WWW.WAS.ORG • WORLD AQUACULTURE • SEPTEMBER 2014 27 are critical to igniting outrage: if the issue is a “concern” to the public and it has an “impact” on family, friends or groups perceived as vulnerable. This can trigger social outrage that can result in more regulation, legislation, litigation or market action designed to force you to perform to expectations. If the issue involves larger food companies, outrage can be fueled by the notion that “big is bad.” CFI’s research shows many people think smaller operations are more likely to share their interests. When consumers were asked to rate the following statements on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 10 (strongly agree), the results were as follows: • Local food companies are likely to put their interests ahead of my interests. Mean: 6.20 • National food companies are likely to put their interest ahead of my interests. Mean: 7.27 • Family farms are likely to put their interests ahead of my interests. Mean: 5.67 • Commercial farms are likely to put their interests ahead of my interests. Mean: 7.20 How do we address this “big is bad” bias? Companies must demonstrate authentic transparency. While focus groups and other research clearly show that transparency is important to building trust, defining “transparency” is difficult. Our latest study identifies the seven elements of transparency that can make a significant contribution to building trust (Fig. 5): Accuracy – Share information that is truthful, objective, reliable and complete. Motivation – Consistently show you understand and appreciate the issues important to your stakeholders and take action that demonstrates you put public interest ahead of self-interest. Clarity – Provide information that is easy for stakeholders to understand. Disclosure – Share information that is important to your stakeholders, make it easy to find, helpful in making informed decisions, easy to understand and timely. If it is important to stakeholders, make it available even if it might be damaging to the company. Relevance – Ask stakeholders what information is meaningful, demonstrate you understand and provide information they deem relevant. Stakeholder Participation – Ask stakeholders for input, make it easy to provide, acknowledge it has been received and explain how and why you make decisions. Credibility – Admit mistakes and apologize, accept responsibility, engage critics and share plans for corrective action, demonstrate you genuinely care and present more than one side of controversial issues. As we increase the distance most consumers have from food production and processing and the level of technology we implement in food production we must dramatically improve our ability and commitment to build trust with customers and other stakeholders who grant social license. This will require a new way of thinking, a new way of operating and a new way of communicating. Everyone in the food system needs to increase their commitment to transparency. People must take up the cause within their organizations and become champions for greater transparency, realizing it will ultimately enhance consumer trust. The reward is worth the effort, even if it takes time to build support within your organization or company. Notes Charlie Arnot, Chief Executive Officer, Center for Food Integrity, 2900 NE Brooktree Lane, Suite 200, Gladstone, MO 64119, charlie.arnot@foodintegrity.org Do You Want to Feature in the Future of Sustainable Aquaculture? Study and Succeed with E-Learning Courses from the University of St Andrews and TheFishSite FIGURE 5. Through consumer research, The Center for Food Integrity identified seven attributes that contribute to trust-building transparency. Accuracy had the greatest relationship to trust, although all were within a half-point of one another on a scale of zero to 10, indicating that each element contributes to trust-building transparency.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjExNDY=