to doing this.
If you have any doubts about whether this is true, just consider the
additional and more stringent regulations imposed on Wall Street
firms following the financial crisis. Also consider the literally billions of
dollars in fines, settlements, legal fees and lobbying expenses these
companies already have and will continue to pay because of it.
As the WEF program shows, corporate leaders cannot pretend that
their customers’ trust can be taken for granted. Even many of the most
esteemed companies and most admired brands have experienced
sales and revenue disappointments because of this resentment. Many
have already, and others may soon be, in danger of being called before
a legislative committee and having its CEO appear on the front page of
a major newspaper with her or his hand in the air swearing to tell the
truth. And that picture, along with a video taken with a smart phone,
will go viral in seconds, be shown repeatedly on Bloomberg and CNBC,
and become the subject of a feature on Saturday Night Live and The
Daily Show.
That means that, as WEF has recognized, gaining back trust will likely
be part of every discussion in Davos this week.
Stan Collender is executive vice
president and national director of
financial communications for Qorvis
MSLGROUP in Washington, D.C.
32

33. SPONSORED
CONTENT
The Millennial Force:
Remodeling the Workplace
By Olivier Fleurot, CEO, MSLGROUP
The Millennial generation will make up around 70% of the global
workforce by 2030 — that’s going to mean a lot of changes within the
workplace as Baby Boomers and Gen Xers step back, and Millennials
move proudly to the fore. It’s apt, then, that this year’s WEF’s
overarching theme is “Reshaping the World: Consequences for Society,
Politics and Business.” The workplace as we knew it is finding itself
rapidly remodeled thanks to new norms like flexible working, powerful
digital technologies, and compelling Millennial expectations.
Companies that do not reinvent themselves in light of these potent
transformational forces will undoubtedly fail. A report on Millennials
in the global workforce released by Deloitte at Davos on Tuesday
indeed showed that 70% of tomorrow’s future leaders might “reject”
what business as traditionally organized has to offer, preferring to work
independently through digital means in the future. We can imagine
that those companies will thus fail, not necessarily because their
business model was flawed, or their market collapsed, but because
33

34. they didn’t become “social enterprises” – places where young talent
feel they can truly influence the future of the business, where they
can actively participate to innovation and the creation of new services.
Indeed, Deloitte’s study revealed that globally, 78% of Millennials are
influenced by how innovative a company is when deciding if they want
to work there, but most say their current employer does not greatly
encourage them to think creatively — does not actively encourage
and reward “intrapreneurship.” The Millennials surveyed believe the
biggest barriers to innovation are management attitude (63%), and
operational structures and procedures (61%). Those are worrying
statistics for any global CEO today.
What makes things even more challenging for traditional companies
is that, as we discussed in our recent report, “The Future of Employee
Re-Engagement,” in the last ten years, young entrepreneurs have
successfully —and very visibly—created their own companies, turning
their backs on the traditional workplace and demonstrating to others
that going in alone with a great idea, is a very real alternative to a
9-5 job today. Conversely, traditional companies have had to start
competing with these hot start-ups, as well as tech and emerging Asian
giants, to recruit the diverse talents needed to thrive in the digital,
global era.
It’s clear, then, that the challenge today for any company that wants to
survive and indeed thrive, is to reconcile the values of the organization
with the expectations and the values of the global Millennial cohort.
And this can only be achieved through employee engagement 2.0
—a sort of reset where companies who may have had previously wellestablished programs to engage with employees, are having to define
their true purpose, re-understand their (increasingly Millennial)
employees, re-engage them, re-focus on their employer brand
and re-communicate their company’s story and purpose in a truly
compelling—and differentiating—way.
Olivier Fleurot is the CEO of
MSLGROUP
34

35. SPONSORED
CONTENT
The New Expectations
of Society
By Scott Beaudoin, MSLGROUP Global Director,
Corporate & Brand Citizenship/PurPle
Successful companies and brands
will be the ones that drive more
rapid and meaningful change in
society and business through
co-creation and collaboration with
people around a shared purpose.
The first decade of the 21st century had a significant impact on what it
means to be a good corporate and brand citizen. The intersection of four
seismic shifts makes it imperative for global businesses to re-evaluate
their citizenship efforts and the way they are communicated.
1 Power to the people
People have new sources of
power and people believe
that only they themselves
can come up with innovative
solutions to our most pressing
problems, not governments
or corporations.
2 The erosion of trust
People have more information
than ever before and people
don’t trust organizations. In
fact, trust in all organizations,
including corporations and
governments, is at an all-time
low across the world.
35

36. 3 The quest for meaning
4 The opportunity of
People are searching for
meaningful connections
with communities and
organizations around a
shared purpose, and expect
organizations to enable such
connections.
shared value
People are demanding
that organizations not
only rediscover their social
purpose but also put it at the
core of how they conduct their
business and engage with
their stakeholders, to create
shared value.
Based on these core trends and a desire to better understand how
businesses need to re-define their citizenship efforts, specifically
though the lens of engagement, MSLGROUP conducted the
PurPle Index. This study uses social data, qualitative research
waves, and a proprietary algorithm to evaluate and score companies
worldwide on criteria including successful storytelling of the
company’s purpose, the strength of the company’s collaboration and
co-creation; and the level of engagement in social media. The results
of the study reiterated the importance of engaging stakeholders in a
dialogue and specifically found:
•
•
The top performers consider engagement to be essential in maintaining or
changing perceptions about the company.
•
The citizenship initiatives are global in nature with a number of companies
focusing on improving living conditions in Africa and other developing regions.
•
36
A majority of the Fortune Global 100 use visual storytelling and direct
engagement strategies and tactics to ensure their messaging around citizenship
initiatives is amplified.
Many organizations do not recognize the importance of engagement. While they
have a presence on social platforms, communication is predominantly one way
and used to disseminate information.

37. As the expectations of society continue to evolve, to stay relevant
to their stakeholders, businesses today must understand that
both purpose and people are critical to their success. They need a
shared purpose to inspire people, platforms to organize people,
programs to energize people and highly shareable stories to spark
participation and action. At MSLGROUP, we refer to this intersection
as PurPle (Purpose + People). To build more meaningful engagement
with your stakeholders, MSLGROUP encourages businesses to
engage your stakeholders in co-creating innovative and sustainable
solutions, empower your consumers to act as change agents to
create grassroots movement and connecting existing initiatives into a
cohesive framework and tell compelling and powerful stories.
Scott Beaudoin is the Global Director,
Corporate & Brand Citizenship/PurPle
for MSLGROUP
37

38. 38

39. 39